(Originally written September 29, 2006 in Epistemology)
Fumerton's criticism of coherentism:
1. The coherentist conception of justification is too weak
2. The coherentist regress problem
3. The coherentist criterion of justification is too strong
Annis:
epistemic justification is relative to social context. The issue context and the issue importance form the justification.
Contexually Basic Belief - a belief that does not depend on any other beliefs
Naturalized epistemology
-The psychology underlying our beliefs
-The neurobiology underlying our beliefs
-The sociological aspects underlying our beliefs
Criticisms of Naturalized epistemology
1. When is a justification of a belief necessary?
2. What counts as a justification in this social context?
Friday, September 29, 2006
Sunday, September 24, 2006
BonJour Dancy...
(Originally Written September 24, 2006 in Epistemology)
BonJour:
Strong foundationalism - foundational beliefs have strong warrant
Weak foundationalism - foundational beliefs have low degree of warrant
Two attempted solutions to solve the regress problem:
1) Externalism
2) Cognitive Givenism
Coherentist theory of justification fits better with actual practice
Coherentist theory of justification offers a better account of the justification principles of inference
Coherentist theory of justification supports the notion that knowledge is a social phenomenon
Dancy:
Beliefs have
1. Antecedent Security
2. Subsequent security
BonJour:
Strong foundationalism - foundational beliefs have strong warrant
Weak foundationalism - foundational beliefs have low degree of warrant
Two attempted solutions to solve the regress problem:
1) Externalism
2) Cognitive Givenism
Coherentist theory of justification fits better with actual practice
Coherentist theory of justification offers a better account of the justification principles of inference
Coherentist theory of justification supports the notion that knowledge is a social phenomenon
Dancy:
Beliefs have
1. Antecedent Security
2. Subsequent security
Plato's Ethics, Politics, Religion, Aesthetics and More
(Originally written September 24, 2006 in Book 10)
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5: Plato - The Special Science
The Distinction between Pleasure and The Good
Plato held the Sophist's view of pleasure and goodness being synonymous as their major flaw.
Plato argued that goodness and badness are not opposites. He held that opposites cannot exist in the same object at the same time. But pleasure and pain exist in the same object at the same time. Thus, pain cannot be evil and pleasure cannot be good.
Plato distinguished between necessary pleasures and harmless pleasures.
He held pleasure and pain as being a part of human nature, that they are inevitable.
He distinguishes three classes of goods:
1) Things that are good because of their consequences
2) Things that are good for their own sake
3) Things that are good because of their consequences and because they are good for their own sake.
Analysis of the Form "Justice"
Justice is an attunement or a harmony. Every part of an individual (or society) performs its specific task at the correct time so that everything works in a harmonious fashion.
Organism and Function
Man is an organism whose various functions must be brought into a harmony.
Health is the good state of the body. The body is at harmony with itself in health.
Plato distinguishes between the human organism and the human soul.
He held that the good life was achieved by the various parts of the human working in harmony.
Parallel between Individual and State
Plato divided the State as he divided the individual: into three parts:
1) Governors (Guardians)
2) Military/Police
3) Production class
The production class corresponds to the appetite part of the individual. The governing class corresponds to the reason part and the military/police class corresponds to the spirit part.
Each class had to have a virtue:
1) Production - temperance/moderation
2) Military/Police - Courage
3) Guardians - knowledge/wisdom
Each virtue accompanies their function
1) Production - produce/temperance
2) Military - courage/to fight
3) Guardians - wisdom/ to make decisions
I'm going to skip ahead to some criticisms of Plato's theory: skipping sections
-The Life of Reason (pg. 170)
-Estimate of Plato's View (pg. 172)
-Political Theory (pg. 174)
(all this is covered in my notes on The Republic)
Theory of Art
Things are beautiful insofar as they partake in the form "beauty"
He calls artists deceivers because they paint or create representations of the physical world (which is itself a representation).
Religion
As with all of the things Plato thought was most important, he chose to explain religion in myths.
He held that certain truths about what gods could be inferred:
1) Gods are good and nothing good can harm anything; thus, gods cannot be the authors of anything harmful
2) Gods are not the author of all things
3) The gods punish wickedness
4) God is unchangeable
5) The gods do not lie
The Self-Moving Mover
There are 8 Types of motion
1. Circular around a fixed center
2. Locomotion
3. Combination
4. Separation
5. Increase
6. Decrease
7. Becoming
8. Perishing
He argues that:
1) There must be a first cause of movement
2) This first cause is a self-mover
3) Soul is the self-mover
4) Soul is more ancient than natural motions
Plato held that the universe has a purpose
Gods Exist
Gods exist, but they do not all that often meddle in the affairs of men.
They pay attention to men as a part of the whole universe. They receive no special attention.
Creator and Cosmos
God is a creator. What he creates is the cosmos.
The universe is a purposive whole. It is ordered. It has a capability of creating motion.
He held that the universe was ordered for the best.
Plato was more interested in the creation than the creator.
Plato's theory was aimed at two things:
1. To understand similarities between the nature of god and the nature of the world
2. To remind man of his severe limitations of his mind
Plato's religion compared with Christianity
Both Plato's god and God are good
Both are creators
Both create a universe that is ordained and ordered
Plato had a marked influence on Christianity
Plato's god is not an object of worship. Plato's god is not omnipotent.
Criticism of the Forms
Plato's own Criticism: The Parmenides
The problem of spatiotemporal things participating in eternal things is intrinsically confused.
It points out that the particular sense objects and the forms are too far separated and sense objects' participation with forms is not clearly explained.
Plato revised his view to hold that forms and the soul were both reality.
The soul was a bridge between the reality of forms and the sensible world.
Essay #1 For History of Philosophy I
Plato's Theory of Forms
What?
There are two worlds:
1. World of Forms
2. Sensible World
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5: Plato - The Special Science
The Distinction between Pleasure and The Good
Plato held the Sophist's view of pleasure and goodness being synonymous as their major flaw.
Plato argued that goodness and badness are not opposites. He held that opposites cannot exist in the same object at the same time. But pleasure and pain exist in the same object at the same time. Thus, pain cannot be evil and pleasure cannot be good.
Plato distinguished between necessary pleasures and harmless pleasures.
He held pleasure and pain as being a part of human nature, that they are inevitable.
He distinguishes three classes of goods:
1) Things that are good because of their consequences
2) Things that are good for their own sake
3) Things that are good because of their consequences and because they are good for their own sake.
Analysis of the Form "Justice"
Justice is an attunement or a harmony. Every part of an individual (or society) performs its specific task at the correct time so that everything works in a harmonious fashion.
Organism and Function
Man is an organism whose various functions must be brought into a harmony.
Health is the good state of the body. The body is at harmony with itself in health.
Plato distinguishes between the human organism and the human soul.
He held that the good life was achieved by the various parts of the human working in harmony.
Parallel between Individual and State
Plato divided the State as he divided the individual: into three parts:
1) Governors (Guardians)
2) Military/Police
3) Production class
The production class corresponds to the appetite part of the individual. The governing class corresponds to the reason part and the military/police class corresponds to the spirit part.
Each class had to have a virtue:
1) Production - temperance/moderation
2) Military/Police - Courage
3) Guardians - knowledge/wisdom
Each virtue accompanies their function
1) Production - produce/temperance
2) Military - courage/to fight
3) Guardians - wisdom/ to make decisions
I'm going to skip ahead to some criticisms of Plato's theory: skipping sections
-The Life of Reason (pg. 170)
-Estimate of Plato's View (pg. 172)
-Political Theory (pg. 174)
(all this is covered in my notes on The Republic)
Theory of Art
Things are beautiful insofar as they partake in the form "beauty"
He calls artists deceivers because they paint or create representations of the physical world (which is itself a representation).
Religion
As with all of the things Plato thought was most important, he chose to explain religion in myths.
He held that certain truths about what gods could be inferred:
1) Gods are good and nothing good can harm anything; thus, gods cannot be the authors of anything harmful
2) Gods are not the author of all things
3) The gods punish wickedness
4) God is unchangeable
5) The gods do not lie
The Self-Moving Mover
There are 8 Types of motion
1. Circular around a fixed center
2. Locomotion
3. Combination
4. Separation
5. Increase
6. Decrease
7. Becoming
8. Perishing
He argues that:
1) There must be a first cause of movement
2) This first cause is a self-mover
3) Soul is the self-mover
4) Soul is more ancient than natural motions
Plato held that the universe has a purpose
Gods Exist
Gods exist, but they do not all that often meddle in the affairs of men.
They pay attention to men as a part of the whole universe. They receive no special attention.
Creator and Cosmos
God is a creator. What he creates is the cosmos.
The universe is a purposive whole. It is ordered. It has a capability of creating motion.
He held that the universe was ordered for the best.
Plato was more interested in the creation than the creator.
Plato's theory was aimed at two things:
1. To understand similarities between the nature of god and the nature of the world
2. To remind man of his severe limitations of his mind
Plato's religion compared with Christianity
Both Plato's god and God are good
Both are creators
Both create a universe that is ordained and ordered
Plato had a marked influence on Christianity
Plato's god is not an object of worship. Plato's god is not omnipotent.
Criticism of the Forms
Plato's own Criticism: The Parmenides
The problem of spatiotemporal things participating in eternal things is intrinsically confused.
It points out that the particular sense objects and the forms are too far separated and sense objects' participation with forms is not clearly explained.
Plato revised his view to hold that forms and the soul were both reality.
The soul was a bridge between the reality of forms and the sensible world.
Essay #1 For History of Philosophy I
Plato's Theory of Forms
What?
There are two worlds:
1. World of Forms
2. Sensible World
The Republic - Ch. 12 & 13
(Originally written September 24, 2006 in Book 10)
The Republic
Plato
Chapter 12: Happiness and Unhappiness
The happiness/unhappiness of a person correlates to the community they live in
1. Plato's aristocracy - best/happiness
2. Timocracy
3. Oligarchy
4. Democracy
5. Tyranny/Dictatorship - worst/unhappiness
The worst person is the unhappiest/
A person who has a dictatorial mind will be ruled by lust and his whims. He will be fickle and unhappy.
Fear abides in a dictatorship. The dictators fear their subjects plotting to kill them.
There are three types of pleasures, desires and motivations (corresponding to the three parts of the mind)
1. Intellectual part - philosophical
2. Passionate part - ambitious
3. Desire part
Three types of people:
1. Philosophical
2. Competitive
3. Avaricious
Each type of person would claim that their type is the best. The philosopher would hold the other two types as necessary, but no the best.
A philosophical person will experience the other types of pleasure, but an avaricious or competitive pleasure will not seem to him as good as an intellectual one. An avaricious person has no need of intellectual pleasures so they don't seek them.
The philosophical person has experience, intelligence and rationality. This puts them in the best positions to be happy.
There is genuine pleasure and illusionary pleasure. Illusionary pleasure is merely the relief of pain (intermediate)
Pleasure / Illusionary Pleasure / Pain
Genuine pleasures are pleasures of the mind. They are rational pleasure and thus, more real. Since reality is found in the real, not sensory perception (which is betwixt reality and non-reality).
Plato claims that he has proved morality is intrinsically rewarding.
Plato's tripartite mind can be analyzed by relating each part of the mind to an animal:
1. Reason/Rationality - Human
2. Passion - a lion
3. Desire - a mutable monster
"Morality feeds the human being, tames the lion and subdues the monster; immorality - especially if it goes undiscovered - makes one a monster" (Pojman, 227).
Chapter 13 - Poetry and Unreality
Plato attacks poetry and art for being representations of the visible world, which is mere representation of reality.
Poetry appeals to the lower parts of the mind. It ignores the rational part. It invokes emotions and hampers reason.
Poetry does not work to establish a moral inner constitution and can subvert one if one already exists.
"Until or unless it can be proven that feelings foster philosophy, rather than hinder it, we must be extremely wary of them" (Pojman, 235).
Well, I sort of cheated on chapters 12 and 13; but, I'm tired of reading that book.
The Republic
Plato
Chapter 12: Happiness and Unhappiness
The happiness/unhappiness of a person correlates to the community they live in
1. Plato's aristocracy - best/happiness
2. Timocracy
3. Oligarchy
4. Democracy
5. Tyranny/Dictatorship - worst/unhappiness
The worst person is the unhappiest/
A person who has a dictatorial mind will be ruled by lust and his whims. He will be fickle and unhappy.
Fear abides in a dictatorship. The dictators fear their subjects plotting to kill them.
There are three types of pleasures, desires and motivations (corresponding to the three parts of the mind)
1. Intellectual part - philosophical
2. Passionate part - ambitious
3. Desire part
Three types of people:
1. Philosophical
2. Competitive
3. Avaricious
Each type of person would claim that their type is the best. The philosopher would hold the other two types as necessary, but no the best.
A philosophical person will experience the other types of pleasure, but an avaricious or competitive pleasure will not seem to him as good as an intellectual one. An avaricious person has no need of intellectual pleasures so they don't seek them.
The philosophical person has experience, intelligence and rationality. This puts them in the best positions to be happy.
There is genuine pleasure and illusionary pleasure. Illusionary pleasure is merely the relief of pain (intermediate)
Pleasure / Illusionary Pleasure / Pain
Genuine pleasures are pleasures of the mind. They are rational pleasure and thus, more real. Since reality is found in the real, not sensory perception (which is betwixt reality and non-reality).
Plato claims that he has proved morality is intrinsically rewarding.
Plato's tripartite mind can be analyzed by relating each part of the mind to an animal:
1. Reason/Rationality - Human
2. Passion - a lion
3. Desire - a mutable monster
"Morality feeds the human being, tames the lion and subdues the monster; immorality - especially if it goes undiscovered - makes one a monster" (Pojman, 227).
Chapter 13 - Poetry and Unreality
Plato attacks poetry and art for being representations of the visible world, which is mere representation of reality.
Poetry appeals to the lower parts of the mind. It ignores the rational part. It invokes emotions and hampers reason.
Poetry does not work to establish a moral inner constitution and can subvert one if one already exists.
"Until or unless it can be proven that feelings foster philosophy, rather than hinder it, we must be extremely wary of them" (Pojman, 235).
Well, I sort of cheated on chapters 12 and 13; but, I'm tired of reading that book.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Audi and Foundationalism
(Originally written September 22, 2006 in Epistemology)
Knowledge - justified true belief
In light of Gettier, knowledge is justified true belief + x (no false belief, indefeasibility, external factor, etc)
Theories of Justification
1. Foundationalism
-Classical (Chisholm, Descartes)
-Moderate (Audi)
2. Coherentism (Dancy, BonJour)
3. Contextualism (Annis)
Externalists deny that justification is necessary.
Audi - Moderate foundationalist - the foundation of knowledge doesn't have to be infallible, but knowledge must have a foundation.
Classical (Cartesian) foundationalism:
A) Axiomatic: foundational beliefs must be indubitable
B) Deductivism: non-foundational beliefs are justified only if deduced ultimately from the foundational beliefs
C) Internalism: We must know that we know when we know (2nd order requirements)
Moderate (fallibilist) foundationalism:
-Rejects a, b, and c of Cartesian foundationalism, but retains all other elements of foundationalism.
Audi's advantages of falibilistic foundationalism:
1. It solves the regress problem
2. It accords with common sense
3. It is psychologically plausible
4. It integrates epistemology with psychology and biology
5. It is not dogmatic
Knowledge - justified true belief
In light of Gettier, knowledge is justified true belief + x (no false belief, indefeasibility, external factor, etc)
Theories of Justification
1. Foundationalism
-Classical (Chisholm, Descartes)
-Moderate (Audi)
2. Coherentism (Dancy, BonJour)
3. Contextualism (Annis)
Externalists deny that justification is necessary.
Audi - Moderate foundationalist - the foundation of knowledge doesn't have to be infallible, but knowledge must have a foundation.
Classical (Cartesian) foundationalism:
A) Axiomatic: foundational beliefs must be indubitable
B) Deductivism: non-foundational beliefs are justified only if deduced ultimately from the foundational beliefs
C) Internalism: We must know that we know when we know (2nd order requirements)
Moderate (fallibilist) foundationalism:
-Rejects a, b, and c of Cartesian foundationalism, but retains all other elements of foundationalism.
