Popkin, H and Stroll, A. Philosophy Made Simple, Broadway Books, NY, NY 1993 A summary write-up by T. J. Tofflemire 2010
Philosophy defined from the Greek as the love of wisdom. Also a long ranged detached view and analytical and rational world view. (p. x) and basic foundation of your outlook view and knowledge. (p. xv)
Classical moral theories: hedonism, utilitarianism, Stoicism, and Christianity (p.44).
Early Cynics believed the world was as evil and we should withdraw from it. Asceticism believed in living in pain and welcoming it. Some of these beliefs lead to the Christian monk practices of frugality, cloistered life, shunning the world’s goods.(18) Stoicism founded by Zeno, favored being indifferent to external influences, be free from desires and passions, be accepting of your situation. (p.19) Oriental Quietism favors accepting ones adversity (p.16) Utilitarianism – What produces greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and the most beneficial effects. (p.32)
Kantian Ethics: It is related to ones duties and obligations and good will. Ones inclinations can be different but the duty is to overcome them (p. 37).
Modern Ethics delves into philosophical analysis and classification of ethics. (p.43)
Subective:1 Neither true nor false, 2. by personal psychology or preference (p.45-50).
Objective: Kant, Hobbes, Platonic-true moral entities; utilitarianism more applied most beneficial. Also moral realism; Naturalistic: deduce from natural science – psychology, beneficial, utilitarianism(disguised hedonism)
Non-naturalistic: Christian, Platonism Some difficulties with it: How to prove right or wrong in all cases. Applied ethics: birth control, gun control,
Emotivism: relative, what feels good. Hedonism=seeks pleasure
Motivist: Right or wrong depends on motive Kant
Consequence: Right or wrong depends on the effects the action has
Deontological: Based on duty and obligation similar to Kant
Christian Ethics: Division between Catholics and Protestants: Catholics have church policy ethics, while Protestants believe in scriptures and Holy Spirit. In practice even Protestants differ on detailed rules. The conscience theory: Bishop Butler, J 15 sermons on human nature.
Success: morals adopted for the most part for 2000 yrs. and widely accepted al over the world Dilemma can it be followed if God is not good? Evil in the world. Popkin (p. 25)
Joseph Butler (May 18, 1692 O.S. – June 16, 1752) was an English bishop, theologian, apologist, and philosopher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Butler
“He is most famous for his Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel (1726) and Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed (1736). The Analogy is an important work of Christian apologetics in the history of the controversies over deism. Butler’s apologetic concentrated on “the general analogy between the principles of divine government, as set forth by the biblical revelation, and those observable in the course of nature, [an analogy which] leads us to the warrantable conclusion that there is one Author of both.”[2] Butler’s arguments combined a cumulative case for faith using probabilistic reasoning to persuade deists and others to reconsider orthodox faith. Aspects of his apologetic reasoning are reflected in the writings of twentieth century Christian apologists such as C. S. Lewis and John Warwick Montgomery reflected in the writings of twentieth century Christian apologists such as C. S. Lewis and John Warwick Montgomery.”
Five sermons, preached at the Rolls Chapel and A dissertation. By Joseph Butler, Stephen L. Darwall http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=I-Qxe5PpMdYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Butler,+J.++fifteen
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/b/butler.htm
“Butler’s argument for morality, found primarily in his sermons, is an attempt to show that morality is a matter of following human nature. To develop this argument, he introduces the notions of nature and of a system. There are, he says, various parts to human nature, and they are arranged hierarchically. The fact that human nature is hierarchically ordered is not what makes us manifestly adapted to virtue, rather, it is what Butler calls “conscience” that is at the top of this hierarchy. Butler does sometimes refer to the conscience as the voice of God; but, contrary to what is sometimes alleged, he never relies on divine authority in asserting the supremacy, the universality or the reliability of conscience. Butler clearly believes in the autonomy of the conscience as a secular organ of knowledge.
Whether the conscience judges principles, actions or persons is not clear, perhaps deliberately since such distinctions are of no practical significance. What Butler is concerned to show is that to dismiss morality is in effect to dismiss our own nature, and therefore absurd. As to which morality we are to follow, Butler seems to have in mind the common core of civilized standards. He stresses the degree of agreement and reliability of conscience without denying some differences remain. All that is required for his argument to go through is that the opponent accepts in practice that conscience is the supreme authority in human nature and that we ought not to disregard our own nature.
The most significant recent challenge to Butler’s moral theory is by Nicholas Sturgeon (1976), a reply to which appears in Stephen Darwall (1995).
