May 19: Human Nature and the Universe
|
|
|
To do for next class: 1) Get the text and read chapter 1; 2) Bring a question about philosophy to class that hasn't been answered in the text; 3) Bring a philosophical question to class; 4) What other limits are there of Western philosophy? |
To do for next class: 1) Read chapter 2, pp. 40-76. 2) Prepare to answer pro and con: "The U.S.A. is morally obligated to share its food and wealth with less-privileged nations." (or the chosen philosophical question brought to class). Be prepared to take part in a debate on this question. |
Introduction
The picture on page 3 is a wonderful one "School of Athens" by Raphael. It captures/summarizes many of the ancient philosophers' views about the universe and our knowledge of it. For example, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Diogenes (on the steps), Euclid, Protagoras, Ptolemy, Heraclitus and Parmenides (click here for more examples, and details of these).
The universe
The pre-socratics had the first naturalistic cosmological theories we know of. Thales held that everything was water, his pupil Anaximander held that everything came from the boundless, his 'associate' Anaximenes held that everything was air. All of the Milesian philosophers were trying to determine what is 'really' there - they were engaged in ontology. Some of them offered explanations (Anaximander) but others didn't (Thales) and all of them basically asserted their positions without experiment or hypothesis testing. About 200 years after these philosophers began trying to provide naturalistic bases for the world around them, the atomists (Leucippus and Democritus) posited the very modern-seeming view that everything was composed of invisible indestructable parts called atoms. However, it is not clear that this view needs any less sympathetic interpretation that those of say, Empedocles (who wanted to be a god, and wrote poetry). The ideas of these philosophers were influential, though basically unchanged, for over 2000 years after their deaths. Though the text suggests that these philosophers were experimentalists, this is misleading if we use today's scientists as our exemplar. However, it is true that they had and developed many fundamental mathematical (and practical) tools which gave subsequent cultures never-before-available control, understanding and prediction of nature.
These approaches to nature died out in Western culture with the rise of Romans and following them, the Christian church. However, many other cultures independently devised a deep understanding of the natural world, including the Chinese, Arabs (not so independent), and Mayans. In Western society, this approach was not revised until the Renaissance period and is reflected in the works of philosophers such as Liebniz, Descartes, Bacon, and those following them. Naturalism is a common philosophical position today among philosophers and it is the default view of science.
As you can see, realism seems to be the standard assumption when philosophers discuss the nature of the universe. In a sense, the question itself 'What is the fundamental stuff of the universe?' presupposes realism. However, as we see in the next section on epistemology, if we see our discussion of human nature and the universe as inseparable (or at least two sides of the same coin) realism is by no means the only option.
Human nature
Perhaps the most ancient of all questions is not 'what is there?' but 'how are we related to what there is?' This is the question of the human condition: a question explored by music, literature, painting, science and philosophy. Of course, a big part of what there is is other people. This is especially true if we live in groups or cities (the Greek polis). In fact, Socrates thought that this is really what philosophy and living was about - examining our lives to make ourselves better. All our decisions and our reasons for them deserve scrutiny. We must always ask, Socrates thought, "Why am I living as I am?" This purpose of self-examination is happiness. Most importantly, this must be a self-examination. We can not be taught the principles of right thinking and acting, we must discover them (midwives and gadflies, however, are helpful). In order to do this easily we must admit our ignorance.
Since the time of Aristotle, such questions have become the stuff of Ethics. This will be the subject of the next lecture and deals with questions of right and wrong/good and bad/moral and immoral.
Human nature and the universe
The Stoics
Though not all philosophers seek unity, most see this as a desirable end. In fact, unifying theories have been the mainstay of philosophy for most of its history. So, it is not surprising that philosophers have often offered theories which are purported to explain both human nature and the universe. The Stoics (founded by Zeno 250BC on his porch) were the first to proposed a simple extension of their cosmological theory to include human nature. They believed (as many do today) that all that is real is material and that this 'matter' was guided by God (or rationality or logos or force) to conform to natural laws. The same fiery reason which pervaded all matter was also thought to be in mankind, as all members of that class are material as well. Thus, in a very real sense everyone has a bit of God (a spark) in them. In fact, that spark is what causes them to move, speak and think. Applying this somewhat mechanistic view of people to the moral realm, they felt that our existence was like that of an actor in a drama. In some sense determined, but still under our control insofar as we could be a good or bad actor. There was a tension in their philosophy such that everything should be determined by 'providence' (the plan of logos or God) yet people seem free to act. Perhaps, they explain, our unique knowledge of the natural law allows us to conform to it and be happy (apathy).
