Jan. 13: Introduction to Metaphysics
|
|
|
| Nothing whatsoever. |
To do for next class - 1) Get the texts and read the introduction and chapters 1-4 of Metaphysics; 2) Bring a questions about something in the text (no matter how picky) to class. |
Course structure: Half and half lecture and discussion, but I'm perfectly happy to have more discussion and less lecturing, this will depend on your participation. I will try to actively encourage asking questions (anything, big (e.g. why are discussions of time part of metaphysics?) or small (e.g. why does Taylor say 'religion is not metaphysics' on p. 1?)). We will start with metaphysics (doing an introduction today) and then progress to epistemology. The rest of this lecture will be taken up by introductions to philosophy in general and metaphysics specifically (which will likely be a review, but will let you know where I see this course fitting in).
The Metaphysics book: The author, Richard Taylor, has some strong and perhaps unpalatable views on various topics of metaphysics. More importantly I would like to disavow, right now, the elitist attitude which he obviously takes in regards to knowing metaphysics (seems insecure if anything). He has a strong us/them, masses/philosophers, ignorant/insightful, set of predispositions which I don't share. But, as you will see, this book makes an excellent target. Many of the arguments are well informed (philosophically) and presented clearly and with a certain force. You may find yourself agreeing with something you'd never have endorsed before, and that's the reason I have chosen this text. Most importantly, this text will help us develop a general set of critical tools. Ones which can be used in any discipline. That is, learning to ask hard questions and what it takes to answer them. I do agree with Taylor that not finding the answer is not a failure, and possibly leads to greater understanding.
Personal introductions: Name, background (major, previous phil courses), home town, reason for taking course ("it's a requirement" or "I need the credit", will do).
What is philosophy?: What can philosophy do for me (help with hard medical decisions, identify good life, make me explicate my basic beliefs, help understand the fundamental principles of various disciplines, or in the case of this course, get a think about what there is (metaphysics) and how we can know about things (epistemology))?
According to Webster's, philosophy is:
Main Entry: phi'los'o'phy
Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)fE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -phies Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
Many think of 'head in the clouds' sorts - a tradition started by Thales (620-550 BCE) who fell in a ditch, but also played the stock market - in this course we will see when this is both true and false. It is often true of the philosopher's methods, but false of his/her desired conclusions.
The etymology of the word literally means the love (philein) of wisdom (sophia) in Greek. For some philosophy is the history of ideas (2500 years!); idealism, Marxism, capitalism, categorical imperative, paradigms, knowledge, existence, cosmology, life, intelligence, mind. Most other 'branches' of knowledge (logic, math, psychology, biology, physics, art and literary criticism) come from philosophy 'trunk'. Some think that this has left philosophy with nothing interesting to say, and see it as a fruitless endeavor. However, it retains, at least, powerful methods of conceptual analysis as its home domain. For me, philosophy provides important tools for understanding the nature of scientific research, progress, and provides, at the very least, starting points for trying to understand minds and brains. It is an activity, not an accumulation of facts. This means discussion is important - like learning hockey... can't mind making mistakes, falling down and being helped out. That doesn't mean the coach is always right (or the play book).
What about Metaphysics?: The term metaphysics actually comes from somewhat of an historical accident. Editors of Aristotle's work simply titled the book which comes after his 'physics' the 'metaphysics' - which indeed discusses many of the classic problems of metaphysics - so 'meta' simply means 'after'. Despite what some philosophers (e.g. Wolff) think, 'meta' has more than this meaning in English. The dictionary (Webster's) now defines the prefix meta to mean "more comprehensive: transcending -- used with the name of a discipline to designate a new but related discipline designed to deal critically with the original one" and this is how it's often used and is applicable to understanding the term metaphysics (just like metaethics, metalanguage, etc.). Unfortunately, the term has taken on a somewhat mysterious air in pop culture and is used by some to denote a relation to new age mysticism.
What do you think of as some of the questions of metaphysics? Metaphysics is the study of the nature, structure and constitution of reality - sounds almost like a definition of philosophy for some. A major component of metaphysics is ontology, i.e. what there is (matter, sets, null set, experience, minds, relations). Other aspects of metaphysics are questions concerning the nature of time and space (relations, or containers?), what properties all entities share, free will, determinism. In ontology, questions concerning the nature of minds has become somewhat of a separate discussion (mind/body relation, dualism, reference, content, individuation) which often overlaps with philosophy of language and more recently philosophy of science (and cognitive science).
What metaphysical beliefs do you think you have? Which do you think science has? Christianity? Is metaphysics a waste of time? Why, why not?
What kind of metaphysical questions can you think of? (Does the past exist? Do souls exist? Does the future exist? What sorts of things are there? What kinds of relations can they have? What is the logical structure, if any, of the universe? What are properties? Are properties and relations real? What is space? Is it a container that things sit in, or is it a relation between things? What is time? Can there be a stretch of time during which nothing occurs? Are there possible worlds? Do they exist? Are my actions free? What about the Laplacian demon? Is the universe absurd or rational? Why is there stuff at all? Was the universe created? Is there a god or gods?)
