The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIII - Aristotle's Physics
Aristotle's physics were important and unquestioned until the time of Galileo. Today they are necessary to understand the history of philosophy, even if they are insignificant considering modern science.
Aristotle described the nature of a thing as its end. (An acorn's nature is to grow into an oak).
Motion is the fulfillment of some potentiality in Aristotle.
All the ancient philosophers except for Plato believed time was uncreated. Aristotle, in spite of being such a bulwark in Christian theology for thousands of years, found himself abandoned in this notion by the subsequent Christians who followed him dogmatically.
Aristotle taught that everything beneath the moon (sublunary) was subject to growth and decay. Everything above the moon was ungenerated and indestructible.
He taught the earth was spherical and the center of the universe.
Everything in the sublunary sphere was composed of the four elements. The heavenly bodies were composed of a fifth element.
Aristotle's physics is incompatible with Newton's first law of motion.
Showing posts with label Galileo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Galileo. Show all posts
Thursday, September 19, 2019
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
What is this thing called science? Ch. 11
(Originally written November 14, 2006 in Book 8)
What is this thing called science?
Alan Chalmers
Chapter 11 - Methodological Changes in Method
[Against Universal Method]
Feyerabend made a strong case against the various accounts of scientific method by showing the incompatibility of these accounts and Galileo's advances in physics and astronomy.
Chalmers states that he takes issue with Feyerabend's historical accuracy, but states that the various scientific methods still fall short with the corrected history.
Feyerabend makes a strong case against a universal, ahistorical method of science.
Feyerabend represents one extreme: not method. Other methods represent the other extreme: dogmatic method.
Feyerabend gives no attack against a fluid, revisable method within any particular science.
Chalmers proposes that there is a middle ground between the two extremes. There are historically contingent methods and standards implicit in any successful science.
A common response to a middle-road approach is that if a scientific method is to change then it must be shown that it changes for the better to avoid extreme relativism. In order for there to be a way to show that any change is a change for the better there must be a standard to judge the standards. Any standard to judge the standards is a super standard or a universal, which Feyerabend thoroughly decimated.
John Worrall proposed an argument like this and concluded that there must be either a universal method or relativism.
[Telescopic for naked-eye data: a change in standards]
Aristotelian opponents of Galileo held that the senses and experience should be our guide in philosophizing and the criterion for science.
Aristotelians backed up the primacy of the senses with a teleological argument.
The Function of the senses was to provide us with information about the world. Because of this it makes no sense to believe that the senses systematically mislead us because that is the opposite of their function.
Galileo had to argue against this Aristotelian/Thomistic mind-set to introduce the telescope and telescopic data.
Feyerabend claims that Galileo resorted to propaganda and trickery to overcome this dilemma.
In fact though, Galileo used his hypothesis, not propaganda to prove his point. The dependence of irradiation is the test he used to change the mind-set of the scientific community. Galileo proved that the eye was misleading when it viewed small light sources (i.e. the stars, planets) at a distance. The telescope removes the irradiation and thus yields more reliable data.
[Piece meal change of theory, method and standards]
Galileo was able to convince his rivals in such a short time-span because he and his rivals showed a lot of common theoretical beliefs.
At any stage, a science will have some specific aims and some methods to meet their knowledge aims.
Science is like a web that grows and catches new things in it.
"Any part of the web of aims, methods, standards, theories, and observational facts that constitute a science at a particular time can be progressively changed, and the remaining part of the web will provide the background against which a case for the change can be made" (Chalmers, 170).
The entire web cannot change at once because the thing would collapse.
[A light hearted interlude]
Opponents of Chalmer's middle-road method would state that rival theorists appeal to some higher or more general standard if they shared aims. Thus there is a universal method (though unarticulated or inarticulate whatever)
Chalmers concedes that there is a common sense version of the universal scientific method. "Take argument and the available evidence seriously and do not aim for a kind of knowledge or a level of confirmation that is beyond the reach of available methods" (Chalmers, 171).
But this concession, if it is the end, all puts all philosophers of science out of business because the formulation this method could be done by anyone with any common sense.
Also once the common sense view has been stated, any further investigation will vary from science to science and be played against an historical backdrop.
An appreciation of the common sense view of the scientific method is sufficient enough to resist socialists and post-modernists who downplay the special status of science on the grounds that scientific knowledge panders to some special interest group.
Michael Mulkay, a post-modernist drew the conclusion that a sociological categorization of science is made necessary by the failure of what he terms the standard view
What is this thing called science?
Alan Chalmers
Chapter 11 - Methodological Changes in Method
[Against Universal Method]
Feyerabend made a strong case against the various accounts of scientific method by showing the incompatibility of these accounts and Galileo's advances in physics and astronomy.
Chalmers states that he takes issue with Feyerabend's historical accuracy, but states that the various scientific methods still fall short with the corrected history.
Feyerabend makes a strong case against a universal, ahistorical method of science.
Feyerabend represents one extreme: not method. Other methods represent the other extreme: dogmatic method.
Feyerabend gives no attack against a fluid, revisable method within any particular science.