Epistemology
Epistemology (Greek - episteme: to know; logos - study) is the field of study of 'theories of knowledge'. This was the second way in which human nature and the universe can meet in a single philosophy. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a group of philosophers from Europe began this influential branch of philosophy. You many recognize many of them, including Kant, Descartes, Locke, Hume, and Berkeley. The believe that, since every fact, hypothesis, conjecture, etc. about the universe is something produced by us, perhaps, by studying ourselves and how we come to know these things, we could come to know the universe for us. This is the study of the way in which we know rather than what we know. Unlike Socrates, these epistemologists did not think the study of our nature was primary, but rather that it was necessary to understanding what parts of the universe were accessible to us. This means questions like: Can we know anything at all? Can we know about things we don't perceive? Can we know about necessary and possible things? Can we know were are not the only mind? Can we know we aren't being continually fooled by a little demon?
There were two central schools of epistemologists, the rationalists and the empiricists. In general, the former were found on the European continent (hence Continental philosophy) and the latter were from the British Isles. Rationalists (Continental philosophers) held that we can know some things just through the appropriate thinking processes. Empiricists, in contrast, held that we can only know things via the evidence from our senses. Many have tried to apply this distinction retroactively to philosophers such as Plato (rationalist) and Aristotle (empiricist) with interesting results. In fact, the distinction often seems pervasive through the history of philosophy. However, it is not clear how it would apply to fields such as ethics, philosophy of art, and philosophy of religion. For others, this distinction is a fundamental methodological one between the sciences and the humanities (discuss).
As mentioned in the section on the universe, the epistemological view has led some to posit that there is nothing in the universe except what is perceived by us (Berkeley, William James). Berkeley put it as esse est percipi "to be is to be perceived" (Dr. Samuel Johnson: "I refute him thus"; G.E. Moore - trains). This anti-realist position is, for some, a logical consequence of strict empiricism. Since empiricists claim that all we know comes through our senses, then they are committed to the view that all we know there is is perceptible. If something is imperceptible, we have no way of knowing it exists so it doesn't (in any interesting or consequential or non-arbitrary way). For Berkeley it is impossible to conceive of the imperceptible (because you perceive it by conceiving it) thus, all that exists is all that is perceptible (for James, 'pure experience').
Discuss questions
Limits of Western philosophy
Western philosophy encompasses the work of Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Arab, Near and Middle Eastern, European, and more recently Canadian and American men (this is not completely true, but probably more than 99% so). Being men (and from these parts of the world) is probably the only single characteristic they have in common. Again, in almost all cases, men were a more privileged sub-group than women, and people from these places have been most privileged in these places. So it is undeniable that philosophy has been written by a sub-group of world wide society.
The important question is what does this mean to philosophy? Many claims in Western philosophy have been universal meaning that they apply to everyone (and in many cases, all rational animals, a slightly broader category). Can a sub-group make such claims and be demonstrably right? It would be surprising. Of course, some of the claims made by members of this group are demonstrably wrong (as shown in the text).
Can one sub-group "do all the thinking" and get it right? (Coaches/players; Generals/recruits [these shouldn't be taken as 'better/worse' but 'privileged/not privileged']; French/English; other examples?) If we need all the sub-groups will there be a 'humankind' philosophy? In what way would we expect the philosophical insights of sub-groups to differ? Why is this important?
Note that if we think one sub-group can not, in principle, derive valid, universal conclusions, then the central questions of much of philosophy are misguided. In a sense, anti-realism wins the day. I think that Wolff is right in noting that American culture is seldom viewed as objectively as many think. Perhaps we could get a 'better' idea of the current state and past history of cultures by realizing that the cultural view of different groups is different and informative in different ways. What I'm not sure of is Wolff's (perhaps) suggestion that philosophy (the whole deal) should be brought into question (any more than usual). I think for certain parts of philosophy this realization is very significant (ethics, social philosophy) but perhaps for other parts it isn't quite as important (epistemology, metaphysics) but I'm not sure.
To do for next class
1) Read chapter 2, pp. 40-76. 2) Prepare to answer pro and con: "The U.S.A. is morally obligated to share its food and wealth with less-privileged nations." (or the chosen philosophical question brought to class). Be prepared to take part in a debate on this question.