Historical Introduction to Philosophy/General Introduction: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
'''Questions to Think About:''' |
'''Questions to Think About:''' |
||
Are our decisions caused by external factors? If we base our 'decisions' on the potential outcomes then they are in fact ''caused'' by those potential outcomes. If so how can we say that we have free-will? Can everything, including human behavior be explained in purely mechanistic terms? When considering the notion of an omniscient God are we eliminating the possibility of Free-Will? Are our lives predestined, are we fated to our future? |
Are our decisions caused by external factors? If we base our 'decisions' on the potential outcomes then they are in fact ''caused'' by those potential outcomes. If so how can we say that we have free-will? Can everything, including human behavior be explained in purely mechanistic terms? When considering the notion of an omniscient God are we eliminating the possibility of Free-Will? Are our lives predestined, are we fated to our future? |
||
The most compelling argument I've ever found in favour of us NOT having Free Will relies on the definition we give to Truth. If we take 'Truth' to mean that if a thing is true, it is so for now and always, that is a 'mathematical truth' e.g. 2 and 2 equals 4 today , tomorrow and presumably beyond the rundown of the Universe itself just as it was 'true' even before the Big Bang. Or 'contingent truth' such as 'it is raining' is true if and only if at the moment I utter those words rain has stopped play at Wimbledon for example. |
|||
Let's decide that 'true' shall mean the first kind (2 plus 2 equals 4) Then a man who has fear of dying by drowning may spend a lot of money for the best swimming coach in the world to give him lessons or he may decide to live in a place far from the sea, never travel by ship etc. etc.and take all other precautions |
|||
imaginable and they will all be irrelevant and he will waste his money on swimming lessons because it is ALREADY true that he will die by drowning or he will not die by drowning.(Of course he doesn't know which) If he is to die by drowning then no amount of precautions will save him from it. If he is not to die by drowning then his efforts are superfluous.(He gets hit by a truck for example),and he's wasted a lot of money on swimming lessons. This sounds as though it could come from the Rubiyat of Omar Khiyahm - ('It is written") and you can't get more fatalist than that.Instinctively, emotionally we want to reject it, to deny it but I have not yet found the LOGICAL argument that defeats it.John Ruddy Username:Ruddyjohn[[User:Ruddyjohn|deniro]] 12:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
One successful demolition of a fatalist argument/example can be given though it is case-specific (as to causes of deat)h and does nor have the Present Past and Future scope necessary to the Truth as expressed (2 and 2 equal 4) above; |
|||
The fatalist example goes like this: (I forget from which Greek, the preSocratics I think) A traveller in a foreign land gets very thirsty. He knows there is a well in the next valley off the road. He deviates from the path, goes to the well. There he is surprised by a bunch of brigands, robbed of his goods and killed. The fatalist reduces the cause of this man's death to the fact that he got thirsty. Because IF he hadn't been thirsty he wouldn't have gone to the well. IF he hadn't gone to the well he would have escaped the robbers IF he had escaped etc etc. I suggest this man died not because he was thirsty but because he received a fatal wound/blow to the head what have you. The fatalist replies " Sure but where did and how did he get the wound? At the well! And why was he at the well? Because he was thirsty!!"[[User:Ruddyjohn|deniro]] 12:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
It is easier to repeat this outline (IF he had, or If he hadn't..) and my refutation of it in a modern setting and one precise event to avoid the vagueness of 'beaten to death'. A pair of newlyweds are saving for a house of their own. The wife sees a coat(say)she can't resist. She buys it although its very expensive. The husband when he find out is furious. He drives to the Pub. Drinks too much. During his drive home under the influence he crashes the car, snaps his neck in the impact and dies instantly. For the fatalist this man died because his wife bought an expensive coat. I say he died because he snapped the spinal chord in his neck between the third and fourth vertebrae. The Fatalist comes back "Sure he broke his neck in the accident. But why did he have this accident? He was drunk driving. Sure but why was he drink driving. He was drunk. He drank too much . He was angry. And why was he angry? Because his wife bought an expensive coat.!! |