Besides the appeal to the rank of conscience, Butler offered many other observations in his attempt to show that we are made for (that is, especially suited to) virtue. In a famous attack on the egoistic philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, he argues that benevolence is as much a part of human nature as self-love. Butler also argues that various other aspects of human nature are adapted to virtue, sometimes in surprising ways. For example, he argues that resentment is needed to balance benevolence. He also deals forthrightly with self-deception.”
Chap 3. The Philosophy of Religion; Popkin stated (p.152) a book (the bible)can be verified as historically true. How do we verify the book is religiously true?(true in its religious statements). He states some faith and personal experience is used. (p.153) Miracles and extraordinary signs verify it. (p.154) Natural and revealed religion:
David Hume in his Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion He offers the argument that houses and watches argue for human design and the analogy that the universe with is very complex and orderly thus argues for design. Also man a little like God a designer. He then refutes the argument. He say the analogy is not similar enough – simple to complex ( I say large building systems and HVAC systems and missile-airplane-drones argue for complex, orderly, self regulating design like the universe and animals- Also info. theory and DNA argues for Design) Historically the only one there was God, perhaps his history book is one good evidence. The bible says we are made in the image of God.
Hume p.158 “It is by no means necessary that theists should prove the similarity of the works of nature to those of art because this similarity is self evident and undeniable”
If God is infinite and perfect why is nature not perfect and not infinite? Failures in nature give suggestion of multiple Gods or imperfect ones. Hume p.162 “That although the argument from design may not be completely valid, is it still somewhat convincing.”
The materialist hypothesis is that the universe exists by random chance, and blind cosmic accidents (p.161).
Cosmological argument(Causal): If the universe had a beginning it had a cause. Or it was eternal. (p.163) Likely cause =God. Aristotle proposed this, Hume and Kant criticized it. Hume argued that we could say then that God must have had a cuase.p.165. (No the argument is that all that begins has a cause not all that exists has a cause; eternal things like God do not need a cause.)
Ontological Argument-from definition St. Anselm, Spinoza p.166 “God or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each express eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists.” Descartes– God has both essence and existence. P 167. Both Spinoza and Descartes reasoned that God alone is the cause of Himself and a self existent being. (p.167) Because the proofs of God are not that clear, does not make a good case for atheism, because the anti-proofs are also not clear. A better case can be made for Agnosticism- they are not sure, don’t know. P.169-170. Fideism= religious knowledge should be based on faith alone, not logical proofs. Rationale- our mind is too feeble to prove God; Danger, proofs may be shown incorrect.
Atheism often is based on materialism or naturalism as a philosophy (p.174).
Pantheism is the view that God is in everything but is not a separate being- he is a power for universal force. Spinoza view; p.175. Deism is similar, but God is separate but doesn’t interfere in the world.
Pragmatism William James, (p.275-8) It believes a claim is important only if it has a cash value, practical outcome value in the world as tested by the value statement if it works it is true. Weakness it is difficult to determine if something really works. Ethics becomes problem solving by man’s current ideas without a solid moral basis. Abstract theories are opted out of and not used (p.277).
Existentialism humanistic type of Friedrich Nietzsche was also taught atheism and phenomenology. This was developed further by Edmund Husserl (p.309-10). Hidden truths are intuitive object of consciousness – no essences or invariant features or truths; also Martin Heidegger and Kierkegaard. We are trapped in existence in a meaningless world. We of and by ourselves are incapable of knowing anything for certain. Criticism: This view has turned their backs on a rational examination of man’s world and study on universal truths (p 313). Quoting Pascal- (p. 171) “What should man do in this state of existence and skepticism? “Should he doubt everything? Should he doubt he is awake?, if he is pinched, or if he is being burned? Should he doubt his own existence?”- “There has never been a completely thoroughgoing skeptic. Nature sustains our feeble reason.” Nature refutes the skeptic.” Counter- the Socratic paradox- Can we learn that which we do not know? If we not know it, then we will not be able to recognize the knowledge until we learn it (p.304).
Chap. On Knowledge Descartes’ Questions: We can be sure what we observe it true because we may be dreaming, crazy, deluded, our senses can mislead us. Skepticism p.182-3
Plato: Forms, ideas, universals are lasting, brief observations of senses are not. Classifications=universals, Plato and Socrates claimed we can not acquire knowledge through learning. We must then discover a truth that we did not previously know. He thus claimed we already had these implanted in our mind and recalled them (p 189-90). We can have opinions of the world of appearances and knowledge of the forms and ideas (p.196).