Chalmers proposes that there is a middle ground between the two extremes. There are historically contingent methods and standards implicit in any successful science.
A common response to a middle-road approach is that if a scientific method is to change then it must be shown that it changes for the better to avoid extreme relativism. In order for there to be a way to show that any change is a change for the better there must be a standard to judge the standards. Any standard to judge the standards is a super standard or a universal, which Feyerabend thoroughly decimated.
John Worrall proposed an argument like this and concluded that there must be either a universal method or relativism.
[Telescopic for naked-eye data: a change in standards]
Aristotelian opponents of Galileo held that the senses and experience should be our guide in philosophizing and the criterion for science.
Aristotelians backed up the primacy of the senses with a teleological argument.
The Function of the senses was to provide us with information about the world. Because of this it makes no sense to believe that the senses systematically mislead us because that is the opposite of their function.
Galileo had to argue against this Aristotelian/Thomistic mind-set to introduce the telescope and telescopic data.
Feyerabend claims that Galileo resorted to propaganda and trickery to overcome this dilemma.
In fact though, Galileo used his hypothesis, not propaganda to prove his point. The dependence of irradiation is the test he used to change the mind-set of the scientific community. Galileo proved that the eye was misleading when it viewed small light sources (i.e. the stars, planets) at a distance. The telescope removes the irradiation and thus yields more reliable data.
[Piece meal change of theory, method and standards]
Galileo was able to convince his rivals in such a short time-span because he and his rivals showed a lot of common theoretical beliefs.
At any stage, a science will have some specific aims and some methods to meet their knowledge aims.
Science is like a web that grows and catches new things in it.
"Any part of the web of aims, methods, standards, theories, and observational facts that constitute a science at a particular time can be progressively changed, and the remaining part of the web will provide the background against which a case for the change can be made" (Chalmers, 170).
The entire web cannot change at once because the thing would collapse.
[A light hearted interlude]
Opponents of Chalmer's middle-road method would state that rival theorists appeal to some higher or more general standard if they shared aims. Thus there is a universal method (though unarticulated or inarticulate whatever)
Chalmers concedes that there is a common sense version of the universal scientific method. "Take argument and the available evidence seriously and do not aim for a kind of knowledge or a level of confirmation that is beyond the reach of available methods" (Chalmers, 171).
But this concession, if it is the end, all puts all philosophers of science out of business because the formulation this method could be done by anyone with any common sense.
Also once the common sense view has been stated, any further investigation will vary from science to science and be played against an historical backdrop.
An appreciation of the common sense view of the scientific method is sufficient enough to resist socialists and post-modernists who downplay the special status of science on the grounds that scientific knowledge panders to some special interest group.
Michael Mulkay, a post-modernist drew the conclusion that a sociological categorization of science is made necessary by the failure of what he terms the standard view
Thursday, October 26, 2006
What is this thing called science? Ch. 2
(Originally Written October 26, 2006 in Book 8)
[Observations passive and private or active and public]
Many philosophers view observation as passive and private. It is passive because we open our eyes and direct them to a certain spot and simply let the info flow in. If perceptions were truly like this, then it is overtly private.
The view of perception/observation as private and passive is totally inadequate. Perception is both consciously and subconsciously an active affair.
Perceptions are also public because they are shared by statements and then checked by other people.
[Galileo and the moons of Jupiter]
Galileo discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter. Opponents of heliocentricism argued that if the earth rotated around the sun then the moon would be left behind. But, if Jupiter, (which obviously revolved around something, earth or the sun or anything else) and had moons this would cause heliocentric objections on the account of the moon to collapse. In order to prove that these moons really did revolve around Jupiter, Galileo made observational procedures for Copernicus advocates to follow. They all followed and a majority of advocates and opponents validated Galileo's findings. This observational procedure was obviously public and active, rather than passive and private.
[Observable facts objective, but fallible]
[Observations passive and private or active and public]
Many philosophers view observation as passive and private. It is passive because we open our eyes and direct them to a certain spot and simply let the info flow in. If perceptions were truly like this, then it is overtly private.
The view of perception/observation as private and passive is totally inadequate. Perception is both consciously and subconsciously an active affair.
Perceptions are also public because they are shared by statements and then checked by other people.
[Galileo and the moons of Jupiter]
Galileo discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter. Opponents of heliocentricism argued that if the earth rotated around the sun then the moon would be left behind. But, if Jupiter, (which obviously revolved around something, earth or the sun or anything else) and had moons this would cause heliocentric objections on the account of the moon to collapse. In order to prove that these moons really did revolve around Jupiter, Galileo made observational procedures for Copernicus advocates to follow. They all followed and a majority of advocates and opponents validated Galileo's findings. This observational procedure was obviously public and active, rather than passive and private.
[Observable facts objective, but fallible]
Sunday, October 15, 2006
What is this thing called science? Ch. 1
(Originally written October 15, 2006 in Book 8)
A.F. Chalmers
What is this thing called Science?
3rd Edition
"Like all young men I set out to be a genius, but mercifully laughter intervened."
