Introduction to Philosophy
PART III
EPISTEMOLOGY & METAPHYSICS
Epistemology
 Introduction
 Epistemology
 Some Classic Problems
 Some Classic Questions
 Some Basic Concepts
 Rationalism
A priori knowledge
 Innate Ideas


Empiricism
A posteriori knowledge
 No innate ideas


Justified, True Belief
Plato’s Epistemology & Metaphysics
 Introduction
 Knowledge & Opinion
 Argument against relativism (Theatetus)
Relative
 Self Refuting
 Protagoras


First Problem of the Senses: Change
Changing world
 Cannot have certainty
 Appear at a specific time
 Source of knowledge
 Senses cannot be a source of knowledge

Plato’s Epistemology & Metaphysics

Second Problem of the Senses: Definitions
Objects of knowledge must be universal & unchanging
 Unchanging definitions are necessary
 Language would not work


Perfect Standard Argument
Physical things fall short
 Knowledge of something perfect
 Knowledge cannot come from sensess


Knowledge is Not Right Opinion
Right opinion (true belief) vs. knowledge
 True opinion
 Account
 Rational justification

Plato’s Epistemology & Metaphysics

Knowledge is
Objective
 Not obtained by the senses
 Universal
 Changeless
 Based in reason


The Forms & Ideas
Particulars (tokens) & categories (types)
 Universal/form
 Eternal
 Changeless
 Perfect

Plato’s Epistemology & Metaphysics
Participation
 Idea


The Doctrine of Recollection (Meno)
Meno’s Paradox
 Acquiring knowledge
 Communing with the forms
 Forgetting
 Doctrine of Recollection

Plato’s Epistemology & Metaphysics
 Plato’s Metaphysics
 The Forms
Real, objective, independent, unchanging
 Not spatial or temporal
 Participation problem


Change
Paradox of Change
 Heraclitus
 Parmenides
 Platonic compromise
 Particulars: changing, imperfect, object of opinion

Plato’s Epistemology & Metaphysics

Particulars
Reality comes in degrees
 The forms are causes of particulars
 Particulars resemble the forms
 Particulars participate in the forms in varying degrees
 The forms group particulars into types, making them intelligible.

Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave
 Lovers of Opinion & Lovers of Wisdom


Philosophers
The One & the Many
Two
 Each is One
 The Many


Sights, Dreams, Opinion & Knowledge
Lovers of sounds & Sights
 Life is a dream
 One is awake
 Absolute beauty
 Forms & objects


Knowledge & Opinion
Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave

Being & Non-Being Argument
One who knows, knows something.
 Absolute beauty may be absolutely known.
 The utterly non-existent is utterly unknown.
 Anything that can be and not be will be between pure being and
absolute negation of being.
 Knowledge corresponds to being and ignorance to non being.


Spheres & Faculties Argument
Faculties are powers in us.
 What has the same sphere & same result is the same faculty.
 What has another sphere & another result is different.
 Knowledge & opinion are both faculties, but not the same.

Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave
Knowledge & opinion have distinct spheres.
 Being is the sphere of knowledge.
 Knowledge is to know the nature of being.
 Opinion is to have an opinion.
 If difference in faculty implies a difference in the sphere & if opinion &
knowledge are distinct faculties, then the sphere of knowledge &
opinion cannot be the same.


Not-being is not the subject-matter of opinion
An opinion is about something.
 One cannot have an opinion about nothing.
 One who has an opinion has an opinion about some one thing.
 Not-being is not one thing but nothing.

Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave

Opinion is Intermediate
Ignorance is the correlative of not being.
 Knowledge is the correlative of being.
 Opinion is not concerned with being or not-being.
 Opinion is intermediate between ignorance & knowledge.
 Its correlative is and is not and is between pure being & absolute nonbeing.
 The corresponding faculty is opinion.


The Object of Opinion
The beautiful will be seen as ugly.
 The ideas of the many are half-way.
 Opinion & not knowledge.

Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave

Lovers of Opinion vs. Lovers of Wisdom

Those who have opinion but not knowledge
 See the many
 Do not see the absolute
 The Objects of Knowledge
 The many & the one
Many
 Seen
 Not known
 Absolute
 Form
 Known
 Not seen

Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave

The Eye Analogy



Moonlight
Sunshine
The soul is like the eye
• Truth & being
• Twilight of becoming/perishing

The Sun Analogy





The Good
Light & sight are like the sun, but not the sun.
Science & truth are like the good, but not the good.
 Good has a higher place of honor.
 Pleasure is not the good.
The sun is the author of generation
 The sun is not generation
The good is the author of knowledge, being & essence.
 The good is not essence but far exceeds it.
Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave
 The Four Levels of Knowledge: the Line

Ruling Powers
The good-intellectual world.
 The sun-visible world.
 Visible vs. intelligible.


Division of the line



Visible
Intelligible
Sections A&B
A images
 A is a resemblance of B.
 B includes animals, growing things, and made things.
 A&B have different degrees of truth.
 The copy is to the original as the sphere of opinion is to the sphere of
knowledge.

Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave
Sections C & D
 In C figures given by D are used as images.
 Hypothetical inquiry.
 In D the soul passes from hypothesis to a principle above
hypothesis.
 No images, but proceeding in and through the forms.
 Section C-Hypothesis
 Math-hypothesis
 Begin with hypothesis.
 Using figures thinking of forms.
 Soul seeking to behold the things themselves.

Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave


Section D-the intelligible
 Knowledge attained by reason by the dialectic using hypothesis as hypothesis
and not first principles.
 Intelligible
 As steps to a world above hypothesis and to the first principle of the whole.
 Knowledge & being contemplated by the dialectic.
 Clearer than notions of arts proceeding solely from hypothesis.
 Contemplated by understanding & not senses.
 Understanding deals with geometry & cognitive sciences & is the
intermediate between opinion & knowledge.
Four Faculties of the Soul
 D Reason
 C Understanding
 B Belief
 Imaging
Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave
The Line
D
Ideas: Reason
C
Mathematics: Intelligence
B
Physical Phenomena: Belief
A
Images: Imagination
Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave
 The Allegory of the Cave
 Description









Cave
Chained
Fire
Walls
Vessels
Shadows
Think they are naming what is actually before them.
To them, the truth is nothing but the shadows of the images.
Release of the Prisoners-1st Step: Free in the Cave





The light is painful.
Cannot see the realities previously seen in shadows.
Approach nearer to being & have clearer vision.
Perplexed if asked to name objects.
Will initially think the shadows are truer than the objects.
Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave

The Release of the Prisoners-2nd Step: Outside the Cave




Pained & dazzled in the sun.
Need to grow accustomed
 Shadows
 Reflections in water
 Objects
 Light of the stars and moon
 The sun
Argue the sun is the cause of all
The freed person






Praise himself & pity others.
Not care for the honors
If he returned, his eyes would be full of darkness.
Fare poorly in the contests.
Men would think it better not to ascend.
If anyone tried to free another, they would put him to death.
Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave

The Allegory
Cave: world of sight
 Light of the fire: sun
 Journey Upwards: the ascent of the soul to the intellectual world.

Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave
Four Levels of Knowledge
The Realm of the
Intelligible
Fully Liberated Persons
Reason: Understanding the ideas as connected to the
Good (the Sun: the Good).
World of
Knowledge
REALITY
The Sunlight
Semi-Liberated Persons (beyond the cave)
Intelligence: Understanding the ideas not seen as
connected to the Good (mathematics)
(cave entrance)
Dividing Wall
The Realm of the
Sensible
Dividing Wall
People unbound in the cave
Belief: Sense perception (Fire: the sensible Sun).
Images of Ideas: natural and artificial.
THE WORLD OF
APPEARANCE
The Cave
World of
Opinion
People in chains
Imagination: Images, sensations.
The World of Illusion.
People are in chains and confuse shadows and echos
with reality.
Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave
 The Good
 The Good
Universal author of all things beautiful & right
 Parent & lord of light in the visible world.
 Immediate source of reason & truth in the intellectual.


Those who have seen the Good
Unwilling to descend
 Behave ridiculously
 Court of law
 Absolute justice
 Bewilderment
 One who remembers

Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave

Source of Knowledge
Knowledge cannot be put into the soul that was not there before
 Like sight into blind eyes.
 The power & capacity of learning exists in the soul already.
 Eye analogy
 As the eye was unable to go from darkness to light without the whole
body
 The instrument of knowledge must be turned from becoming to being
by the movement of the whole soul.
 Learn to endure the sight.
 The art that effects this conversion
 Does not implant the faculty of sight
 It exists, but is facing the wrong way.

Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave

Source of Knowledge
Knowledge cannot be put into the soul that was not there before
 Like sight into blind eyes.
 The power & capacity of learning exists in the soul already.
 Eye analogy
 As the eye was unable to go from darkness to light without the whole
body
 The instrument of knowledge must be turned from becoming to being
by the movement of the whole soul.
 Learn to endure the sight.
 The art that effects this conversion
 Does not implant the faculty of sight
 It exists, but is facing the wrong way.

Plato’s Line & Allegory of the Cave
Other virtues of the soul are akin to bodily qualities
 If not innate, they can be implanted later by habit & exercise
 The virtue of wisdom contains a divine element which always remains.
 By this its conversion becomes useful & profitable or hurtful & useless.
 The narrow intelligence of the clever rogue
 His paltry soul clearly sees the way to his end.
 He is the reverse of the blind.
 His keen sight serves evil and he is mischievous in proportion to his
cleverness.

Introduction to Skepticism
 Varieties of Skepticism
 General Skepticism
The theory that we do not have any knowledge.
 We cannot be completely certain that any of our beliefs are true.


Local/Moderate Skepticism
Can have mathematical and empirical knowledge.
 Cannot have metaphysical knowledge.


Global Skepticism
Maintain universal doubt
 Deny knowledge of an external world & other minds.
 Deny knowledge of metaphysical truths.
 Do not deny knowledge of mathematics & logic.

Introduction to Skepticism

Super-global/Extreme Skepticism
Universal doubt
 Deny knowledge of mathematics & logic.


Methodological Skepticism
Skepticism is adopted as a means to another end.
 Typically the refutation of skepticism.
 Example: Descartes.

History of Skepticism
 Introduction

Skeptikos
Error
 Skeptikos
 Lack of Foundations


Pyrrho of Elis (320-270 B.C.)
Revitalization of skepticism
 1st Century B.C.
 No writings

History of Skepticism

Pyrrho’s Sense Experience Argument
Sense experience cannot provide knowledge.
 To provide knowledge the sense experiences must match their objects.
 If we can never get outside of our sensations, we can never know the
experiences match the alleged objects.


Pyrrho’s Reason Argument
Argumentation cannot provide knowledge.
 For each argument there is an equally good counter-argument.
 Thus, there is no rational ground for accepting one argument over
another.

History of Skepticism

Skeptic’s Position
Given that both senses and reason fail, we cannot have knowledge.
 One can only speak in terms of experience.
 Prudent approach: suspend judgment and not make any assumptions.
 This skepticism also applies to morality.
 A wise person adopts apathy and indifference.
 People should follow existing laws & traditions.

History of Skepticism
 Academic Skepticism

Arcesilaus
316-242 B.C.
 Head of Plato’s Academy
 Turned Academy towards skepticism


Carneades
214-129 B.C.
 Took over Academy after Arcesilaus.
 Brilliant philosopher
 Athenian Ambassador to Rome (156-155 B.C.)
 Public speeches
 Two-Faced Method

History of Skepticism

The Academy
Skeptics thought the Academy lost the Socratic spirit.
 Ironic charge
 Skeptics focused on
 Socrates’ claim he knew nothing.
 Socratic dialogues ended without a definite conclusion.


Appearance
Skeptics attacked the dogmatism of the Stoics and Epicureans.
 Some sense impressions seem indubitable.
 Dreams & hallucinations seem convincing but are false.

History of Skepticism

Main Argument: No Criterion for Truth
Any standard of truth will also need justification
 Thus requiring another standard to establish the truth of the standard.
 And so on in an infinite regress.


Claims
Did not claim that nothing can be known.
 Claim: we appear to lack knowledge.
 Suspended judgment regarding skepticism.


Probability
Stoics argued that skepticism would lead to the suspension of activity.
 Carneades argued that certainty is not possible but probability is and is
sufficient.
 Compromise lead to scorn from Stoics and later Pyrrhonic skeptics.

History of Skepticism
 Revival of Pyrrhonian Skepticism

Purists
The Academics were not skeptical enough.
 Rejected Carneade’s view of probability.
 Named after Pyrrho.
 Formalized skepticism.


Agrippa: Five Pillars of Skepticism
Disagreement: Not everyone will agree on an issue.
 Infinite regress
 Resolution requires reasons
 Reasons require justifications
 Justifications require justifications and so on to infinty.