Audi's advantages of falibilistic foundationalism:
1. It solves the regress problem
2. It accords with common sense
3. It is psychologically plausible
4. It integrates epistemology with psychology and biology
5. It is not dogmatic
Thursday, September 21, 2006
A defect in Gettier counter examples?
(Originally written September 21, 2006 in Book 8)
IV. 2 An alleged defect in Gettier Counter Examples
Richard Feldman
Gutter's counter examples have been criticized because they fail due to the belief being based on false propositions. People who criticize this way then accept knowledge as being a justified true belief. But Feldman concludes that other counter examples can be given to show that one can reason from proposition 1 which they now to be true to proposition 2 (also known to be true) to the truth "A", but not have any knowledge of A.
IV. 2 An alleged defect in Gettier Counter Examples
Richard Feldman
Gutter's counter examples have been criticized because they fail due to the belief being based on false propositions. People who criticize this way then accept knowledge as being a justified true belief. But Feldman concludes that other counter examples can be given to show that one can reason from proposition 1 which they now to be true to proposition 2 (also known to be true) to the truth "A", but not have any knowledge of A.
Plato's State, Soul and Virtues
(Originally Written September 21, 2006 in History)
Plato's Parts of State:
1. Workers - to provide
2. Soldiers - to protect
3. Ruler(s) - to order the parts of the state
Plato's parts of Soul:
1. Appetite
2. Spirit
3. Reason
Plato's Virtues:
1. Temperance (self-control)
2. Courage
3. Wisdom
The three virtues, when combined and manifested in man becomes justice. Justice is the harmony of the parts of the soul/state.
Plato's Parts of State:
1. Workers - to provide
2. Soldiers - to protect
3. Ruler(s) - to order the parts of the state
Plato's parts of Soul:
1. Appetite
2. Spirit
3. Reason
Plato's Virtues:
1. Temperance (self-control)
2. Courage
3. Wisdom
The three virtues, when combined and manifested in man becomes justice. Justice is the harmony of the parts of the soul/state.
Plato's Five types of Government
(Originally written September 21, 2006 in Book 10)
Classics of Philosophy
Louis Pojman
The Republic - Plato
"Warped minds, warped societies"
There are five types of governments:
1. Plato's community
2. Oligarchy
3. Democracy
4. The Cretan/Spartan System
5. Noble dictatorship - the ultimate political disease
There are thus, five types of people; one that matches each of the five systems.
Plato's community is an aristocracy/monarchy which is moral and thus inhabited by moral people. Plato's community is best.
The system of the Cretans/Spartans is a devolution of Plato's system and is second best. This system is noted for its ambitious nature and Plato labels it a 'timocracy' or 'timarchy'.
Plato's system of aristocracy is noted for its stable nature. But, Plato notes that his system, like everything else, lacks permanence.
Timarchy is a government that is ruled by people ruled by their passions. A timocracy is a government obsessed with military success and has been corrupted by money.
An aristocracy will degenerate to a timocracy when they abandon their principles of unity and specialization.
Instability cannot occur in an aristocracy because everyone is of the same mind. When unity is broken, instability can occur and an aristocracy will devolve into a Timarchy.
When tension arises between auxiliaries and the rulers the unity is broken and aristocracy devolves into Timarchy.
The military will dominate the society. Their education will focus solely on military tactics and physical training. They will be taught to become totally devoted to the state ambition of conquest.
Ambition will drive men to one of two positions: state controlled drones or personally ambitious.
Those who become ambitious for themselves will lust for money and wealth will corrupt the entire system.
The Timocratic state is an intermediate between Plato's aristocracy and a worse system: an oligarchy.
Aristocracy is different from oligarchy in that while both are the rule of a few, oligarchy chooses its rulers on wealth, not merit.
An oligarchy is a government ruled by desire. Their values are skewed. Instead of goodness they seek money.
Crime is rampant in an oligarchy/
There are two diametrically opposed groups in an oligarchy: the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor. Both groups hate each other and the entire community lives in hatred and fear.
A Timocracy will devolve into an oligarchy. The ambitious nature of the timarchical man will become money lusting and cause him to become a mercenary.
Oligarchs lack courage because they don't want to chance losing their wealth and thus, their power.
The rich are mean-spirited and the poor will do anything to obtain riches.
An oligarchy will become a democracy by the same devolutionary process that an aristocracy becomes a timocracy and a timocracy becomes and oligarchy.
The brutal nature of an oligarchy will lead to a revolution. Out of the revolution a free-for-all democracy will arise.
A democracy has no unity whatsoever. It is a complete lack of discipline.
The insatiable greed of oligarchs will cause the revolution. Their unchecked greed will completely destroy all unity within the community.
Democracy begins when the poor overthrow the rich oligarchs/
Democrats are completely autonomous, they don't specialize in any single field.
Free speech and individualism reigns supreme in the democracies.
Democracy is a little bit of every political system.
Democracy abandons rigorous education and replaces it with a wide variety of choice.
A great deal of people will be honored by claiming to love the public.
Democracy loves to appear as an enjoyable and wonderful system but is completely inept when it tries to accomplish things.
An oligarch is ruled by desires and so too are democrats. Oligarchs are ruled by necessary desires; whereas, democrats are ruled by unnecessary desires.
The democrats are true rebels. They rebel to rebel. Whatever was in an oligarchy is not any longer in that democracy.
An internal civil war produces the same effect in oligarchs turned democrats. A democrat throws out all of the oligarch in himself, even the good parts.
Democracy revels in insubordination, disorder, extravagance and uninhibited desires/actions. They love glory and parade it at any excuse. They use these things to gloss over their corrupt nature.
They call insubordination "erudition". They call disorder "freedom". They call extravagance "magnificence". They call uninhibitedness "courage".
Democrats seek futile pleasures. They make no distinction between good and bad pleasures.
Democrats have no focus, no long-term vision. They are hijacked by every little whim.
Democracy can devolve into a dictatorship.
Democracy has individuals dominated by all forms of pleasures. Dictatorships have people dominated by only the worst and basest of pleasures.
Dictators are so criminal that they cannot be classified as being controlled by any o the three distinct sections of the mind.
The poor of the democratic society will remain unsatisfied and seek out a champion who will rise to become a powerful dictator, who will surround himself with those poor and enslave them.
The democracy's love of freedom is what will drive them to become dictators. Because anyone who blocks any bit of freedom, even if it's good for them, will be seen as a tyrant and become outcasts in society. Freedom, unchecked, will destroy them.
The people's champion will grow and grow in power until one of two thins happen:
1) They will be assassinated
2) They will become a dictator.
A dictator must convince the people they are in need of a strong leader so they will provoke war.
The people of a dictatorship live as slaves to fear and the dictator. It its a broken society.
Classics of Philosophy
Louis Pojman
The Republic - Plato
"Warped minds, warped societies"
There are five types of governments:
1. Plato's community
2. Oligarchy
3. Democracy
4. The Cretan/Spartan System
5. Noble dictatorship - the ultimate political disease
There are thus, five types of people; one that matches each of the five systems.
Plato's community is an aristocracy/monarchy which is moral and thus inhabited by moral people. Plato's community is best.
The system of the Cretans/Spartans is a devolution of Plato's system and is second best. This system is noted for its ambitious nature and Plato labels it a 'timocracy' or 'timarchy'.
Plato's system of aristocracy is noted for its stable nature. But, Plato notes that his system, like everything else, lacks permanence.
Timarchy is a government that is ruled by people ruled by their passions. A timocracy is a government obsessed with military success and has been corrupted by money.
An aristocracy will degenerate to a timocracy when they abandon their principles of unity and specialization.
Instability cannot occur in an aristocracy because everyone is of the same mind. When unity is broken, instability can occur and an aristocracy will devolve into a Timarchy.
When tension arises between auxiliaries and the rulers the unity is broken and aristocracy devolves into Timarchy.
The military will dominate the society. Their education will focus solely on military tactics and physical training. They will be taught to become totally devoted to the state ambition of conquest.
Ambition will drive men to one of two positions: state controlled drones or personally ambitious.
Those who become ambitious for themselves will lust for money and wealth will corrupt the entire system.
The Timocratic state is an intermediate between Plato's aristocracy and a worse system: an oligarchy.
Aristocracy is different from oligarchy in that while both are the rule of a few, oligarchy chooses its rulers on wealth, not merit.
An oligarchy is a government ruled by desire. Their values are skewed. Instead of goodness they seek money.
Crime is rampant in an oligarchy/
There are two diametrically opposed groups in an oligarchy: the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor. Both groups hate each other and the entire community lives in hatred and fear.
A Timocracy will devolve into an oligarchy. The ambitious nature of the timarchical man will become money lusting and cause him to become a mercenary.
Oligarchs lack courage because they don't want to chance losing their wealth and thus, their power.
The rich are mean-spirited and the poor will do anything to obtain riches.
An oligarchy will become a democracy by the same devolutionary process that an aristocracy becomes a timocracy and a timocracy becomes and oligarchy.
The brutal nature of an oligarchy will lead to a revolution. Out of the revolution a free-for-all democracy will arise.
A democracy has no unity whatsoever. It is a complete lack of discipline.
The insatiable greed of oligarchs will cause the revolution. Their unchecked greed will completely destroy all unity within the community.
Democracy begins when the poor overthrow the rich oligarchs/
Democrats are completely autonomous, they don't specialize in any single field.
Free speech and individualism reigns supreme in the democracies.
Democracy is a little bit of every political system.
Democracy abandons rigorous education and replaces it with a wide variety of choice.
A great deal of people will be honored by claiming to love the public.
Democracy loves to appear as an enjoyable and wonderful system but is completely inept when it tries to accomplish things.
An oligarch is ruled by desires and so too are democrats. Oligarchs are ruled by necessary desires; whereas, democrats are ruled by unnecessary desires.
The democrats are true rebels. They rebel to rebel. Whatever was in an oligarchy is not any longer in that democracy.
An internal civil war produces the same effect in oligarchs turned democrats. A democrat throws out all of the oligarch in himself, even the good parts.
Democracy revels in insubordination, disorder, extravagance and uninhibited desires/actions. They love glory and parade it at any excuse. They use these things to gloss over their corrupt nature.
They call insubordination "erudition". They call disorder "freedom". They call extravagance "magnificence". They call uninhibitedness "courage".
Democrats seek futile pleasures. They make no distinction between good and bad pleasures.
Democrats have no focus, no long-term vision. They are hijacked by every little whim.
Democracy can devolve into a dictatorship.
Democracy has individuals dominated by all forms of pleasures. Dictatorships have people dominated by only the worst and basest of pleasures.
Dictators are so criminal that they cannot be classified as being controlled by any o the three distinct sections of the mind.
The poor of the democratic society will remain unsatisfied and seek out a champion who will rise to become a powerful dictator, who will surround himself with those poor and enslave them.
The democracy's love of freedom is what will drive them to become dictators. Because anyone who blocks any bit of freedom, even if it's good for them, will be seen as a tyrant and become outcasts in society. Freedom, unchecked, will destroy them.
The people's champion will grow and grow in power until one of two thins happen:
1) They will be assassinated
2) They will become a dictator.
A dictator must convince the people they are in need of a strong leader so they will provoke war.
The people of a dictatorship live as slaves to fear and the dictator. It its a broken society.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Noetic Structures
(Originally written September 20, 2006 in Epistemology)
Noetic Structure - refers to all of one's beliefs and these beliefs relationships to one another
i.e. belief z justifies belief y, belief y justifies belief x, belief x justifies belief w... etc. etc.
Where does the chain stop? Four solutions:
1) all of our beliefs are ultimately derived from unjustified beliefs
2) there is no end to this chain
3) The chain of beliefs is circular
4) The chain terminates in beliefs that need no further justification (Chisholm's view)
Chisholm subscribes to foundationalism and coherentism
Foundationalism:
1) Classic foundationalism - infallible/absolute
2) fallibilist/moderate
Directly evident - the truth of x is what justifies the proposition
Indirectly evident - truths based upon the directly evident
Noetic Structure - refers to all of one's beliefs and these beliefs relationships to one another
i.e. belief z justifies belief y, belief y justifies belief x, belief x justifies belief w... etc. etc.
Where does the chain stop? Four solutions:
1) all of our beliefs are ultimately derived from unjustified beliefs
2) there is no end to this chain
3) The chain of beliefs is circular
4) The chain terminates in beliefs that need no further justification (Chisholm's view)
Chisholm subscribes to foundationalism and coherentism
Foundationalism:
1) Classic foundationalism - infallible/absolute
2) fallibilist/moderate
Directly evident - the truth of x is what justifies the proposition
Indirectly evident - truths based upon the directly evident
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Class notes on Plato
(Originally written September 19, 2006 in Book 10)
History of Philosophy I Class Notes
Plato (427 BC - 347 BC)
Influenced by: Socrates, Pythagoreanism
Major Themes
History of Philosophy I Class Notes
Plato (427 BC - 347 BC)
Influenced by: Socrates, Pythagoreanism
Major Themes
- Dialectic
- The Soul is Paramount
- Theory of Forms (eternal ideas)
- Learning is recollection
- Virtue is the fulfillment of function
- Justice is a harmony of parts
Justice
- Ethical
- Political
BK I
Thrasymachus: Justice is what is in the interest of the stronger party
Socrates: When a ruler makes a mistake and it is followed despite it being not in the strong's advantage.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Republic, Ch. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11
(Originally written September 17, 2006 in Book 10)
Plato's Republic
Ch. 6 continued...
This morality so far has been applied only to the community as a whole, not to individuals.
A moral individual will resemble a moral society.
"A community was moral when each of the three natural classes that exist within it did its own job, and also other states and conditions of the same three classes made it self-disciplined and courageous and wise" (Pojman, 145).
Humans resemble the society they live in because the society springs from their nature.
There is a category of the human mind which contains desires, the most prevalent of which are thirst and hunger.
There is a category of the human mind which possesses rationality.
There is a category of the human mind which possess passions.
The Rationality of the mind seeks higher goals (akin to the Guardians).
The Passions seek desire (akin to the Auxiliaries)
The Animal instinct, that which seeks food, drink and sex (akin to the Workers)
Individual morality consists of harmony between the three distinct parts of the mind. Individual immorality is the result of inner conflict or civil war of the mind.
Each part of the mind must properly perform its job and not overstep its bound for their to be a moral individual.
The rational part of the mind must be educated and stretched to reach its full potential. The passions part of the mind must be inculcated with music to soothe and relax it. Once these two parts have been properly trained they will be able to control the larger part: desire.
Desire is the insatiable and greed for tis objects of desire.
The rational part will devise plans to stop unwelcome invasions from outside sources and the passion part will defend it with courage.
The rational part of the mind is the ruler of the mind, the source of wisdom.
The passions part of the mind is the auxiliaries; it is courage.
Self-discipline is the rational part being the rule and the other two parts being willing subjects.
Immorality is any part of the mind overstepping its bounds and intruding on another's rules. It is indiscipline, cowardice and stupidity, any form of badness.
Goodness springs from morality because morality is in accordance with proper nature. Morality is mental health; immorality is mental disease and the source of badness.
Goodness is a consequent of good conduct and badness a consequent of bad conduct.
The community of Plato can be either a kingship (monarchy) or aristocracy. Either way the rulers will be educated properly and the outcome the same.
Chapter 7: Women, Children and Welfare
Plato calls his community good and right (and thus the people individually are good and right). There are four other types of communities which are bad and flawed and corrupt the nature of their inhabitants.
Glaucon, Adeimantus, and Thrasymachus demand an explanation of Socrates' idea of "sharing wives and children"
Socrates admits that he purposefully omitted a detailed discussion because of its enormity. He is also nervous about the plausibility of the topic in being put into action and doesn't want to be accused of wishful thinking. He doesn't want to lead anyone astray because he has not fully formulated his theory.
He starts with equality among male and female guardians. He maintains that convention must be ignored because it may be wrong. (Men and women were not equal in Greece).