Descartes “I think, therefore I am” “I am, I exist” Clarity and distinctness are marks of truth. Clear =present and apparent to the attentive mind. Distinct=precise and different from everything else. Define an experience so that it can’t be confused with anything else. Innate ideas are clear and distinct like a specific circle. Mathematical ideas are inmate as is God and are implanted in us by God.The ideaof a substance that is infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, all-knowing, all-powerful must be God, and he implanted that idea in me. P. 201 “The belief in an external world is a natural one, God wound be deceiving us unless it were true. Since God cannot be a deceiver, there must be an external world” (p.202 Popkin). Rationalist philosophy is criticized by the skeptics, empiricists: They say there is no absolutely certain knowledge. Popkin p.205 questions do we need absolutely certain knowledge? “All we seem to posses and employ is probable knowledge. If there really is certain knowledge, it does not appear to be required for the ordinary purpose of life”
Empircists: John Locke, David Hume all knowledge is based on sense experience, observation, and mental organization of these. Our mind when born is like a blank paper. p.207 He denies innate ideas. Primary observation, to secondary ideas to demonstration= organizing and testing ideas. “We really cannot know anything about what goes on outside of the ideas in our minds.” “What we call knowledge is just one man’s opinion” Popkin p.212 Criticism: If all ideas are opinions in our mind, how can we tell which to take seriously, which to use as a basis for knowledge of our world? Which are imaginations or very personal opinions? Berkeley’s response Theskeptic philosophy above leads to paradoxes and doubts, which leads to general skepticism (p.217). Then the so called wise philosophers deny the most basic things that ordinary people believe, they too become unbelievable. Do matter and energy really exist or they only in our mind? The skeptics would question this (sensible things cannot exist other that in the mind). Berkeley argues matter can crush us and heat can burn us. If we do not rely on our perceptions of these we could die. Common sense would say that if I look at a touch a nearby tree, that it does exist. Berkley then states “The existence of things consists of their being perceived” One way of accounting for how they(matter and energy) exist is to say they exist in the mind of God and, whether I am there or not to observe them, they still exist. Berkeley gave the theory of Immaterialism: “All that we can perceive is an idea. Ideas belong only to the mind of the observer.” Dose that mean that matter and energy do not exist if I am not there to perceive them? “Therefore there must be some universal mind or God in whose mind these things are perceived” Most people do believe that the material things they perceive in front of them are real and this does not lead to any paradoxes (p.220). So Berkeley states it is logical to distinguish between things and ideas. Berkeley also had a theory of notions: We have some knowledge that does not come from our sense experience. The basic notion is our awareness of ourselves. We are active agents who think, will and act. In this way we are separate and different from matter and energy and things(p.221). We also develop a notion of God as the omnipresent spirit who thinks and perceives of all the ideas. Hume criticized this philosophy and discussed impressions and ideas of different degree and force and also memory, imagination and association that records, develops and puts together ideas. Hume also questioned the arguments of Locke that every object that begins to exist has a cause. “Opinion must necessarily arise from observation and experience.” We relate our experiences by impressions, ideas and inference. He extends this reasoning to the question of the uniformity of nature and the laws of nature. Just because we have frequently observed them that way dose not always guarantee that will be true. Nature can change. It is possible that the future will be different than the past. p. 227 It is possible the universe will be different tomorrow that it was yesterday. Hume was a skeptic who questioned if we can know anything, other than impressions of varying degrees. He brought in psychology and questioned whether we were normal, abnormal or rational.
Popkin noted (224) that even if impressions we get from our senses are uncertain and subject to psychology, it is the best information we have and what we act on. The theories of knowledge by the rationalists or by the skeptical empiricists do not appear completely consistent and satisfactory and are still being developed (p 235).
Metaphysics=After physics(nature); The problem of permanence and change: Heraclitus says everything alters and changes. Parmenides says some things are permanent (p.101). Democritus- universe both changing and unchanging in one sense, and also constantly in flux in another. The atom -that which he thought had no parts and remains somewhat the same. Aristotle: 2 features: matter and form; Acorn to oak. P.106, Mind–body(object) dualism (Cartesian): We relate by our experience by Descartes. The essential property of mind: it thinks, of object: it is extended and obeys physical laws. However within animals, the mind moves the body. Opposing theory: materialism by Hobbes. Physical events explained by matter in motion, even in mind. Study by D Dennett, Consciousness Explained mind is a super computer. Criticism: Rationality problem-How can one set of reactions in the brain be truth and another set be falsehood? The materialistic theory leads to determinism and lack of free will in decisions and the lack of moral basis for ethics. It also doesn’t account for retrospect and creative thinking problems. Born R. in Artificial Intelligence: The Case Against argued against the reduction of mental to physical states and computer brains.The opposing theory is Idealism which insists every thing is basically mental rather than physical. In ways this goes against common sense. Spinoza offered the dual aspect theory: mind and body are aspects of one and the same entity which he called God and substance. He says parallelism occurs between the mental and p.113 materials realms. The logical order in the mind is comparable to the physical order in nature.