-Clea Lawerence Durrell
Chapter 1 - Science as Knowledge derived from the facts of experience
(A widely held common sense view of science)
-Science is derived from the facts
-Science is special because it is based on facts
-It is unprejudiced sensory data
-Based on empirical data, not personal opinions
-Science is secure
-Science is objective
-J.J. Davies - "science is a structure built upon facts" (Chalmers, 1)
-H.D. Anthony claims it was as much Galileo's attitude as his experiments that uprooted tradition
-We must accept the facts first, then form theories of everything
-Modern scientists claim the birth of science as knowledge occurred in the 17th century. Prior to this everything was seen through Biblical and/or Aristotelian eyes
-Two groups have attempted to formalize the common view of science:
1. The Empiricists
2. The positivists
Empiricists (17th & 18th Century) Locke, Berkeley, Hume
Logical Positivists (Early 20th century) Followers of Auguste Comte
Both Empiricists and Logical positivists share the belief that scientific knowledge ought to be derived from observational facts.
Two distinct issues in the claim that science is derived from the facts:
1. The nature of the facts and how scientists are meant to have access to them
2. The laws and theories that constitute our knowledge and how they are derived for the obtained facts.
There are three components of the facts assumed to be the basis of common view of science:
"1. Facts are directly given to careful, unprejudiced observers via the senses.
2. Facts are prior and independent of theory.
3. Facts constitute a firm and reliable foundation for scientific knowledge" (Chalmers, 4).
At this point I must admit a prejudice against science. I do not feel swayed by its authority and am consciously or subconsciously looking for ammo to slay the dragon of science.
[Seeing is believing]
-Humans see with their eyes
-The lens and retina are the most important components of the eye
-The eye functions like a camera
-Optic nerves then carry the image to the cerebral cortex
-The brain's recording of data is what produces the culmination of sight
Empiricists use this account of sight in their scientific basis for two reasons:
1. A human observer has more or less direct access to facts
2. Two normal observers will see the same thing when observing the same object
[Visual experiences not determined solely by the object viewed]
Empiricists and common sense scientists hold that all we must do is observe the world and we thus obtain unprejudiced facts.
If this were true than visual experiences would be the basis for facts, but here is strong evidence that simply seeing an object is not the only factor in forming a mental picture and thus obtaining factual datum.
"Two normal observers viewing the same object from the same place under the same physical circumstances do not necessarily have identical visual experiences, even though the images on their respective retinas may be virtually identical" (Chalmers, 5).
The perceptual experiences of the past affect a person's current perceptual experience. Memory shapes vision.
If a face is hidden in a drawing of a tree the observer will see the tree and then upon further inspection will see the face. But, once the face has been seen the tree branches and leaves conform in our mind to the face. The visual data received by our eyeballs do not change, only our conception of the image. The raw data received by our observation cannot be the only basis for observation. Other factors play a part in our seeing the face versus seeing the tree.
Experienced observers of particular objects will see different things than novice observers when looking at the same object.
The common argument against this is that the people see the same thing, but interpret it differently.
But if they argue this than they are self-defeating. They claim that the physical act of sight is all that is needed for fact, but if interpretation is involved in the perception process than the physical act of seeing is not all that composes sight.
Chalmers claims that he is not:
1. Claiming physical images have nothing to do with sight.
2. People are incapable of seeing basically the same thing.
[Observable facts expressed as statements]
Linguistically, the word "fact" is very, very ambiguous.
I hate ambiguity!!! AAH!
Fact can refer to either a statement about "X" or it can refer to the actual state of affairs involving "X"
Scientific knowledge is supposedly based on the circumstances and not the statements.
"For those who wish to claim that knowledge is derived from the facts, they must have statements in mind, and neither perceptions nor objects like mountains and craters" (Chalmers, 10).
Factual statements, if they are based on factual observations as science claims, it still stands that the factual statements made are not derived through a direct experience with the sensory data. Therefore, to claim that science is special because it comes directly from observation is absurd.
Knowledge in a conceptual sense is required prior to making strong observational (factual) statements about observational experiences. Thus the notion that observation precedes knowledge is mistaken. At the very least a concept must be understood prior to knowledgable statements being uttered about a specific observation.
"The recording of observable facts requires more than the reception of the stimuli in the form of light rays that impinge on the eye. It requires the knowledge of the appropriate conceptual scheme and how to apply it. Statements of fact are not determined in a straightforward way by sensual stimuli and observations statements presuppose knowledge, so it cannot be the case that we first establish the facts and then derive our knowledge from them" (Chalmers, 12)
[Why should facts precede theory?]
It would be ridiculous to attempt to go and search for facts without first forming a theory and techniques. If we did this we would not have the slightest of clues where to even begin observation. Thus, theory must precede facts.
The truth or falsity of observational statements can be judged via observation and tested by theory and thus serve as scientific knowledge.
[The fallibility of observational statements]
Observational statements, even if they are factual, must be allowed to be fallible because observation is not always 100% reliable.
Observational facts and thus the scientific knowledge derived from them must be admitted to be fallible and subject to correction via improved scientific theories, methods or "facts".