The guardians are to be shepherds, the auxiliaries are to be sheepdogs and the workers to be the flock.
Men and women guardians must be educated in exactly the same way.
Men and women auxiliaries must be trained in the same way.
Socrates admits the impractical nature of his proposal. One major, obvious instance is the training in the gymnasium (all gymnasium training was done in the nude). He reminds them though that it used to be mocked for men to train nude, so time could make it reasonable for women to do the same.
Because of the nature of men and women being different they are suited for different tasks. In this system they cannot have the same jobs because it would contradict the system of one nature = one job. Socrates dismisses this criticism as pure rhetoric. It is a verbal distinction masked as a pure critique. He compares it to distinguishing the nature of haired men and bald men.
The nature of men and women can differ vastly but a woman with a medical mind and a man with a medical mind have a nature similar enough to make them both suitable doctors. "If the only difference turns out to be that females bear offspring while males mount females... we'll continue to think that our guardians and their women should have the same occupations" (Pojman, 156).
While females are the weaker sex they can possess the aptitude to be guardians.
Men and women are separate classes. Men are compared to men; women compared to women. The best men are guardians because they are better than other men. The best women are guardians because they are better than all other women. (If a worker man is better than a guardian woman it makes no difference, though this is unlikely because women guardians will have a fine education and the worker man only a skill).
There is no private marriage in the guardian class. All women are to be shared with all men. All children are to be likewise shared. No child is to know who he/she is the child of. No mother or father is to know who he/she is the parent of. The guardians are to be one big incestuous family.
The rulers must employ a bit of deceit to make people believe that sex should only occur between two people of similar standing. That way the best will be procreated and rampant, undisciplined sexual conquests will be minimized.
The rulers will need to employ a fake, but seemingly real, lottery system to have sex. That way the rulers can choose the best mating pairs and the inferior men/women will blame chance for not getting picked and not the rulers.
Women and men should procreate in their prime. Men 25-55; Women 20-40
The act of sex will be performed on fabricated holidays. That way the public will believe that children born out of this time have been blessed and children born out of some other time are not. This will deter too many sexual encounters.
When men and women have passed their prime they are free to have sex whenever, with whomever, but the child must be aborted.
Fathers cannot have sex with daughters and mothers cannot have sex with sons, but these are merely generations because obviously no one knows their true kin.
The regulations of the guardian class are aimed at eradicating possessions and a feeling of possessiveness.
The best thing for a community is anything that unifies it. The word thing for any community is that which splits it.
This system of community wives/husbands/children is best because it brings unity.
Fear and respect will keep the younger guardians in line.
Men and women will fight alongside one another in war and take children to learn. The soldiers will know all there is to know about warfare and bring the children to learn only when it is as safe as it can be.
Children will also be on horseback in case the danger becomes too great.
Anyone who fights like a coward or deserts will be demoted to the worker class. Anyone who is brave in battle is to be commended and given free reign to be kissed and kiss anyone he chooses. This is also an incentive for bravery.
Those who die bravely in battle will be crowned deities and their tombs will become worship sites. (Those who are brave in battle and die of old age will receive the same treatment)
If their enemies are non-Greeks then they can enslave them. But Greeks ought not fight other Greeks and definitely not enslave them.
Good soldiers ought not to defile corpses because it is wrong and because it can promote cowardice.
They should not destroy other Greek's homes and crops, but only take the year's harvest in victory.
Conflict between Greeks ought to be called conflict because it is internal. A war is between Greek and non-Greek states.
By not completely devastating another Greek community and only taking one year's crop the two communities can escape perpetual warfare and move towards reconciliation; a goal al Greeks ought to aspire to.
This way conflicts (Greek vs. Greek) are disciplinary actions, not actions motivated by hatred.
Chapter 8: Philosopher Kings
The feasibility of this community is that it can only come to fruition when philosophers become kings or when kings become philosophers.
Socrates starts by pointing out that this community is theoretical and if one were to become actual it would be less perfect than the theoretical community.
Until philosophers become kings or kings practice philosophy with integrity all political systems will be flawed and bad. Political power and philosophy must coincide.
What is a philosopher?
A lover of something must love/desire the whole of it, not an aspect or part. (This is a truly disturbing passage, ca 474d-475b, but pedophilic homosexuality was custom in Greece)
A philosopher is a lover of knowledge. A philosopher's hunger for knowledge of all sorts must be insatiable.
People who enjoy one type of knowledge/expertise with an insatiable appetite for that singular particular branch are not philosophers, but resemble them.
Philosophers seek out things in and of themselves, not things that resemble it. (i.e. a painting is beautiful, but it is not itself beauty. It is a particular manifestation of beauty). Philosophers would seek knowledge of beauty, not knowledge of a particular thing which is beautiful.
Beauty (and things like it) are more real than beautiful things. Thus, anyone seeking more real things seeks truth, which is knowledge; whereas those seeking particular things obtain opinions and beliefs.
Particular things fall between reality and non-reality. Anything that has reality is knowable. Anything that has non-reality is unknowable. Those things that fall between reality and non-reality therefore is somewhere between knowable and unknowable. We cannot call it knowledge because knowledge is reserved for absolute reality. We can't call it unknowable because that is reserved for non-reality. Thus, it must be opinion/belief.
Faculties are those things that give human beings their abilities, i.e. sight, hearing, etc.
Knowledge is the strongest faculty. Opinion/belief is likewise a faculty. Every faculty has its own domain. Therefore knowledge and opinion/belief must have different domains.
The domain of knowledge is reality. Thus belief is not accessible to reality.
Belief cannot be knowledge, nor can it be incomprehension. It is an intermediate between the two.
Philosophers are lovers of knowledge, thus lovers of reality. This is a virtue which would do well for a ruler. Reality is permanent and undying.
Philosophers are as good as any other man in practical aspects and have an advantage because they have a sense for reality.
Philosophers are tenacious and unwavering in their pursuit of the whole./
Philosophers are honest. They are incapable of tolerating falsehood/.
They are self-disciplined. He is not caught up in petty details. He is not small-minded. He will not fear death. He is unswayed by money. He is moral. He is a quick learner, not anti-social, well-angered, and not uncouth. He is not forgetful. His mind must have a knack for proportion and elegance. He is to be cultured. All of these qualities are noticeable at a young age and moldable through proper education.
A true philosopher then, is fit to rule a community.
The common perception of philosophers is that stye are either useless or bad.
Philosophers appear to be useless because the public is so narrow minded that they cannot see anything beyond their immediate gratification.
A true philosopher is a rare human nature.
If an exceptional mind is subjected to bad education it will become exceptionally bad.
Goodness cannot be taught. A person is naturally good or bad. But, when they are swayed by threat or praise all minds are susceptible to falling in with the masses.
The masses are swayed by whims; but philosophers are not swayed. If the masses' opinion changes to something against the philosopher than the philosopher will be regarded as wrong.
Socrates claims there isn't a single political structure in existence that is favorable to philosophy.
Chapter Nine: The Supremacy of the Good
Normally men who learn quickly are carried off into every which way, but philosophers must be quick to learn and remain steadfast in their love of country.
Goodness is the most fundamental quality of a guardian. It is what gives morality its benefit and value.
Some people call pleasure the good and some high browed individuals call knowledge the good. Both are mistaken.
Goodness is the goal of all activities of all men/women.
Socrates admits he cannot give a proper definition of goodness, but can explain it through a simile somewhat. Light is the thing that makes it possible for us to see. Our sight depends on an outside source for it to work. Each of our eyes resembles this light giver, which is the sun. Sight is not granted by the Sun, but it is enabled by the sun. Goodness is like the sun. It enables us to have knowledge, but does not provide it itself.
When goodness is gone or dim (as with a light) knowledge is unattainable and all one can have is murky beliefs.
Goodness gives things its truth and the possibility of knowledge to us. Knowledge and truth resemble goodness, but neither are goodness.
The Analogy of the Cave
All men are trapped in the cave. There is a fire in the back that causes shadows of the men to move along the wall. All men in the cave can only see the shadows. They believe that those shadows are the true reality. But one man escapes from the cave. He cannot see clearly right away because his eyes are not used to the sunlight. Slowly but surely he begins to see and comprehend the world outside of the cave. He is now contemplating and comprehending the goodness. Understanding the goodness compels him to return to the cave and free all of his fellow prisoners. But his eyes cannot adjust back to the darkness and all who hear his story believe he is mad. But knowing the goodness he is compelled to enlighten everyone.
Education is the cultivation of person's potentials.
The guardians must come to know the good but mustn't be allowed to stay up there. They must educate all their fellow prisoners. This way the rulers will know that no material goods can substitute for the good and won't be tempted to acquire private wealth and guide the whole community toward the good.
Chapter 11 Warped Minds, Warped Societies
There are five political systems. The community they founded is the only good and right one.
What are the other four?
1. The Cretan & Spartan system
2. Oligarch
3. Democracy
4. Noble Dictatorship (The ultimate political disease)
With five political systems there are five natures of people.
Aristocracy is their system and the person within this system has been proved to be moral.
The person of the Cretan/Spartan system is competitive and ambitions. Socrates calls this system a timocracy. A timocracy is an aristocracy gone bad by the passions ruling and corruption of money. The timocracy falls between the system it grew out of (aristocracy) and oligarchy. The timocracy will be ruled by money hungry politicians, but because they want to appear as an aristocracy they will do it ins secret and become mean-spirited. They will stress physical training, but neglect philosophy, culture are reason. The persons of this society will be ambitious, eager to submit to authority, but wanting power. They will be obstinate. They will grow into mercenaries.
An oligarchy is a system in which a wealthy few rule. They love money over goodness. The oligarchy lacks unity and individuals are valued over society as the whole. Envy corrupts the oligarchical community. Wealth is admired and goodness is despised. There becomes a rigid two class-system: the extremely poor and the lavishly wealthy. They will despise one another and plot against each other. They will fail in war. Their rulers will be pseudo-rulers and fail in their duties. Crime will rise out of the utter poverty. It is caused by a poor political system, bad upbringing and poor education. They will use property value for ruling criterion, which inevitably leads to bad ruling.
A timocratic person will devolve into an oligarchic person at the loss of wealth. He will abandon ambition and take to hoarding money and became a mercenary.
An oligarch will put the highest value on money. He will become ascetic. He will attempt to make profit out of every situation. But he will be unwilling to spend it. He will be uneducated and stupid.
They will be criminals as guardians and beggars elsewhere. They will be quick to spend other people's money to fulfill their drone desires.
Plato's Republic
Ch. 6 continued...
This morality so far has been applied only to the community as a whole, not to individuals.
A moral individual will resemble a moral society.
"A community was moral when each of the three natural classes that exist within it did its own job, and also other states and conditions of the same three classes made it self-disciplined and courageous and wise" (Pojman, 145).
Humans resemble the society they live in because the society springs from their nature.
There is a category of the human mind which contains desires, the most prevalent of which are thirst and hunger.
There is a category of the human mind which possesses rationality.
There is a category of the human mind which possess passions.
The Rationality of the mind seeks higher goals (akin to the Guardians).
The Passions seek desire (akin to the Auxiliaries)
The Animal instinct, that which seeks food, drink and sex (akin to the Workers)
Individual morality consists of harmony between the three distinct parts of the mind. Individual immorality is the result of inner conflict or civil war of the mind.
Each part of the mind must properly perform its job and not overstep its bound for their to be a moral individual.
The rational part of the mind must be educated and stretched to reach its full potential. The passions part of the mind must be inculcated with music to soothe and relax it. Once these two parts have been properly trained they will be able to control the larger part: desire.
Desire is the insatiable and greed for tis objects of desire.
The rational part will devise plans to stop unwelcome invasions from outside sources and the passion part will defend it with courage.
The rational part of the mind is the ruler of the mind, the source of wisdom.
The passions part of the mind is the auxiliaries; it is courage.
Self-discipline is the rational part being the rule and the other two parts being willing subjects.
Immorality is any part of the mind overstepping its bounds and intruding on another's rules. It is indiscipline, cowardice and stupidity, any form of badness.
Goodness springs from morality because morality is in accordance with proper nature. Morality is mental health; immorality is mental disease and the source of badness.
Goodness is a consequent of good conduct and badness a consequent of bad conduct.
The community of Plato can be either a kingship (monarchy) or aristocracy. Either way the rulers will be educated properly and the outcome the same.
Chapter 7: Women, Children and Welfare
Plato calls his community good and right (and thus the people individually are good and right). There are four other types of communities which are bad and flawed and corrupt the nature of their inhabitants.
Glaucon, Adeimantus, and Thrasymachus demand an explanation of Socrates' idea of "sharing wives and children"
Socrates admits that he purposefully omitted a detailed discussion because of its enormity. He is also nervous about the plausibility of the topic in being put into action and doesn't want to be accused of wishful thinking. He doesn't want to lead anyone astray because he has not fully formulated his theory.
He starts with equality among male and female guardians. He maintains that convention must be ignored because it may be wrong. (Men and women were not equal in Greece).
The guardians are to be shepherds, the auxiliaries are to be sheepdogs and the workers to be the flock.
Men and women guardians must be educated in exactly the same way.
Men and women auxiliaries must be trained in the same way.
Socrates admits the impractical nature of his proposal. One major, obvious instance is the training in the gymnasium (all gymnasium training was done in the nude). He reminds them though that it used to be mocked for men to train nude, so time could make it reasonable for women to do the same.
Because of the nature of men and women being different they are suited for different tasks. In this system they cannot have the same jobs because it would contradict the system of one nature = one job. Socrates dismisses this criticism as pure rhetoric. It is a verbal distinction masked as a pure critique. He compares it to distinguishing the nature of haired men and bald men.
The nature of men and women can differ vastly but a woman with a medical mind and a man with a medical mind have a nature similar enough to make them both suitable doctors. "If the only difference turns out to be that females bear offspring while males mount females... we'll continue to think that our guardians and their women should have the same occupations" (Pojman, 156).
While females are the weaker sex they can possess the aptitude to be guardians.
Men and women are separate classes. Men are compared to men; women compared to women. The best men are guardians because they are better than other men. The best women are guardians because they are better than all other women. (If a worker man is better than a guardian woman it makes no difference, though this is unlikely because women guardians will have a fine education and the worker man only a skill).
There is no private marriage in the guardian class. All women are to be shared with all men. All children are to be likewise shared. No child is to know who he/she is the child of. No mother or father is to know who he/she is the parent of. The guardians are to be one big incestuous family.
The rulers must employ a bit of deceit to make people believe that sex should only occur between two people of similar standing. That way the best will be procreated and rampant, undisciplined sexual conquests will be minimized.
The rulers will need to employ a fake, but seemingly real, lottery system to have sex. That way the rulers can choose the best mating pairs and the inferior men/women will blame chance for not getting picked and not the rulers.
Women and men should procreate in their prime. Men 25-55; Women 20-40
The act of sex will be performed on fabricated holidays. That way the public will believe that children born out of this time have been blessed and children born out of some other time are not. This will deter too many sexual encounters.
When men and women have passed their prime they are free to have sex whenever, with whomever, but the child must be aborted.
Fathers cannot have sex with daughters and mothers cannot have sex with sons, but these are merely generations because obviously no one knows their true kin.
The regulations of the guardian class are aimed at eradicating possessions and a feeling of possessiveness.
The best thing for a community is anything that unifies it. The word thing for any community is that which splits it.
This system of community wives/husbands/children is best because it brings unity.
Fear and respect will keep the younger guardians in line.
Men and women will fight alongside one another in war and take children to learn. The soldiers will know all there is to know about warfare and bring the children to learn only when it is as safe as it can be.
Children will also be on horseback in case the danger becomes too great.
Anyone who fights like a coward or deserts will be demoted to the worker class. Anyone who is brave in battle is to be commended and given free reign to be kissed and kiss anyone he chooses. This is also an incentive for bravery.
Those who die bravely in battle will be crowned deities and their tombs will become worship sites. (Those who are brave in battle and die of old age will receive the same treatment)
If their enemies are non-Greeks then they can enslave them. But Greeks ought not fight other Greeks and definitely not enslave them.