Free will vs. Determinism is a debate also. Heisenberg uncertainty principle favors some indeterminacy. Also remorse favors free will. P115-9; Plato favored mind, body , soul where soul has free will, direction. Aristotle: matter form and purpose. Matter changes to achieve some goal (purpose) Acorn to Oak tree. Epicurean view: materialistic, just atoms, no purpose (p. 125). Machines of matter; Stoic: The material world is pervaded by a dynamic force which acts with purpose. Thus matter and reason are in the universe with determinism. Descartes 3 components: God , mind and matter. Berkeley: the universal mind that always perceives is God. Among the Materialists in biology-2 schools: the mechanists and the vitalists, who recognize a life force. There is another branch of materialism- dialectical from Marx. P.136 Struggle between the 2 produces synthesis. Naturalism is similar to Materialism and can include the concept of nature and experience(evolution and natural dynamism) in addition to physical science. P.137 Kant p.145 held that our knowledge comes from both experience and mental reasoning. Thus there are universal truths of Mathematics and physics. 2 types of a priori Knowledge: analytic and synthetic. They involve definitions and logic. He also held that we have organizing principles in our minds that help us structure and organize our observations p147. Thus various views persist and are not completely consistent or satisfactory (Popkin p.149).
Logic attempts to determine when a given proposition/s permits us to correctly infer some other proposition. Deductive: Syllogism: 2 premises and a conclusion, valid affirmative or negative, universal or particular, distributed or not p.241-55
Inductive: Probable- scientific method; particulars to general;
4 types of syllogisms: Subject Predicate Example P=major, S=minor
1. universal and affirmative=A Dist. Undist all M are P, All S are M, all S are P
2. Universal and negative= E Dist. Dist. No M is P, all S is M, No S is P
3. Particular and affirmative=I Undist. Undist. some M is P
4, Particular and negative =O Undist. Dist. Some M not P
Rules of quantity
1. Middle term M is distributed at least once error all P are M, all S are M, all S are P
2. Same dist. In premise and conclusion error A,E all M is P, no S is M, no S is P
Rules of Quality
1. no conclusion from 2 negative premises
2. If either premise is neg., the conclusion must be neg.
3. A neg. conclusion cannot occur from 2 affirmative premises
Example: All dogs are mammals, all mammals are animals, all dogs are animals.
M P S M S P
Fallacies: p.259-66
1. Ambiguity: equivocation (2 diff meanings) All X are not can be interpreted in 2 ways.
2. of significance
3. of ad Hominem – against person for from authority
4. appeal to sentiments
5. Ad ignorantiam (from ignorance) There is no contrary evidence
6. Circular arguments, begging the question
7. of division or composition: part vs. whole
Contemporary Philosophy
Pragmatism by W. James(see p3); Logical atomism by B. Russell and L. Wittgenstein
Some philosophers now believe knowledge of the world can be acquired only through the use of the scientific method (p. 283); W. Quine sees philosophy as an extension of science.
Logical atomism by B. Russell: Math. Type logic and propositions: atomic propositions and facts: John is human: particular subject and describing predicate
Logical Positivism: not a theory but and activity: analytic (a) and synthetic(b) propositions: (a) All husbands are married (b) “The desk is brown” this can be verified by observation or experiment. All other questions (non a, b) are trivial.
Ordinary Language: Moore and Wittgenstein language needs to be precise and also agree with common meanings because philosophy uses language and traps itself. Net result limits philosophy to easy language and formulas and avoids deep and difficult questions.
W. Quine, Prof. of Philosophy at Harvard, sees philosophy as an extension of science; uses quantifying over. Extension of naturalism, he rejected Kant’s idealism. He uses neurological. science for mind and states mind is nothing but the brain.
Soren Kierkegaard and Existentialism and phenomenology What is the point of man’s life? Life is absurd, meaningless, skeptic; His answer to Socratic paradox: how can we learn what we do not know? God gives enlightenment if we ask and transforms us. It is possible to define God as eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, etc. and find a logical connection between mental conception and conclusion. But this does not prove God. P.307 We also may experience some of God’s activities with us, but this is not a general proof. “There is some agent called God who can and does act in time and who will, if we desire it, effect our enlightenment.” P.307. He stated Abraham’s faith was absurd morality, but a leap into this faith may be necessary. P 308
Another example of humanistic existentialism in F. Nietzsche and atheism: Ed. Husserl followed and the principles were used by Hitler and the Nazis. The Nazi example was not good. P.309-11
Deconstructionalism by J. Derrida breaks down assumptions and statements: also skepticism
R. Rorty also new philosophy is more scientific and old philosophy is dead
Conclude- Philosophy is a journey though history of thought with a progression in views. (Popkin p.316)