"Science is derived from the facts" is the slogan that exalts science. Bust as we have seen, there are problems with derivation and the facts themselves.
Perceptions are always exposed to the background and expectations of the perceiver. This can destroy any notion of non-prejudicial observation.
A.F. Chalmers
What is this thing called Science?
3rd Edition
"Like all young men I set out to be a genius, but mercifully laughter intervened."
-Clea Lawerence Durrell
Chapter 1 - Science as Knowledge derived from the facts of experience
(A widely held common sense view of science)
-Science is derived from the facts
-Science is special because it is based on facts
-It is unprejudiced sensory data
-Based on empirical data, not personal opinions
-Science is secure
-Science is objective
-J.J. Davies - "science is a structure built upon facts" (Chalmers, 1)
-H.D. Anthony claims it was as much Galileo's attitude as his experiments that uprooted tradition
-We must accept the facts first, then form theories of everything
-Modern scientists claim the birth of science as knowledge occurred in the 17th century. Prior to this everything was seen through Biblical and/or Aristotelian eyes
-Two groups have attempted to formalize the common view of science:
1. The Empiricists
2. The positivists
Empiricists (17th & 18th Century) Locke, Berkeley, Hume
Logical Positivists (Early 20th century) Followers of Auguste Comte
Both Empiricists and Logical positivists share the belief that scientific knowledge ought to be derived from observational facts.
Two distinct issues in the claim that science is derived from the facts:
1. The nature of the facts and how scientists are meant to have access to them
2. The laws and theories that constitute our knowledge and how they are derived for the obtained facts.
There are three components of the facts assumed to be the basis of common view of science:
"1. Facts are directly given to careful, unprejudiced observers via the senses.
2. Facts are prior and independent of theory.
3. Facts constitute a firm and reliable foundation for scientific knowledge" (Chalmers, 4).
At this point I must admit a prejudice against science. I do not feel swayed by its authority and am consciously or subconsciously looking for ammo to slay the dragon of science.
[Seeing is believing]
-Humans see with their eyes
-The lens and retina are the most important components of the eye
-The eye functions like a camera
-Optic nerves then carry the image to the cerebral cortex
-The brain's recording of data is what produces the culmination of sight
Empiricists use this account of sight in their scientific basis for two reasons:
1. A human observer has more or less direct access to facts
2. Two normal observers will see the same thing when observing the same object
[Visual experiences not determined solely by the object viewed]
Empiricists and common sense scientists hold that all we must do is observe the world and we thus obtain unprejudiced facts.
If this were true than visual experiences would be the basis for facts, but here is strong evidence that simply seeing an object is not the only factor in forming a mental picture and thus obtaining factual datum.
"Two normal observers viewing the same object from the same place under the same physical circumstances do not necessarily have identical visual experiences, even though the images on their respective retinas may be virtually identical" (Chalmers, 5).
The perceptual experiences of the past affect a person's current perceptual experience. Memory shapes vision.
If a face is hidden in a drawing of a tree the observer will see the tree and then upon further inspection will see the face. But, once the face has been seen the tree branches and leaves conform in our mind to the face. The visual data received by our eyeballs do not change, only our conception of the image. The raw data received by our observation cannot be the only basis for observation. Other factors play a part in our seeing the face versus seeing the tree.
Experienced observers of particular objects will see different things than novice observers when looking at the same object.
The common argument against this is that the people see the same thing, but interpret it differently.
But if they argue this than they are self-defeating. They claim that the physical act of sight is all that is needed for fact, but if interpretation is involved in the perception process than the physical act of seeing is not all that composes sight.
Chalmers claims that he is not:
1. Claiming physical images have nothing to do with sight.
2. People are incapable of seeing basically the same thing.
[Observable facts expressed as statements]
Linguistically, the word "fact" is very, very ambiguous.
I hate ambiguity!!! AAH!
Fact can refer to either a statement about "X" or it can refer to the actual state of affairs involving "X"
Scientific knowledge is supposedly based on the circumstances and not the statements.
"For those who wish to claim that knowledge is derived from the facts, they must have statements in mind, and neither perceptions nor objects like mountains and craters" (Chalmers, 10).
Factual statements, if they are based on factual observations as science claims, it still stands that the factual statements made are not derived through a direct experience with the sensory data. Therefore, to claim that science is special because it comes directly from observation is absurd.
Knowledge in a conceptual sense is required prior to making strong observational (factual) statements about observational experiences. Thus the notion that observation precedes knowledge is mistaken. At the very least a concept must be understood prior to knowledgable statements being uttered about a specific observation.
"The recording of observable facts requires more than the reception of the stimuli in the form of light rays that impinge on the eye. It requires the knowledge of the appropriate conceptual scheme and how to apply it. Statements of fact are not determined in a straightforward way by sensual stimuli and observations statements presuppose knowledge, so it cannot be the case that we first establish the facts and then derive our knowledge from them" (Chalmers, 12)
[Why should facts precede theory?]
It would be ridiculous to attempt to go and search for facts without first forming a theory and techniques. If we did this we would not have the slightest of clues where to even begin observation. Thus, theory must precede facts.