Good soldiers ought not to defile corpses because it is wrong and because it can promote cowardice.
They should not destroy other Greek's homes and crops, but only take the year's harvest in victory.
Conflict between Greeks ought to be called conflict because it is internal. A war is between Greek and non-Greek states.
By not completely devastating another Greek community and only taking one year's crop the two communities can escape perpetual warfare and move towards reconciliation; a goal al Greeks ought to aspire to.
This way conflicts (Greek vs. Greek) are disciplinary actions, not actions motivated by hatred.
Chapter 8: Philosopher Kings
The feasibility of this community is that it can only come to fruition when philosophers become kings or when kings become philosophers.
Socrates starts by pointing out that this community is theoretical and if one were to become actual it would be less perfect than the theoretical community.
Until philosophers become kings or kings practice philosophy with integrity all political systems will be flawed and bad. Political power and philosophy must coincide.
What is a philosopher?
A lover of something must love/desire the whole of it, not an aspect or part. (This is a truly disturbing passage, ca 474d-475b, but pedophilic homosexuality was custom in Greece)
A philosopher is a lover of knowledge. A philosopher's hunger for knowledge of all sorts must be insatiable.
People who enjoy one type of knowledge/expertise with an insatiable appetite for that singular particular branch are not philosophers, but resemble them.
Philosophers seek out things in and of themselves, not things that resemble it. (i.e. a painting is beautiful, but it is not itself beauty. It is a particular manifestation of beauty). Philosophers would seek knowledge of beauty, not knowledge of a particular thing which is beautiful.
Beauty (and things like it) are more real than beautiful things. Thus, anyone seeking more real things seeks truth, which is knowledge; whereas those seeking particular things obtain opinions and beliefs.
Particular things fall between reality and non-reality. Anything that has reality is knowable. Anything that has non-reality is unknowable. Those things that fall between reality and non-reality therefore is somewhere between knowable and unknowable. We cannot call it knowledge because knowledge is reserved for absolute reality. We can't call it unknowable because that is reserved for non-reality. Thus, it must be opinion/belief.
Faculties are those things that give human beings their abilities, i.e. sight, hearing, etc.
Knowledge is the strongest faculty. Opinion/belief is likewise a faculty. Every faculty has its own domain. Therefore knowledge and opinion/belief must have different domains.
The domain of knowledge is reality. Thus belief is not accessible to reality.
Belief cannot be knowledge, nor can it be incomprehension. It is an intermediate between the two.
Philosophers are lovers of knowledge, thus lovers of reality. This is a virtue which would do well for a ruler. Reality is permanent and undying.
Philosophers are as good as any other man in practical aspects and have an advantage because they have a sense for reality.
Philosophers are tenacious and unwavering in their pursuit of the whole./
Philosophers are honest. They are incapable of tolerating falsehood/.
They are self-disciplined. He is not caught up in petty details. He is not small-minded. He will not fear death. He is unswayed by money. He is moral. He is a quick learner, not anti-social, well-angered, and not uncouth. He is not forgetful. His mind must have a knack for proportion and elegance. He is to be cultured. All of these qualities are noticeable at a young age and moldable through proper education.
A true philosopher then, is fit to rule a community.
The common perception of philosophers is that stye are either useless or bad.
Philosophers appear to be useless because the public is so narrow minded that they cannot see anything beyond their immediate gratification.
A true philosopher is a rare human nature.
If an exceptional mind is subjected to bad education it will become exceptionally bad.
Goodness cannot be taught. A person is naturally good or bad. But, when they are swayed by threat or praise all minds are susceptible to falling in with the masses.
The masses are swayed by whims; but philosophers are not swayed. If the masses' opinion changes to something against the philosopher than the philosopher will be regarded as wrong.
Socrates claims there isn't a single political structure in existence that is favorable to philosophy.
Chapter Nine: The Supremacy of the Good
Normally men who learn quickly are carried off into every which way, but philosophers must be quick to learn and remain steadfast in their love of country.
Goodness is the most fundamental quality of a guardian. It is what gives morality its benefit and value.
Some people call pleasure the good and some high browed individuals call knowledge the good. Both are mistaken.
Goodness is the goal of all activities of all men/women.
Socrates admits he cannot give a proper definition of goodness, but can explain it through a simile somewhat. Light is the thing that makes it possible for us to see. Our sight depends on an outside source for it to work. Each of our eyes resembles this light giver, which is the sun. Sight is not granted by the Sun, but it is enabled by the sun. Goodness is like the sun. It enables us to have knowledge, but does not provide it itself.
When goodness is gone or dim (as with a light) knowledge is unattainable and all one can have is murky beliefs.
Goodness gives things its truth and the possibility of knowledge to us. Knowledge and truth resemble goodness, but neither are goodness.
The Analogy of the Cave
All men are trapped in the cave. There is a fire in the back that causes shadows of the men to move along the wall. All men in the cave can only see the shadows. They believe that those shadows are the true reality. But one man escapes from the cave. He cannot see clearly right away because his eyes are not used to the sunlight. Slowly but surely he begins to see and comprehend the world outside of the cave. He is now contemplating and comprehending the goodness. Understanding the goodness compels him to return to the cave and free all of his fellow prisoners. But his eyes cannot adjust back to the darkness and all who hear his story believe he is mad. But knowing the goodness he is compelled to enlighten everyone.
Education is the cultivation of person's potentials.
The guardians must come to know the good but mustn't be allowed to stay up there. They must educate all their fellow prisoners. This way the rulers will know that no material goods can substitute for the good and won't be tempted to acquire private wealth and guide the whole community toward the good.
Chapter 11 Warped Minds, Warped Societies
There are five political systems. The community they founded is the only good and right one.
What are the other four?
1. The Cretan & Spartan system
2. Oligarch
3. Democracy
4. Noble Dictatorship (The ultimate political disease)
With five political systems there are five natures of people.
Aristocracy is their system and the person within this system has been proved to be moral.
The person of the Cretan/Spartan system is competitive and ambitions. Socrates calls this system a timocracy. A timocracy is an aristocracy gone bad by the passions ruling and corruption of money. The timocracy falls between the system it grew out of (aristocracy) and oligarchy. The timocracy will be ruled by money hungry politicians, but because they want to appear as an aristocracy they will do it ins secret and become mean-spirited. They will stress physical training, but neglect philosophy, culture are reason. The persons of this society will be ambitious, eager to submit to authority, but wanting power. They will be obstinate. They will grow into mercenaries.
An oligarchy is a system in which a wealthy few rule. They love money over goodness. The oligarchy lacks unity and individuals are valued over society as the whole. Envy corrupts the oligarchical community. Wealth is admired and goodness is despised. There becomes a rigid two class-system: the extremely poor and the lavishly wealthy. They will despise one another and plot against each other. They will fail in war. Their rulers will be pseudo-rulers and fail in their duties. Crime will rise out of the utter poverty. It is caused by a poor political system, bad upbringing and poor education. They will use property value for ruling criterion, which inevitably leads to bad ruling.
A timocratic person will devolve into an oligarchic person at the loss of wealth. He will abandon ambition and take to hoarding money and became a mercenary.
An oligarch will put the highest value on money. He will become ascetic. He will attempt to make profit out of every situation. But he will be unwilling to spend it. He will be uneducated and stupid.
They will be criminals as guardians and beggars elsewhere. They will be quick to spend other people's money to fulfill their drone desires.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Notes on the Republic Ch. 6b
(Originally written September 16, 2006 in Book 10)
Plato's Republic Ch. 6 continued
Today was absolute shit. The most exciting thing is I have to work from 10pm - 8 am. Hooray!
The guardians are fewer in number than any other group of people and are responsible for the community's wisdom.
The bravery or lack thereof, of the guardians and workers would have no effect on the community. The bravery/courage of the community will be supplied by the auxiliaries.
The soldiers will be selected for their character and then through proper and rigorous education the soldiers can be instilled with a courage that will never falter.
Self-discipline is a self-mastery, a control over one's pleasures and desires. It is the better portion of a man controlling his own worse parts.
Rationality is reserved for "those few people who have been endowed with excellence by their nature and their eduction" (Pojman, 163). Rationality allows the privileged a chance to escape most of the pains, pleasures and desires which harm self-discipline.
The workers will suffer from the largest quantity of pleasures, pains and desires. The desires of the masses (workers) will be checked by the intelligence of the guardians.
Self-discipline spreads over all three classes.
Self-discipline is the harmony of society bringing its best and worst elements into a perfect unity.
Morality is everyone in the community performing their specific duty and not overstepping their bounds.
Plato claims there are three parts of the mind, or that man has a tripartite mind. Each part has distinctive desires, aims, objectives and pleasures:
1) instinctive desire
2) the desire for one's overall good
3) the desire for good results based on one's self-image
Plato's Republic Ch. 6 continued
Today was absolute shit. The most exciting thing is I have to work from 10pm - 8 am. Hooray!
The guardians are fewer in number than any other group of people and are responsible for the community's wisdom.
The bravery or lack thereof, of the guardians and workers would have no effect on the community. The bravery/courage of the community will be supplied by the auxiliaries.
The soldiers will be selected for their character and then through proper and rigorous education the soldiers can be instilled with a courage that will never falter.
Self-discipline is a self-mastery, a control over one's pleasures and desires. It is the better portion of a man controlling his own worse parts.
Rationality is reserved for "those few people who have been endowed with excellence by their nature and their eduction" (Pojman, 163). Rationality allows the privileged a chance to escape most of the pains, pleasures and desires which harm self-discipline.
The workers will suffer from the largest quantity of pleasures, pains and desires. The desires of the masses (workers) will be checked by the intelligence of the guardians.
Self-discipline spreads over all three classes.
Self-discipline is the harmony of society bringing its best and worst elements into a perfect unity.
Morality is everyone in the community performing their specific duty and not overstepping their bounds.
Plato claims there are three parts of the mind, or that man has a tripartite mind. Each part has distinctive desires, aims, objectives and pleasures:
1) instinctive desire
2) the desire for one's overall good
3) the desire for good results based on one's self-image
Friday, September 15, 2006
Notes on the Republic Ch. 6a
(Originally written September 15, 2006 in Book 10)
Plato's Republic
Ch. 6 - Inner and Outer Morality
Plato's community has four elements of goodness:
1) Wisdom
2) Courage
3) Self-discipline
4) Morality
The community's wisdom comes from the thought and resourcefulness of the guardians.
The community's courage comes from the bravery of the auxiliaries.
The Community's self-discipline comes from the submissive nature of the workers.
The community's morality comes from each member of each class acting in accordance with their class duties/responsibilities and not over stepping those boundaries.
Plato's Republic
Ch. 6 - Inner and Outer Morality
Plato's community has four elements of goodness:
1) Wisdom
2) Courage
3) Self-discipline
4) Morality
The community's wisdom comes from the thought and resourcefulness of the guardians.
The community's courage comes from the bravery of the auxiliaries.
The Community's self-discipline comes from the submissive nature of the workers.
The community's morality comes from each member of each class acting in accordance with their class duties/responsibilities and not over stepping those boundaries.
Book notes on Gettier
(Originally written September 15, 2006 in Book 8)
Part IV The Analysis of Knowledge
IV. 1 Is justified true belief knowledge?
Edmund Gettier (1927 - )
Plato:
S knows P if
1) P is true
2) S believes P
3) S is justified in believing P
Chisholm:
S knows P if
1) S accepts P
2) S has adequate evidence that P is true
3) P is true
Ayer:
S knows P if
1) P is true
2) S is sure that P is true
3) S has the right to be sure that P is true
Case I: Suppose S & J have each applied for the same position.
S has strong evidence for proposition "D".
"D" - Jones is the man who will get the job and Jones has 10 coins in his pocket.
Proposition "D" entails the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.
But in fact S gets the job and buy chance he has ten coins in his pocket.
Proposition "D" turns out to be true and despite knowing with a justified belief that "D" is true he couldn't have possibly had knowledge of it.
Case II: S has strong evidence for proposition "F", Jones owns a Ford.
S has a friend named B, but has no idea where B is.
Therefore S can state
1) J owns a Ford or B is in Boston
2) J owns a Ford or B is in Barcelona
3) J owns a Ford or B is in Bologna
In fact, Jones does not own a Ford and B is in Boston. That makes proposition 1 true, but in spite of his evidence, S had no knowledge of it.
Part IV The Analysis of Knowledge
IV. 1 Is justified true belief knowledge?
Edmund Gettier (1927 - )
Plato:
S knows P if
1) P is true
2) S believes P
3) S is justified in believing P
Chisholm:
S knows P if
1) S accepts P
2) S has adequate evidence that P is true
3) P is true
Ayer:
S knows P if
1) P is true
2) S is sure that P is true
3) S has the right to be sure that P is true
Case I: Suppose S & J have each applied for the same position.
S has strong evidence for proposition "D".
"D" - Jones is the man who will get the job and Jones has 10 coins in his pocket.
Proposition "D" entails the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.
But in fact S gets the job and buy chance he has ten coins in his pocket.
Proposition "D" turns out to be true and despite knowing with a justified belief that "D" is true he couldn't have possibly had knowledge of it.
Case II: S has strong evidence for proposition "F", Jones owns a Ford.
S has a friend named B, but has no idea where B is.
Therefore S can state
1) J owns a Ford or B is in Boston
2) J owns a Ford or B is in Barcelona
3) J owns a Ford or B is in Bologna
In fact, Jones does not own a Ford and B is in Boston. That makes proposition 1 true, but in spite of his evidence, S had no knowledge of it.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Notes on the Republic Ch. 2-5
(Originally written September 14, 2006 in Book 10)
Classics of Philosophy
Louis Pojman
The Republic
Plato
Chapter 2: The challenge to Socrates
Glaucon and Adeimantus (Plato's brothers) demand a full justification of Socrates' claim that morality enables one to prosper.
Glaucon holds that morality is not good, only a lesser evil.
Adeimantus holds that morality is valued only for its external rewards.
Socrates has to prove that morality is intrinsically good and that it contributes towards a person's happiness.
Glaucon sets out to:
1) Explain the usual view of morality
2) Show that it is practiced reluctantly as a necessary thing, not a good thing.
3) Show that this is unreasonable because an immoral man is happy than a moral one
Morality is originated by people coming into contacts with one another and forming laws.
Morality is a compromise. It isn't good, but it is valued because it prevents wrong doing.
If people are given a choice between morality and immorality people will always choose immorality. If someone were to choose morality if given a choice, he would rightly be seen as a fool.
The pinnacle of immorality is being immoral while still appearing to be moral.
If we are to truly believe that a person is moral for morality's sake, we must treat him as a sinner and see if he will still live as a saint. Then we can gauge who is happier: a moral person or an immoral person.
Adeimantes then barks in and defines morality from the standpoint of the rewards it brings.
Adeimantes claims that the gods give moral people rewards.
Adeimantes affirms that appearance of morality is much more important than the reality of morality.
Adeimantus claims that those who believe morality is good have never refuted those who claim immorality is not good.
Glaucon and Adeimantus hold that it is not enough to show morality is better than immorality because that is a praise of morality's rewards and a condemnation of immorality's stigma. They contend that if one only does this they accept Thrasymachus' claim that it is good to be immoral and appear to be moral, rather than being moral outright.
Chapter 3: Fundamentals of Inner Politics
Socrates calls Glaucon and Adeimantus "sons of Ariston" (godlike) because of their articulation of immorality and resistance to its rewards.
Socrates wants to investigate morality by investigating the morality of a community, then of an individual.
A community is formed when men realize they are deficient in some manner and combined with other men to overcome their deficiencies. We have lots of needs and lots of deficiencies so we form large communities to meet all of these needs. Different people are inherently better suited for different trades, thus we need all sorts of people in our community.
Success comes from specialization, not a man endeavoring in numerous tasks.
So once the community is formed does it contain morality and immorality? Adeimantus remarks if it does it must have something to do with how the inhabitants treat one another.
A community's size must be increased to the point of bloating to fulfill all of the human non-necessary wants.