Materialism
Hobbes is one of the first modern writers to explicitly endorse the position in metaphysics known as materialism. Materialism is an ontological position, that is, it answers the question "What is there?" - materialism answers "matter, i.e. physical objects". As simple, straightforward and uncontroversial as this answer may seem, it is anything but. Science, of course, has adopted this metaphysical position. But what of minds, souls, and spirit - consciousness? This is a question that materialists have no compelling answer for (compelling for some, in any case).
Hobbes was not the first materialist. At the very least, Democritus and Leucippus the atomists, preceded him. Hobbes, however, had a more modern view (and no doubt more of his writings survived so we understand the position better) of materialism so he is a good historically representative materialist. Of course, he had no difficultly explaining things - wood, stone, flesh, brains, stars, moons, bone, you name it. As physicists are content to do today, he postulated things (all things) are composed of atoms. So, what's the problem? What about minds?
Hobbes is convinced that we are complicated machines. Just as Data is from The Starship Enterprise. The episode "measure of a man" is an extended look at whether Data counts as sentient. The conclusion, of course, is yes - so Data is granted rights. Hobbes would hardly be surprised by this conclusion, but are we? We are surround by Data's ancestors - computers. We have no trouble explaining them, and we also have no trouble realizing they are not sentient. The question for materialists is one of prediction: How would we know if/when they become sentient? What is it about certain complicated machines (us) that distinguish them from other complicated machines (computers)? How do we understand choice, desire, anger, and consciousness such that machines can have all these properties/abilities? The materialist thinks we can give good neurophysiological descriptions. Don't forget, we can explain almost all the behavior of some organisms in this way, why not us? For many, this is a troubling idea. Why?
The most common, and most hotly debated still, objection to the materialist position is the consciousness objection (formulated convincingly by Thomas Nagel in his article "What it is like to be a bat") - recently dubbed the 'hard problem' by David Chalmers a former post doc here. The objection goes like this - we are conscious and nothing else is. We are unlike machines in this important respect (whether or not we talk about our car 'wanting' to start). Materialism, in principle, can not provide an explanation of the 'emergence' of consciousness from physical matter or the intentionality of mental states (Mary the color scientist). Data isn't conscious (nor are zombies). Thus, we are not merely material things. Of course, those who support this position must provide an alternative explanation of consciousness - we start as a zygote, when is consciousness infused? How do we argue against Hobbes without resorting to a religious dogma?
Idealism
Idealism is the complete denial of materialism. Idealism claims that all that exists is mind-stuff. That is, experience, or simply minds themselves. The biggest problem is that of solipsism. Though the consciousness problem is solved, how do we explain objectivity? The success of science? This is the position of Berkeley. Related problems come up for Kant's transcendental realism and Poincare's phenomenalism.
Dualism
Dualism is the position that was posited in the modern era by Descartes. It is a combination of idealism and materialism. Dualism is 'dual' precisely because it posits the existence of minds and bodies. The problem now becomes one of explaining the relation between the two. This position seems to be the one assumed by Christianity (and perhaps Plato), and is somewhat out of favor (save Chalmers) in current philosophy of mind. However, dualism is still espoused by some philosophers today... even some in our department.
Free will/fatalism/determinism
The problem of free will dates back to the philosophy of the Stoics.Why are we so concerned with being free? (responsibility is extremely important to our society's structure). Are you free? Do you make choices? What if you aren't? The consequences of denying free will are catastrophic - maybe I didn't choose to go to college, maybe I didn't choose what clothes to wear this morning or what the topic of my essay was, or etc. etc. What then? Of course I don't choose some things - whether the sun will rise, whether my heart will beat (though we seem to have control over how fast) - and those things I am not responsible for. Materialists and dualists have very different answers and problems here.
Space and time
Along with the question of what things exist, there is the question of what they exist in. Of course, we have to be careful about what we mean by 'in'. Time and space seem to be two important concepts the understanding of which will determine how we comprehend the structure of the universe. Can we move back and forth in space? In time? How different are time and space? Are they containers, or relations between things? Are space and time relative (Einstein) or absolute (Newton)?
God
When asking the ontological question 'what exists?' one answer is often 'God'. Long before Christianity philosophers had proofs for God's existence. Still, questions of the existence of God is where philosophy and religion interact and conflict most often. There has been a long standing tradition in some religions (e.g. RC) to attempt to have philosophical and religious considerations cohere. There are numerous proofs for the existence of God which are of great interest to philosophers - in themselves as arguments - as well as for their conclusions.
1) Get the texts and read the introduction and chapters 1-4 of Metaphysics; 2) Bring a questions about something in the text (no matter how picky) to class.