History of Skepticism
Relativity: Perceptions of things differ in different circumstances.
 Hypothesis: All starting points are arbitrary.
 Circular Reasoning: Any argument that avoids the other 4 pillars will be
circular.


Latter Skeptics: Two Theses
Nothing is self-evident
 Nothing can be proven


Skeptic’s Goal
Personal peace
 If one cannot know, there is no reason to worry.
 Accept what appears to be and follow existing customs and laws.
 Sextus Empiricus (3rd Century AD)

History of Skepticism
 Importance of Skepticism
 Problem
Starting points are needed for arguments.
 This implies there are reasons for believing the starting points.


Contributions
Made philosophers more critical.
 Philosophers had to accept or respond to the skeptics.
 St. Augustine Against the Academics
 Methodological skepticism in the Modern era.
 Skepticism used to attack reason and support faith & revelation.
 Development of science.


History of Skepticism

The Decline of Skepticism
Did not succeed in creating peace.
 Created Confusion.
 Unsatisfactory.
 Religious philosophies & Christianity.

Renee Descartes
 Rene Descartes
 Life & Works
Born March 31, 1596 in La Haye France (now Descartes).
 La Fleche
 Degree in law
 Joined armies
 November 10, 1619 Three vivid dreams.
 1649 became tutor to Queen Christina of Sweden
 Died February 11, 1650

Renee Descartes

Published Works
1620 Rules for the Direction of the Mind
 1633 Le Monde (The World)
 1637 Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and
Seeking the Truth in Sciences.
 1641 Meditations on First Philosophy
 1644 Principles of Philosophy
 1649 Passions of the Soul

Renee Descartes
 Agenda
 Motivation
Dissatisfied
 Disputed and doubtful
 Shaky foundation of science


Travel
Old ideas
 Intellectual Journey
 Diversity of opinion

Renee Descartes

Inward Focus








Studies
Solid foundation for the sciences
Father of modern philosophy
Quotes & argument from authority
Solitary Thinker
Personal pronouns
Discover truth
Individual journeys lead to same truths.
Renee Descartes

Goals



Find certainty
Create universal science
Reconcile the scientific, mechanistic conception of the universe with
human freedom and religion.
Renee Descartes
 Methodology
 Mathematics
Model
 Certainty & Self Evidence
 Discourse
 Mathematics consists in two mental operations
 Intuition
 Deduction

Renee Descartes

Intuition
The recognition of self-evident truths.
 Seeing the truth.
 Not derived from other truths.
 Innate ideas-implanted by God.
 Not always aware of ideas.
 Not from sense experience.
 Intellectual vision.

Renee Descartes

Deduction
Inference
 Deduction from self-evident truth
 All truths can be reached by deduction.
 Analytical geometry (1637)
 Physical world
 All knowledge


The Meditations on First Philosophy
Six meditations
 Decade
 Six Days of Holy Week

Descartes’ First Meditation
 First Part
 Start and Goal
Beliefs
 Doubtful
 Goals
 Rid himself of opinions
 Establish a foundation for the sciences.


Method
Not necessary to show all beliefs are false.
 Assent with held from
 Matters not entirely certain and indubitable.
 Manifestly false beliefs.

Descartes’ First Meditation
Rejecting the whole
 No need to examine each belief

 Doubting the Senses
 Senses
Learned from the senses
 At times the senses deceive
 Not trust


Dream Problem
Skeptical pause #1
 Dreams
 Asleep
 Skeptical pause #2

Descartes’ First Meditation
Sleep
 No certain indications
 Assumes he is asleep


Painter Analogy




The analogy
General things
Combined
Simpler & more universal things






Corporeal nature
Extension
Figure
Quantity
Location
Time
Descartes First Meditation


Sciences considering composite things are dubious.
Math-Skeptical Pause



Arithmetic, Geometry, etc.
Awake or Asleep
Seems Impossible
 God & the Demon
 God





God as all powerful creator.
How does he know?
Deception.
God’s Goodness
Not Contrary to His Goodness
Descartes’ First Meditation


Doubted for Powerful Reasons
The Demon




Evil Genius
All external things are illusions/dreams.
Considers himself as bodiless.
What is in his power
 Suspend judgment
 Avoid giving credence to any false thing.
Foundationalism & Coherentism: Motivations
 Replying to the Skeptic
 Response to Skepticism