As the community grows the community's appetites will increase and the community will have to commandeer part of their neighbor's land to fulfill their wants. But that other community will need to do the same to our community. The next step would then be an inevitable war.
War would produce a need for an army and an army would need soldiers and thus, the community would grow.
The community will need guardians to protect the community from aliens and to educate the young nobility.
The guardian must be like the noblest of dogs: vicious to strangers and lovers of knowledge.
"Anyone who is going to be a truly good guardian of our community, then, will have a philosopher's love of knowledge, and will be passionate, quick on his feet, and strong" (Pojman, 129).
Chapter 4: Primary Education for the Guardians
Guardians must have a natural aptitude.
A guardian's education must be started young and inculcate values.
Young guardians must have only morally sound stories. Immoral stories must be censored.
The guardian role in the community is the most vital of the whole community. Every person is predestined by their abilities to a certain task. All these tasks work together to form a functional community. The guardian's task is to make sure the community functions properly.
Education begins young because the mind is most impressionable when it is young.
Story-telling is the first step in education. Story writers must be scrutinized so that only moral stories are told to the guardians (because guardians must be moral) by their nurses and mothers.
Homer and Hesiod must be censored because the distort heroes and the gods.
While Socrates admits that these poets' stories are allegorical, he states that since young children cannot distinguish allegory from reality, the stories must be chucked altogether.
Whatever stories are told, they must be in accordance to the nature of God, which is good.
Anything good is harmless. Anything harmless cannot cause damage. Anything that cannot cause damage cannot do anything bad. Anything that cannot be bad cannot be held responsible for anything that is bad.
Goodness is responsible for all things good in a state and bad things are not bred out of goodness.
Chapter 5: The Guardian's Life and Duties
There are three castes of people: Guardians, Auxiliaries and Workers.
Guardians - rulers - "Gold"
Auxiliaries - Militia - "Silver"
Workers - Craftsmen - "Copper" or "Iron"
God wants there to be three casts and the members of each caste must believe this. There is a little room for change however.
The best, oldest guardians ought to be the rulers and the rest the subjects. The old and best have the best skill and most complete love for the community.
The community fails or success according to the rule of the guardians (and vice-versa). Thus, the guardians have a vested interest.
Rulers are selected through careful watch throughout their whole lives and selected based on their devotion to the community.
Rulers are chosen on their adherence to the beliefs instilled in them from a very young age. It won't do at all to select a ruler who is liable to lose his faith.
To set up this community one will have to develop a tall tale (as Homer and Hesiod did) to instill the values of the community:
1) All men were formed in earth
2) All crafts were formed in each
3) The earth spit out the men and crafts into a specific land, which is their home to love and defend with honor
4) All men are brothers, but not equal
5) Some men were made with gold (guardians), some men were made with silver (military), some men were made with copper and iron (workers/farmers)
6) Gold, silver, copper/iron are one's class
7) Man beget children of the same class, but occasionally a gold man will beget a silver body and silver man will beget a gold boy. If a son of a farmer or worker is born predisposed to silver or gold nature then he must be elevated.
The most important job of the guardians is to maintain the three classes and to make certain that everyone is placed in the right class (even if they are born of another class)
The guardians and auxiliaries are to live an alert military life and own no property (much like Sparta).
The guardians/auxiliaries are not to own property because it will corrupt them and the community will fall.
The guardians/auxiliaries will not be happy in the vulgar, materialistic form but can be happy in a greater sense. But, if they aren't it doesn't matter because the happiness of the whole community is greater than the happiness of any single part.
It is vital that the classes do not act as one another. A guardian ought not act as an auxiliary. An auxiliary ought not to act as a guardian or as a worker. A worker must act as a worker. But, it is also as important that a higher class citizen not abuse or exploit a lower class and a lower class ought not to intimidate or rebel against a higher class.
Gold men (guardians) and silver men (warriors) are not to desire earthly gold or silver because that gold/silver is tainted and the gold/silver in them is untainted. They are to be paid in only their stipend to live which should leave them no excess and also not leave them wanting.
If Gold/silver men obtain property they will become envied/hated by copper and iron men and will lord over their lesser brethren. They will become enemies of their community and the community will collapse.
The individual is sacrificed to the community of Socrates so that all will have a share in a higher happiness and not the lower, vulgar happens individual now seek in gluttony.
Plato maintains that the stability of the community lies in the guardians' ability to keep workers working. They must not become too rich or too poor.
The military of Plato's community will not be able to sustain prolonged warfare so must appear ferocious and aim to solve conflict with fear and diplomacy.
Education and a good system will provide all three classes with structure so a huge amount of laws will not be needed.
Overly wealthy people become too lazy in their work. Overly poor people will create inferior products/labor.
Too much wealth brings "indulgence, indolence, and innovation". Too much poverty brings "miserliness, bad workmanship and innovation"
Innovation is bad because the system is good and no change is needed.
The size of the community is important. It mustn't be too small or too large. It must remain a unity.
Good education produces good people. Good people (if they continue the education) will better the education and make it more complete.
Music must be regulated because new music will affect people's moods about the law. Change is bad.
All aspects of life will be orderly and spring out of good, early education and needn't be legislated, which is foolishness.
In a good society, with proper education orderliness and rules of conduct will spring forth out of the good character of all the citizens of a good society. There will be no need of continual lawmaking and editing. The goodness of their nature will suffice to provide all the rule of law they need. (on top of the broad constitution of the State).
Classics of Philosophy
Louis Pojman
The Republic
Plato
Chapter 2: The challenge to Socrates
Glaucon and Adeimantus (Plato's brothers) demand a full justification of Socrates' claim that morality enables one to prosper.
Glaucon holds that morality is not good, only a lesser evil.
Adeimantus holds that morality is valued only for its external rewards.
Socrates has to prove that morality is intrinsically good and that it contributes towards a person's happiness.
Glaucon sets out to:
1) Explain the usual view of morality
2) Show that it is practiced reluctantly as a necessary thing, not a good thing.
3) Show that this is unreasonable because an immoral man is happy than a moral one
Morality is originated by people coming into contacts with one another and forming laws.
Morality is a compromise. It isn't good, but it is valued because it prevents wrong doing.
If people are given a choice between morality and immorality people will always choose immorality. If someone were to choose morality if given a choice, he would rightly be seen as a fool.
The pinnacle of immorality is being immoral while still appearing to be moral.
If we are to truly believe that a person is moral for morality's sake, we must treat him as a sinner and see if he will still live as a saint. Then we can gauge who is happier: a moral person or an immoral person.
Adeimantes then barks in and defines morality from the standpoint of the rewards it brings.
Adeimantes claims that the gods give moral people rewards.
Adeimantes affirms that appearance of morality is much more important than the reality of morality.
Adeimantus claims that those who believe morality is good have never refuted those who claim immorality is not good.
Glaucon and Adeimantus hold that it is not enough to show morality is better than immorality because that is a praise of morality's rewards and a condemnation of immorality's stigma. They contend that if one only does this they accept Thrasymachus' claim that it is good to be immoral and appear to be moral, rather than being moral outright.
Chapter 3: Fundamentals of Inner Politics
Socrates calls Glaucon and Adeimantus "sons of Ariston" (godlike) because of their articulation of immorality and resistance to its rewards.
Socrates wants to investigate morality by investigating the morality of a community, then of an individual.
A community is formed when men realize they are deficient in some manner and combined with other men to overcome their deficiencies. We have lots of needs and lots of deficiencies so we form large communities to meet all of these needs. Different people are inherently better suited for different trades, thus we need all sorts of people in our community.
Success comes from specialization, not a man endeavoring in numerous tasks.
So once the community is formed does it contain morality and immorality? Adeimantus remarks if it does it must have something to do with how the inhabitants treat one another.
A community's size must be increased to the point of bloating to fulfill all of the human non-necessary wants.
As the community grows the community's appetites will increase and the community will have to commandeer part of their neighbor's land to fulfill their wants. But that other community will need to do the same to our community. The next step would then be an inevitable war.
War would produce a need for an army and an army would need soldiers and thus, the community would grow.
The community will need guardians to protect the community from aliens and to educate the young nobility.
The guardian must be like the noblest of dogs: vicious to strangers and lovers of knowledge.
"Anyone who is going to be a truly good guardian of our community, then, will have a philosopher's love of knowledge, and will be passionate, quick on his feet, and strong" (Pojman, 129).
Chapter 4: Primary Education for the Guardians
Guardians must have a natural aptitude.
A guardian's education must be started young and inculcate values.
Young guardians must have only morally sound stories. Immoral stories must be censored.
The guardian role in the community is the most vital of the whole community. Every person is predestined by their abilities to a certain task. All these tasks work together to form a functional community. The guardian's task is to make sure the community functions properly.
Education begins young because the mind is most impressionable when it is young.
Story-telling is the first step in education. Story writers must be scrutinized so that only moral stories are told to the guardians (because guardians must be moral) by their nurses and mothers.
Homer and Hesiod must be censored because the distort heroes and the gods.
While Socrates admits that these poets' stories are allegorical, he states that since young children cannot distinguish allegory from reality, the stories must be chucked altogether.
Whatever stories are told, they must be in accordance to the nature of God, which is good.
Anything good is harmless. Anything harmless cannot cause damage. Anything that cannot cause damage cannot do anything bad. Anything that cannot be bad cannot be held responsible for anything that is bad.
Goodness is responsible for all things good in a state and bad things are not bred out of goodness.
Chapter 5: The Guardian's Life and Duties
There are three castes of people: Guardians, Auxiliaries and Workers.
Guardians - rulers - "Gold"
Auxiliaries - Militia - "Silver"
Workers - Craftsmen - "Copper" or "Iron"
God wants there to be three casts and the members of each caste must believe this. There is a little room for change however.
The best, oldest guardians ought to be the rulers and the rest the subjects. The old and best have the best skill and most complete love for the community.
The community fails or success according to the rule of the guardians (and vice-versa). Thus, the guardians have a vested interest.
Rulers are selected through careful watch throughout their whole lives and selected based on their devotion to the community.
Rulers are chosen on their adherence to the beliefs instilled in them from a very young age. It won't do at all to select a ruler who is liable to lose his faith.
To set up this community one will have to develop a tall tale (as Homer and Hesiod did) to instill the values of the community:
1) All men were formed in earth
2) All crafts were formed in each
3) The earth spit out the men and crafts into a specific land, which is their home to love and defend with honor
4) All men are brothers, but not equal
5) Some men were made with gold (guardians), some men were made with silver (military), some men were made with copper and iron (workers/farmers)
6) Gold, silver, copper/iron are one's class
7) Man beget children of the same class, but occasionally a gold man will beget a silver body and silver man will beget a gold boy. If a son of a farmer or worker is born predisposed to silver or gold nature then he must be elevated.
The most important job of the guardians is to maintain the three classes and to make certain that everyone is placed in the right class (even if they are born of another class)
The guardians and auxiliaries are to live an alert military life and own no property (much like Sparta).
The guardians/auxiliaries are not to own property because it will corrupt them and the community will fall.
The guardians/auxiliaries will not be happy in the vulgar, materialistic form but can be happy in a greater sense. But, if they aren't it doesn't matter because the happiness of the whole community is greater than the happiness of any single part.
It is vital that the classes do not act as one another. A guardian ought not act as an auxiliary. An auxiliary ought not to act as a guardian or as a worker. A worker must act as a worker. But, it is also as important that a higher class citizen not abuse or exploit a lower class and a lower class ought not to intimidate or rebel against a higher class.
Gold men (guardians) and silver men (warriors) are not to desire earthly gold or silver because that gold/silver is tainted and the gold/silver in them is untainted. They are to be paid in only their stipend to live which should leave them no excess and also not leave them wanting.
If Gold/silver men obtain property they will become envied/hated by copper and iron men and will lord over their lesser brethren. They will become enemies of their community and the community will collapse.
The individual is sacrificed to the community of Socrates so that all will have a share in a higher happiness and not the lower, vulgar happens individual now seek in gluttony.
Plato maintains that the stability of the community lies in the guardians' ability to keep workers working. They must not become too rich or too poor.
The military of Plato's community will not be able to sustain prolonged warfare so must appear ferocious and aim to solve conflict with fear and diplomacy.
Education and a good system will provide all three classes with structure so a huge amount of laws will not be needed.
Overly wealthy people become too lazy in their work. Overly poor people will create inferior products/labor.
Too much wealth brings "indulgence, indolence, and innovation". Too much poverty brings "miserliness, bad workmanship and innovation"
Innovation is bad because the system is good and no change is needed.
The size of the community is important. It mustn't be too small or too large. It must remain a unity.
Good education produces good people. Good people (if they continue the education) will better the education and make it more complete.
Music must be regulated because new music will affect people's moods about the law. Change is bad.
All aspects of life will be orderly and spring out of good, early education and needn't be legislated, which is foolishness.
In a good society, with proper education orderliness and rules of conduct will spring forth out of the good character of all the citizens of a good society. There will be no need of continual lawmaking and editing. The goodness of their nature will suffice to provide all the rule of law they need. (on top of the broad constitution of the State).
Notes on Laches
(Originally written September 14, 2006 in Book 10)
The Classical Mind 2nd Ed.
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5 - Plato: The Special Sciences
Analysis of the form Courage
From an early dialogue: Laches
Laches calls courage a man who does not run away, but remains at his post and fights the enemy. Laches calls the universal quality of courage, "a sort of endurance of the soul" (Jones, 156). Socrates disagrees.
Socrates says that courage is a very noble quality. Foolish endurance is not noble, thus endurance cannot be courage.
Socrates is attempting to find a common ground between all particular acts of courage. Plato believes that this common characteristic is that they all participate in some degree in the form "courage".
Laches is a good, brave general. He therefore has a working knowledge of courage, but not a complete understanding of it. Socrates makes a metaphysical distinction between two forms of knowledge:
1) Experiential knowledge (which Laches possesses)
2) Formal knowledge (which Laches lacks)
Experiential knowledge is acquaintance with the particulars in which the forms participate, but not knowledge of the forms themselves. Formal knowledge is knowledge of the forms themselves.
Formal knowledge develops out of experiential knowledge because experiential knowledge is rooted in formal knowledge. Forms priced particulars, but knowledge works in reverse order.
Forms are first because they contain a higher degree of reality than particulars.
Knowledge of forms is better than knowledge of particulars.
Knowledge of forms is more stable and has a greater permanence. It is knowledge of reality and not easily shaken.
Knowledge of particulars is easily shaken and susceptible to the skepticism of the Sophists.
Plato did not want to replace the ancient Greek morality. He wanted to show that it was rooted in reality and thus the critics and adherents fought against or clung to truth, although they did not understand it.
"Plato's sense of continuity with the past, his combination of conservatism and criticism of traditionalism and enlightenment, is one of the most marked characteristics of his thought - and one of the great strengths of his position" (Pojman, 159).
The Classical Mind 2nd Ed.
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5 - Plato: The Special Sciences
Analysis of the form Courage
From an early dialogue: Laches
Laches calls courage a man who does not run away, but remains at his post and fights the enemy. Laches calls the universal quality of courage, "a sort of endurance of the soul" (Jones, 156). Socrates disagrees.
Socrates says that courage is a very noble quality. Foolish endurance is not noble, thus endurance cannot be courage.
Socrates is attempting to find a common ground between all particular acts of courage. Plato believes that this common characteristic is that they all participate in some degree in the form "courage".
Laches is a good, brave general. He therefore has a working knowledge of courage, but not a complete understanding of it. Socrates makes a metaphysical distinction between two forms of knowledge:
1) Experiential knowledge (which Laches possesses)
2) Formal knowledge (which Laches lacks)
Experiential knowledge is acquaintance with the particulars in which the forms participate, but not knowledge of the forms themselves. Formal knowledge is knowledge of the forms themselves.
Formal knowledge develops out of experiential knowledge because experiential knowledge is rooted in formal knowledge. Forms priced particulars, but knowledge works in reverse order.
Forms are first because they contain a higher degree of reality than particulars.
Knowledge of forms is better than knowledge of particulars.
Knowledge of forms is more stable and has a greater permanence. It is knowledge of reality and not easily shaken.