The truth or falsity of observational statements can be judged via observation and tested by theory and thus serve as scientific knowledge.
[The fallibility of observational statements]
Observational statements, even if they are factual, must be allowed to be fallible because observation is not always 100% reliable.
Observational facts and thus the scientific knowledge derived from them must be admitted to be fallible and subject to correction via improved scientific theories, methods or "facts".
"Science is derived from the facts" is the slogan that exalts science. Bust as we have seen, there are problems with derivation and the facts themselves.
Perceptions are always exposed to the background and expectations of the perceiver. This can destroy any notion of non-prejudicial observation.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Aristotle's Physics
(Originally written July 14, 2006 in Book 4)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 23: Aristotle's Physics
The nature of a thing is its end, i.e. the nature of an acorn is to be an oak.
Aristotelian nature has a teleological implication.
Things with these teleological natures have an internal principle. It is their nature to become what their nature is.
Things not yet at their end (an acorn, not yet an oak) are their potential nature.
Motion is the prices of achieving one's potential.
Time is the motion of numeration.
There has always been motion and there will always be motion.
Without motion there is no time.
The earth is the center of the universe.
On earth everything is composed of combinations of the four elements. Everything in the heavens is composed of a fifth element.
Side note - "Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo had to combat Aristotle as well s the Bible in establishing the view that the earth is not the centre of the universe" (Russell, 207).
Linehan - Bad science based on poor Biblical interpretations does not negate the accuracy of the Bible, only disproves the theories based on bad Biblical interpretation. I can state that God created the world in seven, 24 hour days and then that could theoretically be disproved by science. The Biblical account of creation would not be discredited then, only my interpretation would.
Aristotelian physics is incompatible with Newton's First Law of Motion.
Also Aristotle's view of the heavenly bodies being indestructible and otherwise incorruptible obviously has to be abandoned.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 23: Aristotle's Physics
The nature of a thing is its end, i.e. the nature of an acorn is to be an oak.
Aristotelian nature has a teleological implication.
Things with these teleological natures have an internal principle. It is their nature to become what their nature is.
Things not yet at their end (an acorn, not yet an oak) are their potential nature.
Motion is the prices of achieving one's potential.
Time is the motion of numeration.
There has always been motion and there will always be motion.
Without motion there is no time.
The earth is the center of the universe.
On earth everything is composed of combinations of the four elements. Everything in the heavens is composed of a fifth element.
Side note - "Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo had to combat Aristotle as well s the Bible in establishing the view that the earth is not the centre of the universe" (Russell, 207).
Linehan - Bad science based on poor Biblical interpretations does not negate the accuracy of the Bible, only disproves the theories based on bad Biblical interpretation. I can state that God created the world in seven, 24 hour days and then that could theoretically be disproved by science. The Biblical account of creation would not be discredited then, only my interpretation would.
Aristotelian physics is incompatible with Newton's First Law of Motion.
Also Aristotle's view of the heavenly bodies being indestructible and otherwise incorruptible obviously has to be abandoned.
Friday, February 3, 2006
Leviathan Ch. 13-15
(Originally written February 3, 2006)
Continental Rationalism
-Descartes
-Spinoza
-Leibniz
British Empiricism
-Locke
-Berkeley
-Hume
Rationalism (early Modern)
1) Built a system by using math and geometry as a model
2) Believed in innate ideas (certain inborn ideas, conceptions, knowledge we have at the time of birth)
3) The explainability thesis: everything is susceptible to some rational explanation
Empiricism (early modern)
1) The source of ideas come from sense data (experience)
2) Justification of their beliefs must produce evidence of that belief
The Scientific Revolution
- Preceded and concurrent with the births of rationalism and empiricism
The pre-scientific revolution cosmology included:
1) geocentricism
2) the heavenly vault
3) the heterogeneity of the universe (terrestrial and celestial bodies moved differently)
4) Aristotelian doctrine of change/motion (demands a cause for motion, that cause also has to have a purpose)
-Efficient Cause - Mechanical
-Telic cause - giver of purpose
Galileo's science did not defeat the Church or Church theology. Galileo's sound theory deposed a bad influence of Aristotelianism on an uncritical theology.
Keys in Scientific Revolution
-Copernican Revolution (heliocentric)
-Kepler's law of planetary motion
-Bruno's infinite cosmos
-Galileo's kinetics
What are the implications of these on philosophy?
1) Universe is rational
2) The world is comprehensible
3) The cosmos is homogenous
4) Fruitfulness of systematic inquiry
5) Teleological (purpose oriented) explanation is no longer necessary
Classics of Philosophy
Ch. 13 of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan
Ch. 13 "of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity, and misery"
Men are made equal. No one can claim to be greater by birth alone. "The weakest has the strength to kill the strongest" (Pojman, 542)
All men believe they are smarter than other men
From the fact that all men are equal in ability, all men have equal hope to achieve a goal. When these goals become conflicting then the men become enemies and both are capable in one way or another of destroying their enemy.
All men want to have their value assessed by their companions (equal, which is all men) assessed at what they have assessed it as.