Response
Account of justification
 Justification Regress Problem
 The Regress




A belief must be justified
A belief is typically justified by another belief
Regress: Belief A is justified by B, which is justified by C, ect.
The regress must be stopped
Foundationalism & Coherentism: Motivations

Option 1: Unjustified Foundation
A is inferred directly from B which is unjustified.
 Wittgenstein
 Problem


Option 2: Biting the Bullet-Infinite Regress Chain



A is justified by B, which is justified by C ad infinitum.
Problem
Option 3: Coherentism


A is justified by B, which is justified by C, which is justified by A,
going in a circle.
Problem
Foundationalism & Coherentism: Motivations

Option 4: Foundationalism
A is justified by B which is based on a foundational belief.
 Inferential chain
 Every justified belief is either
 A properly basic belief
 Ends in a chain of beliefs the last of which is self justified.

Foundationalism
 Background
 General Background
 Example: Plato
Forms
 Innate ideas


Example: Aristotle & Aquinas
Basic Truths
 Aquinas: Truth
 As known in itself
 Understood via an inquiry of reason.

Foundationalism
 Classical (“Cartesian”) Foundationalism
 Classical Foundationalism
Infallible, non-inferential knowledge
 Two types of beliefs
 Basic
 Inferred
 Properly Basic
 Non-basic justified belief
 Asymmetrical

Foundationalism

Descartes’ Goals in the Meditations
Tear down
 Create a new, infallible foundation
 Create a solid and certain superstructure


Descartes’ Refutation of Skepticism
Deduces the existence of God
 Deduces that God is benevolent and not a deceiver.
 Perceptual mechanisms
 Normally what we see is real
 Abnormal circumstances
 Empirical judgments
 Induction only a source of belief
 Indubitable basic principles & deduction

Foundationalism

Criticism of Classic Foundationalism
Very little knowledge
 Only infallible or incorrigible beliefs in the foundation.
 Not enough self-evident truths.
 Empirical beliefs cannot be knowledge
 Tends towards skepticism.

Foundationalism

Criticism of Classic Foundationalism
Very little knowledge
 Only infallible or incorrigible beliefs in the foundation.
 Not enough self-evident truths.
 Empirical beliefs cannot be knowledge
 Tends towards skepticism.

Foundationalism
 Moderate Foundationalism
 General Idea
Foundational model
 Addresses criticism of classical foundationalism
 Rejects infallibility
 Accepts fallibilism


Features
Asymmetrical
 Doubts about psychological beliefs allowed
 Almost any belief can be basic
 Foundational relationship is on of justification
 Induction
 Coherence

Foundationalism


Having a justification vs. being able to show it.
Problem
Not strong enough
 Incapable of replying to the skeptic.
 Addresses criticism of classical foundationalism
 Seems to compromise to coherentism

Coherentism
 Coherentist Theories of Justification
 Background


Truth resides in the absolute system of knowledge.
Classic Coherentism
Truth is not correspondence of propositions with facts.
 Truth is defined as integrated and absolute wholes
 Every truth belief is entailed by every other proposition


20th-21st century Coherentists
Quine, Sellars, Harman, Lehrer, Bonjour
 Rejected the coherence theory of truth.
 Accepted a coherentist theory of justification.
 A belief is justified by the entire system of beliefs.

Coherentism


All justification is inferential.
The Isolation Objection
Coherence seems inadequate
 Does not provide the necessary conditions to discern illusory but
consistent sets of beliefs.
 We want to connect theories to empirical data.
 Consistency is necessary but not sufficient.

Introduction to Metaphysics
 Introduction
 Defined
The study of the nature & structure of reality
 Ontology


Some Questions in Metaphysics
 Some Metaphysical Problems
 Problem of Universals
 The Nature of Mind
 The Problem of Personal identity
Introduction to Metaphysics
 Some Concepts
 Concepts
Ontological Kind
 Property
 Substance
 Dualism
 Idealism/Immaterialism
 Materialism/Physicalism
 Particular
 Universal

Introduction to Metaphysics
 Methodology
 Doing Metaphysics
 Assessing Metaphysical Theories
Occam’s Razor
 Simplicity
 Mystery/Weirdness
 Plausibility
 Primitives
 Explanatory Power/Problem Solving

Introduction to Metaphysics
Fruitfulness
 Coherence
 Consistency
 Non-Circularity

John Locke: Background
 Background (1632-1704)

Early Years & Education
Public Life
 Revolution
 Works

Two Treatises on Government 1690
 An Essay Concerning Human Understanding 1690
 Letters Concerning Toleration 1689-1692
 Some Thoughts Concerning Education 1693
 The Reasonableness of Christianity 1695


The End
John Locke: PI & Substance
 Substance

Idea of Substance
Qualities cannot subsist sine re substante.
 Substantia


Locke’s Elephant Story
Asked about qualities
 The elephant
 The tortoise
 Something he knew not what.
 No distinct idea of substance.
 Something he knows not what.