Knowledge of particulars is easily shaken and susceptible to the skepticism of the Sophists.
Plato did not want to replace the ancient Greek morality. He wanted to show that it was rooted in reality and thus the critics and adherents fought against or clung to truth, although they did not understand it.
"Plato's sense of continuity with the past, his combination of conservatism and criticism of traditionalism and enlightenment, is one of the most marked characteristics of his thought - and one of the great strengths of his position" (Pojman, 159).
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Class notes on Faust
(Originally Written September 13, 2006 in World Lit)
Goethe notes
Neoclassicism: 1650-1789
Romanticism: 1789-1840?, 1910?
Neoclassic vs. Romantic
Authority lies with social institutions in neoclassicism. Authority lies with the individual in romanticism.
Neoclassicism values reason, moderation, order, limitation and the cultivated. Romanticism values imagination, emotion, self-expression, transcendence, the natural, the primitive, the uneducated and the unspoilt.
Neoclassicism's version of Faust is Marlowe's Dr. Faustus. The Romanticism Faust is Goethe's. Marlowe's Faustus knows beyond human limits and ends in damnation. In Goethe, Faust is dissatisfied and desires what is beyond usual limits and ends in salvation.
The Poet (High Brow) Values: art, education, inspiration, posterity
The Clown (Low Brow) Values: entertainment, instant gratification
The Director (Middle Brow) Values: money, spectacle, variety
Goethe notes
Neoclassicism: 1650-1789
Romanticism: 1789-1840?, 1910?
Neoclassic vs. Romantic
Authority lies with social institutions in neoclassicism. Authority lies with the individual in romanticism.
Neoclassicism values reason, moderation, order, limitation and the cultivated. Romanticism values imagination, emotion, self-expression, transcendence, the natural, the primitive, the uneducated and the unspoilt.
Neoclassicism's version of Faust is Marlowe's Dr. Faustus. The Romanticism Faust is Goethe's. Marlowe's Faustus knows beyond human limits and ends in damnation. In Goethe, Faust is dissatisfied and desires what is beyond usual limits and ends in salvation.
The Poet (High Brow) Values: art, education, inspiration, posterity
The Clown (Low Brow) Values: entertainment, instant gratification
The Director (Middle Brow) Values: money, spectacle, variety
Socrates and Thrasymachus
(Originally written September 13, 2006 in Book 10)
The Republic (continued)
Polemarchus takes Cephalus' place and asserts that morality is giving good to one's friends and giving bad to one's enemies. Polemarchus takes Simonides' definition of morality.
Socrates proceeds to show how morality is useless under this definition because one cannot use morality when one is performing a skill, but when skills are being performed then it can be used. But obviously it is still useless.
Socrates confuses Polemarchus to the point he admits that he isn't sure what he means by morality, but dogmatically accepts that it more or less lies in helping one's friends and harming one's enemies.
Socrates then examines what it is to be a friend and what it is to be an enemy. They come to the agreement that a friend is someone who is good and an enemy is someone who is bad. But, Polemarchus realizes that sometimes we make wrong judgments about people and consider enemies as friends and friends as enemies.
Socrates then asks can a moral person harm anyone?
Good people who are harmed become less moral. Thus it is not the job of moral people to harm anyone.
Socrates deduces that the definition of being moral as being good to one's friend and harming one's enemy was created by someone who fancied themselves to be powerful.
Thrasymachus wanted to interject his position a number of times, but people held him back because they wanted to hear the conclusion of the conversation.
"Like a wild animal, he crouched and hurled himself at us as if to tear us apart" (Pojman, 103).
Thrasymachus demands that Socrates stop asking questions and plainly state what he believes morality to be.
Socrates asks for Thrasymachus' definition of morality, but Thrasymachus demands payment. Others, not Socrates, offer to pay for it. After a lot of blowing of smoke Thrasymachus agrees to state his positions because he likes having an audience and had a good position which he thought would bring him esteem; so, he obliged.
Thrasymachus contended that morality was the advantage of the stronger party. Thus, morality is what a current regime legislates it to be. Thrasymachus agrees that it is right to obey the government but admits that governments are not infallible. Since governments are fallible they pass legislation that is sometimes advantageous and sometimes not advantageous.
Socrates begins to corner Thrasymachus in the fact of rulers' being fallible and yet their laws being absolutely moral. Thrasymachus then calls Socrates a bully because of his questions.
Socrates has reduced Thrasymachus' definition of morality to the "trivial" claims that:
1) Rulers rule in their own interest
2) Morality is obeying rulers
Thrasymachus states that morality is a bad thing because it is only practiced when one is powerless. "A moral person is worse off than an immoral one" (Pojman, 108). Immorality, in its most perfect form enhances the wrongdoer's life immeasurably and ruins the lives of his victims. Small scale criminals are punished and stigmatized; whereas, those who do it on a grand scale are legends and become rulers. "Immorality has a bad name because people are afraid of being at the receiving end of it, not of doing it" (Pojman, 109).
At this point Thrasymachus attempts to leave, but Socrates baits him into staying by stating he is not convinced by his arguments.
Thrasymachus becomes irritated and exclaims that if that has not convinced him then nothing will.
Socrates holds that good men do not desire authority and power and take it on when they are forced to by fear of being ruled by a lesser man or poorer government. A genuine ruler, to Socrates, cannot consider himself.
Pickpocketing is advantageous if you can do it without getting caught, but pales in comparison into conquering nations by theft and deceit in Thrasymachus' opinion. Thrasymachus concludes that a moral person would not try to obtain power because civilized simpletons (moral persons) do not do this.
Socrates proves that moral persons will only want to set themselves above immoral persons; whereas, immoral persons will attempt to set themselves above all others, moral and immoral. He also proves that good people will only want to set themselves above bad people; whereas, bad people will want to set themselves above all people. Thus, moral people are good people and immoral people are bad people.
Morality is equivalent to good which is equivalent to knowledge.
Immorality is equivalent to bad which is equivalent to ignorance.
Immorality is less effective then morality according to Socrates. Thrasymachus holds the opposite.
Socrates states that morality causes:
1) an incapability of cooperation and dissension
2) hostility betwixt itself and betwixt anything moral and itself
An immoral person is the enemy of the gods because the gods are moral beings.
Moral people can accomplish things and immoral people cannot sustain action according to Socrates. By this point Thrasymachus is sarcastic and abusive.
A moral person has a moral mind; an immoral person has an immoral mind. Morality is equivalent to accomplishment. Immorality is equivalent to dissension/inaction. Thus, the moral man will have a better life that is more fulfilled than an immoral one.
A moral person is happy and an immoral person is unhappy.
Socrates admits that he has not discovered what morality is, only that he has discovered morality is more fruitful than immorality.
The Republic (continued)
Polemarchus takes Cephalus' place and asserts that morality is giving good to one's friends and giving bad to one's enemies. Polemarchus takes Simonides' definition of morality.
Socrates proceeds to show how morality is useless under this definition because one cannot use morality when one is performing a skill, but when skills are being performed then it can be used. But obviously it is still useless.
Socrates confuses Polemarchus to the point he admits that he isn't sure what he means by morality, but dogmatically accepts that it more or less lies in helping one's friends and harming one's enemies.
Socrates then examines what it is to be a friend and what it is to be an enemy. They come to the agreement that a friend is someone who is good and an enemy is someone who is bad. But, Polemarchus realizes that sometimes we make wrong judgments about people and consider enemies as friends and friends as enemies.
Socrates then asks can a moral person harm anyone?
Good people who are harmed become less moral. Thus it is not the job of moral people to harm anyone.
Socrates deduces that the definition of being moral as being good to one's friend and harming one's enemy was created by someone who fancied themselves to be powerful.
Thrasymachus wanted to interject his position a number of times, but people held him back because they wanted to hear the conclusion of the conversation.
"Like a wild animal, he crouched and hurled himself at us as if to tear us apart" (Pojman, 103).
Thrasymachus demands that Socrates stop asking questions and plainly state what he believes morality to be.
Socrates asks for Thrasymachus' definition of morality, but Thrasymachus demands payment. Others, not Socrates, offer to pay for it. After a lot of blowing of smoke Thrasymachus agrees to state his positions because he likes having an audience and had a good position which he thought would bring him esteem; so, he obliged.
Thrasymachus contended that morality was the advantage of the stronger party. Thus, morality is what a current regime legislates it to be. Thrasymachus agrees that it is right to obey the government but admits that governments are not infallible. Since governments are fallible they pass legislation that is sometimes advantageous and sometimes not advantageous.
Socrates begins to corner Thrasymachus in the fact of rulers' being fallible and yet their laws being absolutely moral. Thrasymachus then calls Socrates a bully because of his questions.
Socrates has reduced Thrasymachus' definition of morality to the "trivial" claims that:
1) Rulers rule in their own interest
2) Morality is obeying rulers
Thrasymachus states that morality is a bad thing because it is only practiced when one is powerless. "A moral person is worse off than an immoral one" (Pojman, 108). Immorality, in its most perfect form enhances the wrongdoer's life immeasurably and ruins the lives of his victims. Small scale criminals are punished and stigmatized; whereas, those who do it on a grand scale are legends and become rulers. "Immorality has a bad name because people are afraid of being at the receiving end of it, not of doing it" (Pojman, 109).
At this point Thrasymachus attempts to leave, but Socrates baits him into staying by stating he is not convinced by his arguments.
Thrasymachus becomes irritated and exclaims that if that has not convinced him then nothing will.
Socrates holds that good men do not desire authority and power and take it on when they are forced to by fear of being ruled by a lesser man or poorer government. A genuine ruler, to Socrates, cannot consider himself.
Pickpocketing is advantageous if you can do it without getting caught, but pales in comparison into conquering nations by theft and deceit in Thrasymachus' opinion. Thrasymachus concludes that a moral person would not try to obtain power because civilized simpletons (moral persons) do not do this.
Socrates proves that moral persons will only want to set themselves above immoral persons; whereas, immoral persons will attempt to set themselves above all others, moral and immoral. He also proves that good people will only want to set themselves above bad people; whereas, bad people will want to set themselves above all people. Thus, moral people are good people and immoral people are bad people.
Morality is equivalent to good which is equivalent to knowledge.
Immorality is equivalent to bad which is equivalent to ignorance.
Immorality is less effective then morality according to Socrates. Thrasymachus holds the opposite.
Socrates states that morality causes:
1) an incapability of cooperation and dissension
2) hostility betwixt itself and betwixt anything moral and itself
An immoral person is the enemy of the gods because the gods are moral beings.
Moral people can accomplish things and immoral people cannot sustain action according to Socrates. By this point Thrasymachus is sarcastic and abusive.
A moral person has a moral mind; an immoral person has an immoral mind. Morality is equivalent to accomplishment. Immorality is equivalent to dissension/inaction. Thus, the moral man will have a better life that is more fulfilled than an immoral one.
A moral person is happy and an immoral person is unhappy.
Socrates admits that he has not discovered what morality is, only that he has discovered morality is more fruitful than immorality.
Gettier mucking it all up
(Originally Written September 13, 2006 in Epistemology)
Math & Geometry
-involve necessary truths
-can't be conceived to be false
-apply universally
Logical Laws
-law of ideality
-law of the excluded middle
Innate ideas
Plato - encounter with the forms
Descartes - God implanted some innate ideas in us
Kant - we're all hard wired in a similar way
Knowledge = justified true belief. Gettier mucked it all up.
A personal Gettier problem
I have knowledge that my name is Chris. I have strong evidence for this because I have always gone by that name and seen a birth certificate that has the name Chris with my parents' signatures on their. Unbeknownst to me however, two children were born at 11:09 on December 30, 1983 at Holy Cross Hospital. Rob and Vickie Linehan named their son Chris. Rod and Valerie Little named their son Chris. Tragically, baby Chris Linehan and baby Chris Little were accidentally mixed up and given to the wrong parents. My name is Chris is thus, coincidentally true, but my justifying evidence doesn't prove this and therefore, I don't have knowledge that my name is Chris.
Attempted solutions to the Gettier problem:
1. The indefeasibility requirement
2. the conclusive reasons condition
3. the causal condition
4. no false belief
Internalism - in order to know something, I must know how I know it
Externalism - the conditions for knowledge are not necessarily known to the knower
Math & Geometry
-involve necessary truths
-can't be conceived to be false
-apply universally
Logical Laws
-law of ideality
-law of the excluded middle
Innate ideas
Plato - encounter with the forms
Descartes - God implanted some innate ideas in us
Kant - we're all hard wired in a similar way
Knowledge = justified true belief. Gettier mucked it all up.
A personal Gettier problem
I have knowledge that my name is Chris. I have strong evidence for this because I have always gone by that name and seen a birth certificate that has the name Chris with my parents' signatures on their. Unbeknownst to me however, two children were born at 11:09 on December 30, 1983 at Holy Cross Hospital. Rob and Vickie Linehan named their son Chris. Rod and Valerie Little named their son Chris. Tragically, baby Chris Linehan and baby Chris Little were accidentally mixed up and given to the wrong parents. My name is Chris is thus, coincidentally true, but my justifying evidence doesn't prove this and therefore, I don't have knowledge that my name is Chris.
Attempted solutions to the Gettier problem:
1. The indefeasibility requirement
2. the conclusive reasons condition
3. the causal condition
4. no false belief
Internalism - in order to know something, I must know how I know it
Externalism - the conditions for knowledge are not necessarily known to the knower
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Book Notes on Ewing (B)
(Originally written September 12, 2006 in Book 8)
Geometry is likewise necessarily a priori. If it were empirical, then we would have to draw figures for every proof and make a very unscientific and hazardous speculation that the single figure drawn can represent all the figures.
The "a priori" in logic
"The laws of logic must be known a priori or not at all" (Pojman, 386).
A syllogism is an important form of a priori knowledge. It consists of three propositions: two are premises, one is the conclusion.
Other cases of the "A priori"
A priori knowledge is most prevalent in mathematics and logic, although it is not limited to these fields.
Philosophers have been divided into two major classes (rationalists and empiricists) based on their stressing of a priori knowledge.
The possibilities of metaphysics is based on a priori knowledge.
A priori knowledge comes from self-evident truths and truth derived by inferences from self-evident principles.
The Linguistic theory of the "A priori" and the denial that "a priori" propositions or inferences can give new knowledge
Empiricists are not in the business of explaining away a priori propositions as merely empirical generalizations. They have adopted the view that a priori cannot tell us anything new about the real world.
They have decided that a prior is simply clarifying language.
Empiricists often admit that there are a priori analytic truths, but deny a priori synthetic truths.
The proposition "there are no synthetic a priori propositions" cannot be verified by experience. Thus, to justify it would prove that there are synthetic a priori propositions./
Many people have denied synthetic a priori knowledge due to the reduction of Euclidean geometry's axioms to analytic propositions. While this may show that the axioms are not synthetic a priori, it does not show that the steps taken after the axioms are not synthetic a priori.
Empiricists play with language to deny synthetic a priori propositions.
"An a priori proposition cannot fully be understood without being seen to be true" (Pojman, 390).
The existence of a priori judgments must be taken as an ultimate fact. We cannot explain their existence any more than we can explain the existence of man's ability to make empirical judgments.
"Human beings certainly cannot explain everything, whether there is ultimately an explanation for it or not" (Pojman, 390).
Geometry is likewise necessarily a priori. If it were empirical, then we would have to draw figures for every proof and make a very unscientific and hazardous speculation that the single figure drawn can represent all the figures.
The "a priori" in logic
"The laws of logic must be known a priori or not at all" (Pojman, 386).
A syllogism is an important form of a priori knowledge. It consists of three propositions: two are premises, one is the conclusion.
Other cases of the "A priori"
A priori knowledge is most prevalent in mathematics and logic, although it is not limited to these fields.
Philosophers have been divided into two major classes (rationalists and empiricists) based on their stressing of a priori knowledge.
The possibilities of metaphysics is based on a priori knowledge.
A priori knowledge comes from self-evident truths and truth derived by inferences from self-evident principles.