In the nature of man we find three principles to quarrels
1) Competition
2) Diffidence
3) Glory
Competition makes men invade for gain, use violence for that gain
Diffidence makes men defend their position for safety
Glory makes men fight for glorify and trifles
Without a power to stop them, man is constantly at war with all other men.
The war exists in the act of fighting and in the knowledge that tensions are there that could ignite and inspire fighting. When there is no fighting and no intention of fighting there is peace.
When man is at war, there is no time for life, art, wealth, knowledge or worst of all, society. In times of war there is "continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" (Pojman, 543).
Hobbes condemns men with words, other men condemn them with acts of locking doors and securing themselves.
Sin is not found in man's nature, passions or desires. It is not found even in his actions until he breaks the law.
Where there is no power to fear there is no law. Where there is no law there is no justice.
Justice and injustice do not lie in man or his nature; they lie in society.
The passions or desires that make men want peace are:
1) Fear of death
2) Desire for commodious living
3) The hope for the means to secure the commodious living
Chapter 14: Of the first and second natural law of contracts
The right of nature is the liberty of man to preserve his own life through any means necessary
Liberty is the absence of anything that would stop him from using his power.
A law of nature is a general rule that forbids man to destroy himself.
Right is the liberty to do something.
Law is what forbids them to do something
The first law of nature is to seek peace because it is good for him.
The second law of nature is to defend ourselves by any means necessary when the first law cannot be achieved.
This law is from the Gospel: "do whatever you wish done unto yourself"
If man insists on keeping the right to do whatever he wishes he is constantly at war; but, if he renounces that right and others renounce theirs they are at peace with each other. But not only one man can renounce his right and all others retain theirs for the man who renounced his right in the face of the others retaining theirs breaks the second law of nature by not employing all means to defend himself.
The bonds by which men transfer or renounce their rights to pursue peace are strengthened by the fear of some evil consequence upon the rupture of this agreement. They are not strengthened by the word of men because nothing is so easily broken as the word of man.
The renunciation or transfer of rights by a man is done so for a right being renounced by another or transferred to him by another or in the hopes of good that will come to him.
The mutual transferring of a right is a contract.
If a contract is made when one man's right is immediately transferred for the future transfer of another's right it is called a pact or a covenant.
When one transfers his right in hope of some future good to come to him it is called a gift, free gift or grace and is not a contract.
When a contract is made for both parties to transfer at a future date upon a power over them is needed to quash their constant tendency to return to state of war.
To make a covenant with God is impossible because we cannot know whether or not our covenants have been accepted.
Men are freed of their covenant in 2 ways:
1) by preforming: natural end of an obligation
2) by being forgive: restoration of a liberty
Chapter 15 "of other laws of nature"
The third natural law is that men perform the covenants that they make, otherwise their covenants are in vain and we are still in the condition of war.
Without any covenants there can be no covenants broken and if no covenant is broken than no injustice has been done.
The definition of justice is simply performing no unjust acts (not breaking any covenants)
To be justice their must be no war, because in a state of war there are no unjust acts. To be no war there must be a coercive power to force men to perform their covenants and thus be justice.
To enforce covenants (justice) the punishment of breaking covenants (injustice) must be greater than the anticipated gain of breaking the covenant.
The foolish man states that there is no justice and that there is no God.
The just man is the man who has taken all reasonable care to keep his covenants, the unjust man is the man who has neglected this reasonable care.
A just man does not by one or a few mistakes or unjust acts caused by sudden passion become unjust.
Injury is done to the man who breaks a covenant. Damage is done to the man whose covenant is broken by the other man.
No man gives without the intention of good to himself.
Compliance is a law of nature that states every man must strive to accommodate himself to the rest.
If a man retains what is superfluous to himself, yet necessary to others he should be cast out of society because he has become cumbersome to that society.
Forgiveness is another law of nature. A man should grant forgiveness for offenses past to another man that desires it.
Pardon is a granting of peace.
Another law of nature is that revenge should be forgone for the greatness of good that will follow a lack of revenge.
Avoidance of hatred is a natural law because hatred breeds war.
Another natural law is that all men must acknowledge one another as equal.
Equity is the distributive justice
There can be no unequal share given to different then, for that is contrary to equity.
Where there can be no equal distribution it is determined first by agreement, second by first seizure or first possession
An arbitrator should decide any dispute of covenant.
Continental Rationalism
-Descartes
-Spinoza
-Leibniz
British Empiricism
-Locke
-Berkeley
-Hume
Rationalism (early Modern)
1) Built a system by using math and geometry as a model
2) Believed in innate ideas (certain inborn ideas, conceptions, knowledge we have at the time of birth)
3) The explainability thesis: everything is susceptible to some rational explanation
Empiricism (early modern)
1) The source of ideas come from sense data (experience)
2) Justification of their beliefs must produce evidence of that belief
The Scientific Revolution
- Preceded and concurrent with the births of rationalism and empiricism
The pre-scientific revolution cosmology included:
1) geocentricism
2) the heavenly vault
3) the heterogeneity of the universe (terrestrial and celestial bodies moved differently)
4) Aristotelian doctrine of change/motion (demands a cause for motion, that cause also has to have a purpose)
-Efficient Cause - Mechanical
-Telic cause - giver of purpose
Galileo's science did not defeat the Church or Church theology. Galileo's sound theory deposed a bad influence of Aristotelianism on an uncritical theology.