John Locke: PI & Substance

Ideas of Material Substance & Spiritual Subtance
The physical
 The mental
 Lack of clear & distinct idea

 Identity of Living Things

Living Creatures
Not sameness of matter.
 Changes in matter do not result in a change of identity.
 Oak example
 Same animal

John Locke: PI & Substance
 Man

Identity of man
Organized living body
 Identity of soul
 Hog example
 Same substance, same soul, same person
What is a man?
 Animal of a certain form.
 Without reason but having the shape of man
 Cat or parrot that reasoned.
 Man is particular shaped body.
 Same body, same spirit, same man.


John Locke: PI & Substance
 Consciousness & Personal Identity

Person

A thinking intelligent being.
 That has reason and reflection.
 Can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times
and places.
 Does so by consciousness.
Consciousness
 Always accompanies thinking.
 Makes each to be what he calls self and distinguishes him from other
thinking things.
 Sole basis of PI, the sameness of rational being.
 Identity reaches as far as the consciousness can be extended.

John Locke: PI & Substance
 Consciousness Makes Personal Identity

Forgetting
If people did not forget
 Questions about same thinking substance
 This does not concern PI which is about sameness of person not
substance.
Consciousness
 The same consciousness makes a man himself to himself.
 PI depends on that alone, regardless of substance(s).



Changes of Time & Substance: Clothing analogy & hand argument
The self extends as far as the consciousness.
 Clothing analogy.
 Hand argument

John Locke: PI & Substance
 Personal Identity & Immaterial Substance

First Question
Is it the same person through change of substance?
 Can only be resolved by those who know
 What kind of thinking substance they are.
 If consciousness can be transferred.
 If the same consciousness is not the same individual, we must know:
 Why one substance thinks it did something it did not.
 Why such a thought might be without reality.

That this does not happen is best explained by God’s goodness.
 If the same consciousness is transferable, two thinking substances might be
one person.

John Locke: PI & Substance

Second Question
Can there be 2 distinct persons though the immaterial substance is the
same?
 Loss of consciousness
 Pre-existence of the soul.
 Pre-existent spirit


Example: Nestor
Soul of Nestor
 No consciousness of Nestor’s actions.
 Body analogy
 If conscious of Nestor’s actions

John Locke: PI & Substance
 Memory & PI

Resurrection
Same person, different body.
 Same consciousness.


Prince & Cobbler
Soul of a prince enters the soulless body of a cobbler.
 Body goes into making the man.
 Soul would not make another man.


Language
Ordinary way of speaking
 Apply sounds
 Determine what we mean.

John Locke: PI & Substance
 Self Depends on Consciousness

Consciousness


Self
 Conscious of pleasure & pain.
 Capable of happiness or misery.
 Concerned for itself.
 Matters not what substance.
Little Finger
Little finger
 Removed
 Consciousness makes the person.
 As far as the consciousness reaches.

John Locke: PI & Substance
 Reward & Punishment

PI & Justice
Foundation of right & justice of reward & punishment.
 Happiness & misery.


Little Finger
Finger
 Body


Personal Identity
Not identity of substance, identity of consciousness.
 Socrates
 Socrates waking & sleeping
 Punishment

John Locke: PI & Substance
 Problem of Punishment

Drunk, Asleep, & Judgment Day
Drunk & sober
 Why else punished for the act?
 Sleep walking
 Human laws punish both suitable to their knowledge.
 Ignorance is not admitted as a plea.
 Punishment annexed to personality, personality to consciousness.
 Human law justly punishes.
 Fact is proved against him.
 Secrets laid open.

John Locke: PI & Substance

Objection & Reply
Loss of memory
 Same person?
 The word “I”
 Same man, same person.
 Same man, different consciousness, different persons.
 Opinions
 Human laws do not punish the mad man for the sober man’s actions.
 Nor the sober for the mad.
 Two persons.
 Say that one is not his self.
 Same man, different person.