The Linguistic theory of the "A priori" and the denial that "a priori" propositions or inferences can give new knowledge
Empiricists are not in the business of explaining away a priori propositions as merely empirical generalizations. They have adopted the view that a priori cannot tell us anything new about the real world.
They have decided that a prior is simply clarifying language.
Empiricists often admit that there are a priori analytic truths, but deny a priori synthetic truths.
The proposition "there are no synthetic a priori propositions" cannot be verified by experience. Thus, to justify it would prove that there are synthetic a priori propositions./
Many people have denied synthetic a priori knowledge due to the reduction of Euclidean geometry's axioms to analytic propositions. While this may show that the axioms are not synthetic a priori, it does not show that the steps taken after the axioms are not synthetic a priori.
Empiricists play with language to deny synthetic a priori propositions.
"An a priori proposition cannot fully be understood without being seen to be true" (Pojman, 390).
The existence of a priori judgments must be taken as an ultimate fact. We cannot explain their existence any more than we can explain the existence of man's ability to make empirical judgments.
"Human beings certainly cannot explain everything, whether there is ultimately an explanation for it or not" (Pojman, 390).
Socrates and Cephalus
(Originally written September 12, 2006 in Book 10)
Classics of Philosophy
Louis Pojman
Republic
Plato
Chapter 1: Convention under attack
Socrates is talking with an old man, Cephalus. Cephalus is explaining to Socrates about old age. He explains to Socrates that old age is not as troubling as it seems. The old men that complain do so because they are naturally grumpy.
He agrees with Sophocles that in old age men can escape evil masters like sex.
Socrates points out to Cephalus that many people would be skeptical of his account of old age and say that it is not Cephalus' character that makes him good-tempered in his old age, but his enormous wealth. Cephalus states that money is good to have but does not make a person good. The character of a good man will give him hope in old age, but the character of a bad man will haunt him in old age.
Socrates asks Cephalus what he believes to be the greatest benefit of being rich is. Cephalus contends that the greatest advantage to being rich is to be able to pay all of one's debts and leaving wealth for one's children.
To Cephalus the definition of morality is always telling the truth and repaying all debts.
Socrates asks Cephalus if it is right to give weapons back to an insane man or tell the insane man the absolute truth. Cephalus agrees that it is not and thus, Cephalus' definition of morality does not pass the test.
Classics of Philosophy
Louis Pojman
Republic
Plato
Chapter 1: Convention under attack
Socrates is talking with an old man, Cephalus. Cephalus is explaining to Socrates about old age. He explains to Socrates that old age is not as troubling as it seems. The old men that complain do so because they are naturally grumpy.
He agrees with Sophocles that in old age men can escape evil masters like sex.
Socrates points out to Cephalus that many people would be skeptical of his account of old age and say that it is not Cephalus' character that makes him good-tempered in his old age, but his enormous wealth. Cephalus states that money is good to have but does not make a person good. The character of a good man will give him hope in old age, but the character of a bad man will haunt him in old age.
Socrates asks Cephalus what he believes to be the greatest benefit of being rich is. Cephalus contends that the greatest advantage to being rich is to be able to pay all of one's debts and leaving wealth for one's children.
To Cephalus the definition of morality is always telling the truth and repaying all debts.
Socrates asks Cephalus if it is right to give weapons back to an insane man or tell the insane man the absolute truth. Cephalus agrees that it is not and thus, Cephalus' definition of morality does not pass the test.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Book notes on Ewing (A)
(Originally written September 11, 2006 in Book 8)
VII. 3 - In Defense of A Priori Knowledge
A. C. Ewing (1899 - 1973)
-Cambridge University
Ewing argues against Ayer and states that the statement 'there is no synthetic a priori knowledge' is itself a synthetic a priori judgment.
Meaning of the Distinction, "A priori" Character of Mathematics
There is a sharp distinction betwixt a priori and empirical judgments
Most of our knowledge is empirical. This comes from two sources:
1) Sense perception
2) Introspection
Knowledge we obtained simply by thinking is a priori.
A priori knowledge is necessary truths and we know why it is true.
Empirical propositions are contingent.
Mathematics must be a priori because otherwise we could not be able to add two numbers together without counting. Since we need not count (an empirical method), knowledge of mathematics is a priori.
VII. 3 - In Defense of A Priori Knowledge
A. C. Ewing (1899 - 1973)
-Cambridge University
Ewing argues against Ayer and states that the statement 'there is no synthetic a priori knowledge' is itself a synthetic a priori judgment.
Meaning of the Distinction, "A priori" Character of Mathematics
There is a sharp distinction betwixt a priori and empirical judgments
Most of our knowledge is empirical. This comes from two sources:
1) Sense perception
2) Introspection
Knowledge we obtained simply by thinking is a priori.
A priori knowledge is necessary truths and we know why it is true.
Empirical propositions are contingent.
Mathematics must be a priori because otherwise we could not be able to add two numbers together without counting. Since we need not count (an empirical method), knowledge of mathematics is a priori.
Types of knowledge and propositions
(Originally Written September 11, 2006 in Epistemology)
A priori knowledge
Necessary truths - propositions that cannot be false
contingent truths - propositions that are true, but could be false
The distinction betwixt necessary truths and contingent truths is a metaphysical one.
Analytic propositions - true by way of their meaning
Synthetic propositions - true through their relation to the world
The distinction betwixt analytic and synthetic propositions is a semantic one.
A priori knowledge - knowledge prior to experience
A posteriori knowledge - knowledge through experience
The distinction betwixt the two is an epistemological one.
Kant:
Analytic a priori - i.e. Triangles are three sided
Synthetic a priori - i.e. 5+7=12, causality
Synthetic a posteriori - i.e. the house is brown
There is no a posteriori analytic propositions
A.J. Ayer
-a strong empiricist
-a logical positivist
-Held that in order for a statement to be cognitively meaningful it had to be either analytically true or empirically meaningful.
-Held that an en empiricists must regard analytic propositions as either:
1) Not necessary (John Stuart Mill)
2) Devoid of factual content (Ayer)
A priori knowledge
Necessary truths - propositions that cannot be false
contingent truths - propositions that are true, but could be false
The distinction betwixt necessary truths and contingent truths is a metaphysical one.
Analytic propositions - true by way of their meaning
Synthetic propositions - true through their relation to the world
The distinction betwixt analytic and synthetic propositions is a semantic one.
A priori knowledge - knowledge prior to experience
A posteriori knowledge - knowledge through experience
The distinction betwixt the two is an epistemological one.
Kant:
Analytic a priori - i.e. Triangles are three sided
Synthetic a priori - i.e. 5+7=12, causality
Synthetic a posteriori - i.e. the house is brown
There is no a posteriori analytic propositions
A.J. Ayer
-a strong empiricist
-a logical positivist
-Held that in order for a statement to be cognitively meaningful it had to be either analytically true or empirically meaningful.
-Held that an en empiricists must regard analytic propositions as either:
1) Not necessary (John Stuart Mill)
2) Devoid of factual content (Ayer)
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Plato's Physics and Ethics
(Originally written September 10, 2006 in Book 10)
The Classical Mind
WT Jones
Chapter 5 - Plato: The Special Sciences
Philosophy began as a study of the natural world. But the collapse of Greek culture and morality led Plato to focus on that and leave the subject of the physics nearly untouched. Only one dialogue focused on it: Timaeus
The thesis of Timaeus is that if physics is about the physical world it is not knowledge. If it is about knowledge then it is not about the physical world.
The physical world is always changing, knowledge requires stability. Thus, knowledge of the physical world is only does through knowledge of forms.
Plato held that the best we can do is give an account of the physical world that is at best a 'likely story'.
Physics gives accounts of the conditions of the world, but it does not give us any account of the causes of the physical world. Plato denounces physics because of this.
Plato makes a distinction between the teleological explanation (the reason why) and a mechanistic description (the how).
This is foreign to us because we do not think about why the planets revolve around the sun (or whatever). We don't think this way because we do not think of mind as being the cause of events in the physical world.
We think of the universe in a mechanistic way, a way indifferent to purpose. We think of a non-teleological universe.
Plato disagreed and thought of the universe in teleological terms. He held physics lower to theology.
Linehan - Modern man seems to scoff at any form of teleology. They disregard it as superstition. I am very teleological in thinking. Am I simple-minded? Or is it I simply have a different stance than modern physicists? Science has proven it self unreliable. Religion has proven itself unreliable. Science and religion however have the same ever-reliable subject: God and His work. This is a forgotten fact.
Nature of the Physical World
When we perceive colors like 'brown' we believe that the color brown is out there somewhere. Plato held that this is false because colors are not 'self-existent'.
He held that the color was a motion passing between my eye and the object.
He held that Protagoras was correct in his assumption that man is the measure of all things when it pertains to sense perception. "My shoes are white" is wrong. "My shoes appear white to me now" is correct.
Plato denied the Atomist notion of matter because their concept of matter is unintelligible.
Unlike the Milesians, Plato did not set out to find the ultimate stuff; he set out to analyze it/them.
We state that a square is two triangles put together.
The generation of a square is two triangles, but not in the sense that first there were triangles and then they combined into a square. We mean by stating that "the generation of a square is two triangles" is that we can analyze a square by stating it is a combination of two triangles.
So how does Plato believe things appear to us? In space.
Space is the "receptacle of becoming". It provides a situation for all things to come into being.
Plato admits that this is obscure, but maintains that it must be so. (nothing of the high truths is easily understood for Plato.)
A thing can be known by knowing its form. We can know the form "horse". Then seeing horse "a" we can realize a horse is flesh and blood. We can gain better knowledge then by analyzing the forms "horse", "flesh" and "blood". We can further reduce it and further and further until we reach a complete understanding.
This series of reductions can be done to processes as well, but when it comes to the medium or stage in which physical objects exist Plato suffers a problem. Space remains a problem point irreducible, esoteric, mysterious and obscure.
Space was this ultimate, irreducible medium. Space was a brute fact for Plato. You can say "it is" and "must be" but nothing more.
"This was Plato's way of admitting into his beautiful, rational universe that space-time realm of facts and events that empiricists, pragmatists and positivists take to be the whole of reality" (Jones, 154).
Mystics deny this factualistic reality, but Plato and his ilk admit its existence begrudgingly.
Plato held that the basic stuffs of this world are the sensible images: fire, earth, water and air. Each of them is a representation of a form in space.
Linehan - So I'm watching this show on Discovery about aquatic life and just watching the movements of schools of fish and the sheer magnitude of fish in this sea basin or something is awe inspiring. I have chills in my cheeks!
Plato held that earth (the element) was a cube because it was the most immovable. Fire was a pyramid, water is the icosahedron and air is the octahedron.
Plato held that the world as we see it relied on precise mathematical precision in processes of the four elements in relation to one another.
Plato also hinted that the elements could be further reduced, maybe even to numbers. Thus, the Pythagorean side of Plato shines out in his physical theory.
But, physics remains a 'likely story' to Plato because we cannot truly reduce everything to numbers.
Space remains a brute fact; something the mind must admit exists, but is incapable of understanding.
Motion itself is similar to space. While certain motions are comprehendible, the motion abstract is obscure and barely intelligible. It is too irregular.
Ethics
For Plato, physics was only a side issue; ethics and politics were his chief interests.
Plato blamed the Sophists' attack on traditional values like moderation as the reason for the fall of Athens. This is why he focused on knowledge of values.
To defeat the Sophists' skepticism, Plato had to prove that values are objective and that we could have knowledge of them.
Plato ought to have proved the existence of ethical forms, but he assumed that the proof of mathematical forms sufficed. It is logically possible though that mathematical forms exist, but ethical ones do not.
Mathematical forms can be argued not to exist on the grounds that mathematical knowledge is impossible on any other grounds. But ethics are different because, unlike mathematics, people are not in almost complete agreement in the fact that objective knowledge of them is possible,
Ethics is more subjective.
Plato disagreed and may have argued it this way:
The Classical Mind
WT Jones
Chapter 5 - Plato: The Special Sciences
Philosophy began as a study of the natural world. But the collapse of Greek culture and morality led Plato to focus on that and leave the subject of the physics nearly untouched. Only one dialogue focused on it: Timaeus
The thesis of Timaeus is that if physics is about the physical world it is not knowledge. If it is about knowledge then it is not about the physical world.
The physical world is always changing, knowledge requires stability. Thus, knowledge of the physical world is only does through knowledge of forms.
Plato held that the best we can do is give an account of the physical world that is at best a 'likely story'.
Physics gives accounts of the conditions of the world, but it does not give us any account of the causes of the physical world. Plato denounces physics because of this.
Plato makes a distinction between the teleological explanation (the reason why) and a mechanistic description (the how).
This is foreign to us because we do not think about why the planets revolve around the sun (or whatever). We don't think this way because we do not think of mind as being the cause of events in the physical world.
We think of the universe in a mechanistic way, a way indifferent to purpose. We think of a non-teleological universe.
Plato disagreed and thought of the universe in teleological terms. He held physics lower to theology.
Linehan - Modern man seems to scoff at any form of teleology. They disregard it as superstition. I am very teleological in thinking. Am I simple-minded? Or is it I simply have a different stance than modern physicists? Science has proven it self unreliable. Religion has proven itself unreliable. Science and religion however have the same ever-reliable subject: God and His work. This is a forgotten fact.
Nature of the Physical World
When we perceive colors like 'brown' we believe that the color brown is out there somewhere. Plato held that this is false because colors are not 'self-existent'.
He held that the color was a motion passing between my eye and the object.
He held that Protagoras was correct in his assumption that man is the measure of all things when it pertains to sense perception. "My shoes are white" is wrong. "My shoes appear white to me now" is correct.
Plato denied the Atomist notion of matter because their concept of matter is unintelligible.
Unlike the Milesians, Plato did not set out to find the ultimate stuff; he set out to analyze it/them.
We state that a square is two triangles put together.
The generation of a square is two triangles, but not in the sense that first there were triangles and then they combined into a square. We mean by stating that "the generation of a square is two triangles" is that we can analyze a square by stating it is a combination of two triangles.
So how does Plato believe things appear to us? In space.
Space is the "receptacle of becoming". It provides a situation for all things to come into being.
Plato admits that this is obscure, but maintains that it must be so. (nothing of the high truths is easily understood for Plato.)
A thing can be known by knowing its form. We can know the form "horse". Then seeing horse "a" we can realize a horse is flesh and blood. We can gain better knowledge then by analyzing the forms "horse", "flesh" and "blood". We can further reduce it and further and further until we reach a complete understanding.
This series of reductions can be done to processes as well, but when it comes to the medium or stage in which physical objects exist Plato suffers a problem. Space remains a problem point irreducible, esoteric, mysterious and obscure.
Space was this ultimate, irreducible medium. Space was a brute fact for Plato. You can say "it is" and "must be" but nothing more.
"This was Plato's way of admitting into his beautiful, rational universe that space-time realm of facts and events that empiricists, pragmatists and positivists take to be the whole of reality" (Jones, 154).
Mystics deny this factualistic reality, but Plato and his ilk admit its existence begrudgingly.
Plato held that the basic stuffs of this world are the sensible images: fire, earth, water and air. Each of them is a representation of a form in space.
Linehan - So I'm watching this show on Discovery about aquatic life and just watching the movements of schools of fish and the sheer magnitude of fish in this sea basin or something is awe inspiring. I have chills in my cheeks!
Plato held that earth (the element) was a cube because it was the most immovable. Fire was a pyramid, water is the icosahedron and air is the octahedron.
Plato held that the world as we see it relied on precise mathematical precision in processes of the four elements in relation to one another.
Plato also hinted that the elements could be further reduced, maybe even to numbers. Thus, the Pythagorean side of Plato shines out in his physical theory.
But, physics remains a 'likely story' to Plato because we cannot truly reduce everything to numbers.
Space remains a brute fact; something the mind must admit exists, but is incapable of understanding.
Motion itself is similar to space. While certain motions are comprehendible, the motion abstract is obscure and barely intelligible. It is too irregular.
Ethics
For Plato, physics was only a side issue; ethics and politics were his chief interests.