Keys in Scientific Revolution
-Copernican Revolution (heliocentric)
-Kepler's law of planetary motion
-Bruno's infinite cosmos
-Galileo's kinetics
What are the implications of these on philosophy?
1) Universe is rational
2) The world is comprehensible
3) The cosmos is homogenous
4) Fruitfulness of systematic inquiry
5) Teleological (purpose oriented) explanation is no longer necessary
Classics of Philosophy
Ch. 13 of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan
Ch. 13 "of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity, and misery"
Men are made equal. No one can claim to be greater by birth alone. "The weakest has the strength to kill the strongest" (Pojman, 542)
All men believe they are smarter than other men
From the fact that all men are equal in ability, all men have equal hope to achieve a goal. When these goals become conflicting then the men become enemies and both are capable in one way or another of destroying their enemy.
All men want to have their value assessed by their companions (equal, which is all men) assessed at what they have assessed it as.
In the nature of man we find three principles to quarrels
1) Competition
2) Diffidence
3) Glory
Competition makes men invade for gain, use violence for that gain
Diffidence makes men defend their position for safety
Glory makes men fight for glorify and trifles
Without a power to stop them, man is constantly at war with all other men.
The war exists in the act of fighting and in the knowledge that tensions are there that could ignite and inspire fighting. When there is no fighting and no intention of fighting there is peace.
When man is at war, there is no time for life, art, wealth, knowledge or worst of all, society. In times of war there is "continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" (Pojman, 543).
Hobbes condemns men with words, other men condemn them with acts of locking doors and securing themselves.
Sin is not found in man's nature, passions or desires. It is not found even in his actions until he breaks the law.
Where there is no power to fear there is no law. Where there is no law there is no justice.
Justice and injustice do not lie in man or his nature; they lie in society.
The passions or desires that make men want peace are:
1) Fear of death
2) Desire for commodious living
3) The hope for the means to secure the commodious living
Chapter 14: Of the first and second natural law of contracts
The right of nature is the liberty of man to preserve his own life through any means necessary
Liberty is the absence of anything that would stop him from using his power.
A law of nature is a general rule that forbids man to destroy himself.
Right is the liberty to do something.
Law is what forbids them to do something
The first law of nature is to seek peace because it is good for him.
The second law of nature is to defend ourselves by any means necessary when the first law cannot be achieved.
This law is from the Gospel: "do whatever you wish done unto yourself"
If man insists on keeping the right to do whatever he wishes he is constantly at war; but, if he renounces that right and others renounce theirs they are at peace with each other. But not only one man can renounce his right and all others retain theirs for the man who renounced his right in the face of the others retaining theirs breaks the second law of nature by not employing all means to defend himself.
The bonds by which men transfer or renounce their rights to pursue peace are strengthened by the fear of some evil consequence upon the rupture of this agreement. They are not strengthened by the word of men because nothing is so easily broken as the word of man.
The renunciation or transfer of rights by a man is done so for a right being renounced by another or transferred to him by another or in the hopes of good that will come to him.
The mutual transferring of a right is a contract.
If a contract is made when one man's right is immediately transferred for the future transfer of another's right it is called a pact or a covenant.
When one transfers his right in hope of some future good to come to him it is called a gift, free gift or grace and is not a contract.
When a contract is made for both parties to transfer at a future date upon a power over them is needed to quash their constant tendency to return to state of war.
To make a covenant with God is impossible because we cannot know whether or not our covenants have been accepted.
Men are freed of their covenant in 2 ways:
1) by preforming: natural end of an obligation
2) by being forgive: restoration of a liberty
Chapter 15 "of other laws of nature"
The third natural law is that men perform the covenants that they make, otherwise their covenants are in vain and we are still in the condition of war.
Without any covenants there can be no covenants broken and if no covenant is broken than no injustice has been done.
The definition of justice is simply performing no unjust acts (not breaking any covenants)
To be justice their must be no war, because in a state of war there are no unjust acts. To be no war there must be a coercive power to force men to perform their covenants and thus be justice.
To enforce covenants (justice) the punishment of breaking covenants (injustice) must be greater than the anticipated gain of breaking the covenant.
The foolish man states that there is no justice and that there is no God.
The just man is the man who has taken all reasonable care to keep his covenants, the unjust man is the man who has neglected this reasonable care.
A just man does not by one or a few mistakes or unjust acts caused by sudden passion become unjust.
Injury is done to the man who breaks a covenant. Damage is done to the man whose covenant is broken by the other man.
No man gives without the intention of good to himself.
Compliance is a law of nature that states every man must strive to accommodate himself to the rest.
If a man retains what is superfluous to himself, yet necessary to others he should be cast out of society because he has become cumbersome to that society.
Forgiveness is another law of nature. A man should grant forgiveness for offenses past to another man that desires it.