John Locke: PI & Substance
 Odd Cases
 Two and One
One body, day & night consciousnesses.
 PI determined by consciousness.
 Thinking substance.
 Remembering and forgetting.
 Self is not determined by identity or diversity of substance.
 Identity of consciousness.

David Hume
 Preliminaries
 Other philosophers imagine
Self
 Existence &continuance
 Identity & Simplicity


Hume
Encounters a perception
 Never without perception, nothing but perceptions.
 Removal of perceptions
 Death

David Hume

Disagreement
Different notion
 Hume’s case

 Bundles & Persons
 Bundles & Change
Person is a bundle of perceptions.
 Perceptions in perpetual flux.
 No power to remain the same.


The mind is a kind of theatre.
Numerous perceptions
 No simplicity nor identity
 Comparison to a theater.

David Hume
 Identity & Relations

Identity
What leads us to ascribe identity?
 Distinct perception
 Suppose perceptions are united by identity.
 Identity
 Attribution of identity.


Relations
Resemblance, contiguity, and causation.
 Uniting principles.
 No connection
 Identity depends on resemblance and causation.
 Easy transition of ideas.

David Hume

Resemblance & Memory
Memory
 Image resembles the object
 Resembling perceptions
 Seems like one continuing object
 Memory discovers and contributes to the production of identity.


Causation & Analogy to a Commonwealth
Mind is a system of perceptions linked by cause & effect.
 Soul is like a republic.
 United by ties.
 The analogy.

David Hume
 Concern, Memory, & Causation

Concern
Identity & passions
 Distant perceptions
 Concern


Memory
Memory acquaints
 No memory, no notion of causation
 Causation & memory

David Hume

Criticism of Memory of the basis of identity
Remember few past actions
 Forgetting
 Memory discovers PI
 Extending identity beyond memory


Conclusion
Questions about PI can never be decided.
 Grammatical rather than philosophical.
 Identity depends on relation of ideas.
 Diminish
 All disputes concerning PI are merely verbal.

Buddha’s No Self Doctrine
 No Self
 Names
Nagesena
 A name


The king’s question

If there is no self, who
 Furnishes priests
 Uses them
 Keeps precepts
 Meditates
 Commits immorality
 Tells lies
Buddha’s No Self Doctrine


Implications-if there is no self
 No merit or demerit
 No one who does deeds
 No fruit or result
 No murderer
 No teacher
Who/what is Nagasena
Not hair
 Not nails, etc.
 Not sensations, etc.
 Not something besides form, etc.
 King fails to discover any Nagasena
 Nagasena is a mere empty sound-there is no Nagasena

Buddha’s No Self Doctrine
 Rebirth
 Rebirth


How does rebirth take place without anything transmigrating?
Illustration 1: Light
Light lit from another light.
 Rebirth


Illustration 2: poetry
Learning poetry from a teacher
 Verse
 Rebirth without transmigrating

Ghosts & Minds
 Introduction
 Philosophical Examination
Ghosts
 Phaedo


Purpose


Philosophy of mind
Defining Ghosts
Ghost
 Ghost is a mind
 Disembodied by the death of the original body
 Capacity to interact with the physical world

Ghosts & Minds
Interaction
 Not assumed that a ghost must be immaterial

 Theories of Mind
 Identity Theory
Materialist theory
 Each mental state is identical to a state of the CNS
 Mind is equivalent to the CNS and its states.
 There are ghosts.


Substance Dualism

Reality contains at least two types of entities
 Material
 Immaterial
Ghosts & Minds
Mind is immaterial
 Ghosts are a possibility
 Interaction after death


Property Dualism
The mind & body are not distinct substances.
 The mind is composed of mental properties.
 Example
 The mind and body are distinct, but not different substances.


Property Dualism: Epiphenomenalism
One way relation between mental and physical properties.
 Mental properties are caused by physical properties.
 The mind is causally inert.
 Mental properties are causally dependent on physical properties.

Ghosts & Minds


There are no ghosts.
Property Dualism: Interactionism
Mental properties of the mind interact with the physical properties.
 Mental properties can bring about changes.
 Mental properties could survive bodily death.
 Mental properties might exist as a bundle.
 Mental properties might require a substance.
 New body
 Interaction with the physical world.