|||
However, consider this (and this is the limit of my refutation: it can only apply to the past action) People get drunk and don't die. People get angry and don't die. People have profligate spouses and don't die. People have road smashes and don't die.But NOBODY, in any circumstance or emotional state, drunk or sober, pleased or angry, in a car or on foot SNAPS THEIR SPINAL CHORD BETWEEN THE THIRD AND FOURTH VERTEBRAE AND LIVES.Medical science gives only that as "cause of death". Other causes can only be contingent because not necessary (not in the pure math sense of 2+2=4 'necessity') but'not necessary'in that any number of other crcumstances may have intervened. She could have lied about the coat and said it was a present. Or promised to take it back the next day.He could have taken it as a joke. Or demand she work overtime to pay for it; the list is endless. We can imagine all sorts of different out-comes till the moment the car hit the tree and the shock jerked back his neck and snapped it. Or the distinction between contingent outcome and necessary outcome can be shortened and demonstrated by these two sentences, like so:- |
|||
Seeing his anger, she could have decided to take the coat back to the store, for example. (A contingent possibility) |
|||
But once the spinal chord in his neck snapped there was no question that he 'could have ' decided to go on living. |
|||
This can be a useful (small) tool in resisting fullblown Fatalism. More embarrasingly it could be used to throw a smallish spanner in the works of the Determinists, just to embarrass the prevailing Orthodoxy. All in good fun. |
|||
[[User:87.89.12.149|87.89.12.149]] 05:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
| Line 127: | Line 112: | ||
[[Historical_Introduction_to_Philosophy/Compatibilism|Compatibilism]] - Peirsall |
[[Historical_Introduction_to_Philosophy/Compatibilism|Compatibilism]] - Peirsall |
||
== === Ethics === == |
== === Ethics === == |
||
Revision as of 20:21, 2 March 2007
An Excellent Resource for the Beginning Philosopher (also my resource for this page): An Invitation to Philosophy: Issues and Options, By: Stanley M. Honer, Thomas C. Hunt, Dennis L. Okholm, John L. Safford MaryCordova 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Site Custodian
=== Introduction: What is Philosophy? ===
Used by Permission of Chris Cassatt. All Rights Reserved. Thank you from the Mesa State Philosophy Students.
Well, what is philosophy? This is a question best answered by what it is not. Philosophy gave birth to all the other disciplines and so what is not now covered by physics, biology, grammar, mathematics, etc is what is left for philosophy. To the ancient Greeks philosophy was the love (philo) of wisdom (sophia). This is essentially true today. The philosophy of today gives one an avenue to enquire about life's BIG questions. If this is not the pursuit and love of wisdom, then what is?
Philosophy started with a man called Thales, yes Thales, not Socrates. Thales, and all philosophers after him but up to Socrates, were called the Pre-Socratics. These Pre-Socratics were mainly interested in the physical world.
It is Socrates that revolutionized philosophy by taking examination off of the physical world and applying it to mankind itself.
Plato, Socrates's pupil, sought to give an objective basis for for Socratic Ethics and developed comprehensive Epistemological and Metaphysical theories.
Aristotle, Plato's pupil, was more empirical (requiring of evidence) than his predecessor. Because of this Aristotle developed Science. He sought to give a physical base for the world rather than the Metaphysical one that Plato had constructed.
It is from this trinity; Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, that the entire foundation for Philosophy is set. Every philosopher since has used the work of these men as a starting point. It is in the ideas of these men that we see the seeds of the topics which have become central to philosophy as we know it.
Educational Task: Philosophy is something that you "do", not simply study (that is philology). In light of this, completion of the following exercise is recommended:
For this chapter, as well as the following ones, see if you can explain what you have learned to someone else. Try not to engage somebody who is an idiot, you will get nowhere. Better yet, see if you can find someone to join you in this course. Explain what you have learned but be sure to allow them to form their own thoughts about the ideas you are expressing. If they have an opposing view point this is so much the better for you. If you have learned well, and are able to convey ideas in a way they can understand, discussion can then begin. Voila, you are philosophizing! (A great man once told me that one cannot philosophize all by themselves).