Pardon is a granting of peace.
Another law of nature is that revenge should be forgone for the greatness of good that will follow a lack of revenge.
Avoidance of hatred is a natural law because hatred breeds war.
Another natural law is that all men must acknowledge one another as equal.
Equity is the distributive justice
There can be no unequal share given to different then, for that is contrary to equity.
Where there can be no equal distribution it is determined first by agreement, second by first seizure or first possession
An arbitrator should decide any dispute of covenant.
Thursday, February 2, 2006
Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo
(Originally written February 2, 2006 in Book 4)
A History of Western Philosophy, Vol. 3
W.T. Jones
Copernicus
-It was the rebellion against Aristotle and Aristotelians that created a climate for Copernicus to produce a heliocentric theory. Thus began the Neoplatonic and Pythagorean revival. It made it 'Ok' to suggest the universe ran in accordance with simple mathematical principles rather than with a constant divine manipulation.
- The grafting of Pythagoreanism into Christianity created an idea of an omnipotent creator who was in fact an omniscient mathematician. This inspired the mathematical study of nature.
-Copernicus assumed two things about the earth:
1) It revolves on its axis
2) It turns in a circular path around the sun between Mars and Venus
-Copernicus was hesitant to publish his thoughts because of fear of the Church's reaction. However the Church took little notice of the heliocentric theory until Galileo popularized the theory 60 years later.
Kepler
-While not a great observer, Kepler did have a keen sense of generalizing and synthesizing. He could discover simple uniformities hidden beneath the rich diversity of concrete facts.
-Kepler was devout Lutheran but he was convinced of a God that created the universe to work on simple mathematical harmonies and principles.
-Kepler had three laws:
1) The planets orbit in ellipses around the sun
2) Each planet moves at varying speeds around the sun. As a planet travels from A to B the area ABS is swept out. As it travels from C to D the area CDS is swept out. If the time it takes to travel from A to B is equal to that of C to D, the areas of ABS and CDS are equal.
3) The square of the periodic times are proportional to the cubes of the mean distances from the sun.
-Kepler's laws were a great achievement in astronomy but what they depend on is a great achievement in knowledge. They are based on two things:
1) The framing of hypotheses
2) The mathematization of data for the purpose of confirming or disconfirming the framed hypotheses.
Galileo
-Galileo discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter
-Galileo's contemporaries (aside from Kepler) knew that Galileo could have only produced the moons of Jupiter by witchcraft or by slight of hand because it would have other wise rendered their theory that God created seven heavenly bodies incorrect
-Galileo wrote "Dialogues concerning two new sciences", which is one of the most important contributions to the development of science.
-Dialogues analyzed the ranges of the behavior of bodies on earth including:
1) Resistance to fracture
2) Causes of cohesion
3) Uniform motion
4) Naturally accelerated motion
5) Violent motions
A History of Western Philosophy, Vol. 3
W.T. Jones
Copernicus
-It was the rebellion against Aristotle and Aristotelians that created a climate for Copernicus to produce a heliocentric theory. Thus began the Neoplatonic and Pythagorean revival. It made it 'Ok' to suggest the universe ran in accordance with simple mathematical principles rather than with a constant divine manipulation.
- The grafting of Pythagoreanism into Christianity created an idea of an omnipotent creator who was in fact an omniscient mathematician. This inspired the mathematical study of nature.
-Copernicus assumed two things about the earth:
1) It revolves on its axis
2) It turns in a circular path around the sun between Mars and Venus
-Copernicus was hesitant to publish his thoughts because of fear of the Church's reaction. However the Church took little notice of the heliocentric theory until Galileo popularized the theory 60 years later.
Kepler
-While not a great observer, Kepler did have a keen sense of generalizing and synthesizing. He could discover simple uniformities hidden beneath the rich diversity of concrete facts.
-Kepler was devout Lutheran but he was convinced of a God that created the universe to work on simple mathematical harmonies and principles.
-Kepler had three laws:
1) The planets orbit in ellipses around the sun
2) Each planet moves at varying speeds around the sun. As a planet travels from A to B the area ABS is swept out. As it travels from C to D the area CDS is swept out. If the time it takes to travel from A to B is equal to that of C to D, the areas of ABS and CDS are equal.
3) The square of the periodic times are proportional to the cubes of the mean distances from the sun.
-Kepler's laws were a great achievement in astronomy but what they depend on is a great achievement in knowledge. They are based on two things:
1) The framing of hypotheses
2) The mathematization of data for the purpose of confirming or disconfirming the framed hypotheses.
Galileo
-Galileo discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter
-Galileo's contemporaries (aside from Kepler) knew that Galileo could have only produced the moons of Jupiter by witchcraft or by slight of hand because it would have other wise rendered their theory that God created seven heavenly bodies incorrect
-Galileo wrote "Dialogues concerning two new sciences", which is one of the most important contributions to the development of science.
-Dialogues analyzed the ranges of the behavior of bodies on earth including:
1) Resistance to fracture
2) Causes of cohesion
3) Uniform motion
4) Naturally accelerated motion
5) Violent motions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)