Ghosts & Minds

Functionalism
Functional terms
 Functional definition of a mental state
 Materialist view of the mind
 Differences between identity theory & functionalism
 Ghosts are possible
 Functions of the mind
 Interaction with physical world
 New physical system

 Conclusion
 Conclusion
Dualism, property dualism and functionalism allow for ghosts.
 Identity theory permits no ghosts.

The Problem of Universals
 The Problem of Universals
 Introduction
Plato & Aristotle
 Universal
 Speech & Thought
 Metaphysical nature of universals


Thales: The Problem of the One & the Many
624-545 B.C.
 Sought to find the unity underlying the diversity of the world.
 Determining the basic principle that accounts for everything.

The Problem of Universals

Tokens & Types
Type
 Token
 The problem: in virtue of what does a specific token fall under a type?
 In virtue of what is token a of the type F?

 Realism
 Defined
Universals are real & exist in the world.
 Universals are immaterial
 Separate from sensible objects or not
 John Scotus Erigena
 St. Anselm
 William of Champeux

The Problem of Universals

Scholasticism
Charlemagne
 Scholastics
 Dominant


Scholastic Formulation of the Problem
Boethius’s translation of Porphyry’s introduction to Aristotle’s
Categories.
 Question 1: Do universals exist as metaphysical entities or only in the
understanding?
 Question 2: If universals exist as metaphysical entities are they material
or immaterial?
 Question 3: If universals exist as metaphysical entities are they separate
from sensible objects or not?

The Problem of Universals

Epistemic Motivation
Aristotle’s logic
 Reasoning
 Knowledge
 Correspondence between reality & logic.


Scholastic Theological Motivation: Original Sin
Original sin
 Odo of Tournai
 Human sin
 Shared universal


Scholastic Theological Motivation: Trinity
Trinity
 Divine essence as single universal

The Problem of Universals

Problem
Humanness falls under the universal mammal
 All universals are subsumed under Being
 If Being is identical to God, then Pantheism
 John Scotus Erigena
 Unaware of Criticism

 Nominalism
 Defined
Nomina
 Universals are merely names
 Individuals

The Problem of Universals

Roscelin (1050-1120)
Teacher
 Heretic
 Only particulars exist
 Universals do not have metaphysical existence.
 Flatus Vocis
 “Trinity” is a mere name.


Problems
Commonsense
 Christian theology
 Original sin
 Trinity

The Problem of Universals
 Conceptualism
 Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
Student of Roscelin & William of Champeaux
 Argued against realism & nominalism


Abelard’s Attacks on Realism
Universals can have inconsistent qualities.
 The problem of multiple location.
 Pantheism


Abelard’s View of Universal Words
Universal words point to universal concepts.
 Concept: word’s logical content or meaning.
 Common & confused image

The Problem of Universals

Abelard’s Moderate Nominalism
General concepts in the mind
 Mental constructs


Abelard’s Steps Towards Moderate Realism
Abstraction
 Objective basis, but do not exist apart.
 Distinction in reason.
 Alternative to Realism

The Problem of Universals
 Moderate Realism
 Early Moderate Realism
Abelard, Aquinas & others
 Universal ideas are in the mind, but based on reality.
 Universals exist ante rem (before things) in God’s Mind
 Universals exist in rem (in things) as properties that group via
resemblance.
 Universals exist post rem (after things) as mental concepts formed by
abstraction.
 The particular is the basic ontological entity.
 Trope theory

Meeting Yourself
 Introduction
 Travel
 Meeting Yourself
 Problem & Paradoxes
 Metaphysical Problems & Universals
 Problem of Multiple Location
 The Problem of Universals
 Universals
 Universals & Time Travel
Meeting Yourself
 Tropes
 Tropes
 No Time Travel With Tropes
 Relativity
 The End of Instantiated Universals
 Reconciling Tropes & Time Travel
 The Problem of Universals
 Universals
 Universals & Time Travel
Taoist Metaphysics
 The Tao
 Origin of the Tao
 Naming the Tao
 Names of the Tao
 The Tao & Water
 The Tao & Emptiness
 Qualities of the Tao
 Passing On
 Interacting with the Tao
 Law
 Action of the Tao
Taoist Metaphysics


Movement of the Tao
Production
 The Sage
 The Sage does without doing
 Possessing the Tao
 Desires
 The Sage
 Great
 Knowledge
 Opposites