These next two sections will give you a more in depth analysis of philosophy, its early players, and its methods.
Philosophical Method - Mondragon
Presocratics and Socrates - Robinson
=== Philosophy of Religion ===
Questions to Think About: Are faith and reason compatible? How do we know that God exists and what is his nature? Why would God allow evil? Does the presence of evil show that there is no God?
In this section you will be introduced to the philosophies of Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm. Augustine is a Platonic theologian and philosopher. In taking Plato's Great Chain of Being, and replacing the Good with God, Augustine found a rational basis for Christianity. On the other end of the Spectrum was Anselm. For Anselm Aristotelian logic seemed a better means for proving the existence of God. His argument was based on the logical necessity of there being a God who was "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". For most the sharp division between Platonic and Aristotelian justifications for God did not seem to make sense. It was Thomas Aquinas who was able to synthesize the two seemingly disparate methods of thinking and brought a more unified philosophical background to philosophy.
Educational Task: Don't forget the assignment given to you in the introduction. The further along you go the more important and helpful the practice will become.
Faith and Reason - Hartline and Kellaway
Arguments for God - Hartline
The Problem of Evil - Kellaway
=== Epistemology ===
Questions to Think About: Epistemology: the study of knowledge. What do we know, what can we know, how do we know it? When we 'learn' are we 'remembering' what we already know or, do we actually 'learn' new things? What is 'truth'? Are there such things that are true for everybody all the time (objectivity) or does it change from culture to culture, person to person, situation to situation (relativism) etc? What happens when we say that there is no way to know if we know anything?
It was not until after the Medieval period that epistemology became a core element for the development of philosophical ideas. Before then, epistemology was just one of many branches. Of course, even the epistemological foundations that were so dominant in the Early Modern Period had their roots in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. Plato was the forefather of rationalism. Briefly, rationalism is the idea that true knowledge can be had only of the types of things one can reach by reason alone. In addition to this, our knowledge, consists of innate ideas that every developed mind possesses, whether they know it or not. Empiricism, founded by Aristotle, takes a much different approach. Rather than negating the senses empiricism uses reason to make sense of observable, objective phenomena in the natural world. Thtough empiricism we can have knowledge of things through sensory input.
Educational Task: Once again, practice, practice, practice. This is truly the best way, not only to see if you are learning, but to actually expand what you have learned.
Epistemology - Rogers
Truth, Objectivity, and Relativism - Labriola
The Challenge of Skepticism - Keine-Deters
=== The Philosophy of Mind ===
Questions to Think About:
Educational Task: Must I say it again? I think not. If you have made it this far I am sure you know the value of engaging conversation.
The Mind-Body Problem - Nelp
Theories of Mind - Aquinto
Personal Identity - McCahan
=== Free-will and Determinism ===
If I could will it, there would be a cartoon here. It seems determined not to be.
Questions to Think About:
Are our decisions caused by external factors? If we base our 'decisions' on the potential outcomes then they are in fact caused by those potential outcomes. If so how can we say that we have free-will? Can everything, including human behavior be explained in purely mechanistic terms? When considering the notion of an omniscient God are we eliminating the possibility of Free-Will? Are our lives predestined, are we fated to our future?
Educational Task: Guess what! I have something new for you this time. Scenario: Man A and Man B. Man A is sitting alone in a room. Man B wants to talk to him. Man B comes into the room; closes the door; sits down; and the tewo men begin to talk. During the course of their conversation Man C comes along and locks the door to the room from the outside. Neither Man A nor Man B realize this. Are they still exercising Free-Will while continuing their conversation? Remeber that they are locked in the room together and, while they may not know it, they no longer have the choice to stay or leave. (Locke)
Determinism and the Problem of Free-Will - Schmurr
Libertarianism - Stone
Compatibilism - Peirsall
=== Ethics ===
Questions to Think About:
Ethics - Gallet
Formalism and Deontological Ethics - Aylsworth
Consequentialism - Pfeffer
=== Metaphysics ===