Plato blamed the Sophists' attack on traditional values like moderation as the reason for the fall of Athens. This is why he focused on knowledge of values.
To defeat the Sophists' skepticism, Plato had to prove that values are objective and that we could have knowledge of them.
Plato ought to have proved the existence of ethical forms, but he assumed that the proof of mathematical forms sufficed. It is logically possible though that mathematical forms exist, but ethical ones do not.
Mathematical forms can be argued not to exist on the grounds that mathematical knowledge is impossible on any other grounds. But ethics are different because, unlike mathematics, people are not in almost complete agreement in the fact that objective knowledge of them is possible,
Ethics is more subjective.
Plato disagreed and may have argued it this way:
- If there is no objective knowledge of ethics we cannot say that Jesus was a better man than Hitler. In fact, we can never act ethically wrong.
- This position is so paradoxical no one would accept it unless they were driven to do so by an absolutely conclusive argument.
- It is not conducive to society and should be rejected unless absolutely certain.
- Mathematical knowledge proves that there are at least some forms. Why not ethical ones?
- The existence of mathematical forms proves that ethical ones are not impossible.
- This provides a prima facie case for claiming that there are ethical forms.
"A proper analysis of actual ethical judgments, Plato reasoned, to reveal explicitly the character of the various forms these judgments participate in" (Jones, 155).
The Myth of the Cave
(Originally written September 10, 2006 in Book 10)
The Myth of the Cave
The Myth of the Cave
- Imagine men chained so that they could not leave and so they could not face the entrance of the cave. Now imagine there is a fire burning behind the men. Since no one can turn around all that they can see are the shadows on the wall. There are echoes in the cave so when one hears, the shadows seem to talk. The shadows are what each person believes to be reality because they know nothing else.
- Now imagine if one person were set free and turned around and walked toward the light. Seeing the light directly and walking a new path would be extremely painful. The brightness would cause him to see only blurry. It would be scary and he would want to turn back to what he could see more distinctly because he would believe that that was the true reality. Now he would be forced to exit the cave and the brightness would cause him to be unable to clearly see anything. Whoever forced him out would then explain to him that this, not the shadows was the true reality. Slowly, he would become accustomed to the brightness and come to know the true reality. If he were to return to the cave his eyes would be full of darkness.
- He would want to enlighten and free those he used to be prisoner with. But everyone else would laugh and say that his eyes had been ruined. They would want to kill him for his belief.
- The Sun in this parable would be the last thing that the released prisoner could get used to and know. This is the Form of the Goodness. Once one knows the Form of the Good one can act in wisdom.
- Every soul is capable of knowing, but the soul must be "turned round" to contemplate the true world, until then the soul is unable to have knowledge.
- The journey is hard but worthwhile. Those living in the shadows are happy in their ignorance, but they do not know they are in ignorance.
- Those in ignorance can develop a crude empirical science, but this would not be useful, in spite of its practical application.
- Those who turn to the sunlight will go to it. And while it is a better life in the sun they will be compelled to free others, in spite of their unbelief.
- For Plato, the good life was not a communion with the Good, but a social life with his fellow men, one in which the good man tries to free as many of his fellow prisoners as he can.
The Way of Ascent
- Beauty is truth and truth is beauty.
- Man is a social being: "If one reaches the top it is only because of an opportunity for association with some initiate who has been willing to descend again into the cave" (Jones, 142).
- The way of ascent is a close association with a great-souled man.
- The way of ascent is a process. One moves from level to level. The view from the top is a vision, a vision of perfect, harmonious completeness.
Proof of the Theory of Forms
- Forms are eternal and unchanging entities which are encountered in thought, not perception.
- Forms were the public world that the Sophists denied.
- Forms function as the objects of the sciences: physical, social and moral.
- Forms are the objective criteria we can gauge our judgements and evaluate on
- What are the proofs for these forms' existence?
- Things like a triangle or notions like justice and equality are said to be existent and we are said to have knowledge of them. But we cannot obtain knowledge of the perfect triangle by viewing triangles on earth because no matter what all sensible triangles have some imperfection, however slight. How can we sensibly perceive things like justice ore equality? We can't. But, since we have knowledge of justice and equality, we must have it from something other than empirical knowledge. Thus, there are forms.
- Generalized Argument:
- Either we know something or we know nothing
- If you claim we know nothing, obviously you know something (which is that we know nothing) But that is a contradiction and thus we have a major problem with your theory.
- If you make no claim then it is pointless to speak to you
- Therefore, we must know something.
- Thus, we must know at least one thing.
- Forms are therefore necessary as a requisite for knowledge.
- This argument rests on the inability of the critic to find a plausible alternative. It does not establish it conclusively thought
- The argument is weak because
- Even if the critic cannot find an alternative, it does not follow that no alternative exists
- Some one may find that alternative
- Mathematics was heralded as the poster boy for forms for centuries. Math was certain because it was not about physical objects and therefore it must be about forms. But, nowadays people say mathematics is not about forms, it is not about objects at all. It's about tautologies. But, whether or not this definition of mathematics is true or not is for other times.
Book notes on Ayer
(Originally written September 10, 2006 in Book 8)
VII. 2 An Empiricist Critique of A priori Knowledge
AJ Ayer (1910 - 1989)
-Oxford University
-Argues against synthetic a priori knowledge because all supposed synthetic a priori truths are reducible to tautologies or as an analytical truths
This is a section from Ayer's early work: Language, Truth and Logic
How can empiricists account for necessary truths? Truths of empirical nature cannot ever be proven logically necessary. This, although appears to lead to utter skepticism, doesn't force one there. It is not irrational to hold beliefs that are not logical certainties; what is irrational is to search for certitude where there can be none and to demand certainty when probability will suffice.
The trouble empiricists face is dealing with necessary truths like mathematics and logic. The empiricist must deal with it in one of two ways:
1) He must state that they are not necessary truths and somehow account for their apparent universal nature.
Or, 2) He must state that they have no factual content and account for their truth, practical use, and surprising nature.
If one or two is unsatisfactory, then we are obliged to abandon empiricism and become rationalists.
Or if we opt out of rationalism we will have to adopt Kantian theory despite epistemological difficulties.
If empiricists show either 1) or 2) then, 'we shall have destroyed the foundations of rationalism'.
Mill adopted the theory that truths of logic and mathematics are not necessary truths. He held that these were inductive generalizations based on a huge amount of instances. The large number of instances was what Mill said made us think that they are necessary. He held that they were similar to empirical hypotheses, only much more probable.
Ayer does not think that this is at all acceptable. "In rejecting Mill's theory, we are obliged to be somewhat dormant" (Pojman, 371).
The Irrefutability of the Propositions of Mathematics and Logic
The truths of logic and mathematics are tautologies. If we state that any one is wrong then we contradict ourselves.
Any instance in which we think that we have an empirical situation that seems to refute a logical or mathematic truth we find error in our empirical judgment, not in the logical or mathematical truth.
The Nature of Analytic Propositions
Ayer gives an account of Kant's definitions of analytic and synthetic propositions, but contends that he does not succeed in making the distinction clear.
Kant does not give one straightforward criterion for making the distinction between Analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. He employs a psychological criterion for synthetic propositions and a logical criterion for analytic propositions and takes the criterions equivalence for granted.
Ayer defines an analytic proposition as one whose validity depends entirely on the definition of the symbols it contains; and, synthetic propositions when its validity is determined by facts of experience.
Analytic propositions never provide us any information about matters of fact. Thus, no experience can refute analytic propositions.
Analytic propositions therefore are devoid of factual content. They say nothing. "We are not suggesting they are senseless in the way that metaphysical utterances are senseless" (Jones, 382).
Linehan - Bitchsmack! Cheap shot. Though fairly strong. I admit that it stings.
Linehan - AJ Ayer has made me wary of synthetic propositions. Could I prove that there are only analytic propositions and everything is contained in the definition of the objects? i.e. The physical object 'apple'. An analytic judgment (Ayer's definition) would be that "This apple is an apple". A synthetic proposition would be "This apple is red". Could I reasonably argue (if I hold that there are forms) that the object apple in our mind is one that contains the notion of "red", "sweet/tart", "Grannysmith/other breed", etc. I don't know if I could make it plausible, but I am attracted to this theory.
Ayer - Analytic tautologies give us a way to explicitly state what we mean. It gives us clarification, but not any additional knowledge.
The Propositions of Geometry
While geometry seems the most plausible area for there to be a priori synthetic knowledge, the invention of non-Euclidean geometry has proven this wrong.
The self-evident principles of Euclidean geometry have been shown to be reducible to tautologies.
Geometry is not a study of space, though geometry can be used to reason about space.
Since geometry is analytic we can reject Kant's notion of space being synthetic a priori; since arithmetic is analytic we can reject Kant's notion of time being synthetic a priori.
We have a priori knowledge of necessary truths; they are all tautologies.
How can tautologies be surprising?
They are surprising because our intellects are not as superior as we believe they are.
Complex tautologies can easily surprise us because we are not as smart as we think.
VII. 2 An Empiricist Critique of A priori Knowledge
AJ Ayer (1910 - 1989)
-Oxford University
-Argues against synthetic a priori knowledge because all supposed synthetic a priori truths are reducible to tautologies or as an analytical truths
This is a section from Ayer's early work: Language, Truth and Logic
How can empiricists account for necessary truths? Truths of empirical nature cannot ever be proven logically necessary. This, although appears to lead to utter skepticism, doesn't force one there. It is not irrational to hold beliefs that are not logical certainties; what is irrational is to search for certitude where there can be none and to demand certainty when probability will suffice.
The trouble empiricists face is dealing with necessary truths like mathematics and logic. The empiricist must deal with it in one of two ways:
1) He must state that they are not necessary truths and somehow account for their apparent universal nature.
Or, 2) He must state that they have no factual content and account for their truth, practical use, and surprising nature.
If one or two is unsatisfactory, then we are obliged to abandon empiricism and become rationalists.
Or if we opt out of rationalism we will have to adopt Kantian theory despite epistemological difficulties.
If empiricists show either 1) or 2) then, 'we shall have destroyed the foundations of rationalism'.
Mill adopted the theory that truths of logic and mathematics are not necessary truths. He held that these were inductive generalizations based on a huge amount of instances. The large number of instances was what Mill said made us think that they are necessary. He held that they were similar to empirical hypotheses, only much more probable.
Ayer does not think that this is at all acceptable. "In rejecting Mill's theory, we are obliged to be somewhat dormant" (Pojman, 371).
The Irrefutability of the Propositions of Mathematics and Logic
The truths of logic and mathematics are tautologies. If we state that any one is wrong then we contradict ourselves.
Any instance in which we think that we have an empirical situation that seems to refute a logical or mathematic truth we find error in our empirical judgment, not in the logical or mathematical truth.
The Nature of Analytic Propositions
Ayer gives an account of Kant's definitions of analytic and synthetic propositions, but contends that he does not succeed in making the distinction clear.
Kant does not give one straightforward criterion for making the distinction between Analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. He employs a psychological criterion for synthetic propositions and a logical criterion for analytic propositions and takes the criterions equivalence for granted.
Ayer defines an analytic proposition as one whose validity depends entirely on the definition of the symbols it contains; and, synthetic propositions when its validity is determined by facts of experience.
Analytic propositions never provide us any information about matters of fact. Thus, no experience can refute analytic propositions.
Analytic propositions therefore are devoid of factual content. They say nothing. "We are not suggesting they are senseless in the way that metaphysical utterances are senseless" (Jones, 382).
Linehan - Bitchsmack! Cheap shot. Though fairly strong. I admit that it stings.
Linehan - AJ Ayer has made me wary of synthetic propositions. Could I prove that there are only analytic propositions and everything is contained in the definition of the objects? i.e. The physical object 'apple'. An analytic judgment (Ayer's definition) would be that "This apple is an apple". A synthetic proposition would be "This apple is red". Could I reasonably argue (if I hold that there are forms) that the object apple in our mind is one that contains the notion of "red", "sweet/tart", "Grannysmith/other breed", etc. I don't know if I could make it plausible, but I am attracted to this theory.
Ayer - Analytic tautologies give us a way to explicitly state what we mean. It gives us clarification, but not any additional knowledge.
The Propositions of Geometry
While geometry seems the most plausible area for there to be a priori synthetic knowledge, the invention of non-Euclidean geometry has proven this wrong.
The self-evident principles of Euclidean geometry have been shown to be reducible to tautologies.
Geometry is not a study of space, though geometry can be used to reason about space.
Since geometry is analytic we can reject Kant's notion of space being synthetic a priori; since arithmetic is analytic we can reject Kant's notion of time being synthetic a priori.
We have a priori knowledge of necessary truths; they are all tautologies.
How can tautologies be surprising?
They are surprising because our intellects are not as superior as we believe they are.
Complex tautologies can easily surprise us because we are not as smart as we think.
Class and book notes on Kant
(Originally written September 10, 2006 in Book 8)
A priori knowledge
Classifications and Definitions
"The problem of synthetic a priori knowledge involves epistemological, metaphysical and semantic considerations" (Pojman, 367).
"A priori and a posteriori are latin terms that were first developed in the Middle Ages by scholastic philosophers.
Leibniz used both to prove knowledge. Kant further developed the notions.
Is there synthetic a priori knowledge? Kant held that it was necessary from a logic standpoint.
"A. Epistemological Categories
1. A priori knowledge does not depend on evidence from sense experience. (Plato's innate ideas and Leibniz's 'truths of reason') for example, mathematics and logic.
2. A posteriori knowledge depends on evidence from Sense experience. (Plato's 'appearance' and Leibniz's 'truths of fact') - empirical knowledge.
B. Metaphysical Categories
1. Necessary truths 'are' true in all possible worlds (for example, the statement that, 'God exists' according to the ontological argument).
2. Contingent truths 'are' true in the actual world but not in all possible worlds (for example, the fact you exist and were born after January 1, 1800)
C. Semantical categories
1. Analytic-predicate is contained in the subject, explicative, not ampliative (for example, 'all mothers are women')
2. Synthetic - predicate is not contained in the subject but adds something to the subject ampliative, not explicative (for example, Mary is a mother)" (Pojman, 367-8)
Combinations
Synthetic a priori knowledge is affirmed by rationalists and denied by empiricists.
Neither believe that there are such things as analytic a posteriori knowledge because that implies a contradiction.
Kant, a radical rationalist, held that all knowledge was grounded in a priori knowledge.
"The essential claim of those who hold to synthetic a priori knowledge is that the mind can grasp connexions between ideas (concepts) that are not strictly analytical related" (Pojman, 368).
Kant's Chart of Knowledge
(clarifications are for my own sake)
Synthetic a priori knowledge
-Math, i.e. 5+7=12
-Exclusionary: i.e. nothing red is green
-Presuppositions of experience: space, time and causality
-Moral judgments - the categorical imperative
-The Laws of Logic: i.e. The principle of non-contradiction
-Metaphysical - The existence of God, Free-Will
Until Kant, people believed our knowledge must conform to objects. This had led to a failure to establish a priori knowledge. Kant switched it around so that objects conform to out knowledge, making a priori knowledge possible. This is Kant's so-called Copernican revolution.
Prolegomena: Preamble on the Peculiarities of all Metaphysical Knowledge
S1. Of the Sources of Metaphysics
Sciences differ from one another based on one or all of these:
1) object
2) sources of knowledge
3) kind of knowledge
As for metaphysics and its knowledge, it can never be, or come from things, empirical.
It can not be from external experiences because that is physics; nor can it e from internal experiences because that is psychology. Therefore, ti must come from a priori knowledge. It comes from pure understanding and pure reason.
Metaphysics is pure philosophical knowledge.
S2. Concerning the kind of knowledge which can alone be called metaphysical
Metaphysical judgments are judgments that are explicative, that is, they add nothing to their content.
Synthetical judgments are judgments that are expansive, that is, they increase the knowledge.
Analytical judgments merely analyze the subject in the predicate: 'All bodies are extended'.
Synthetical judgments add something to the subject in the predicate: 'All bodies have weight'
The common principle in all analytical judgments is the law of contradiction.
A priori knowledge
Classifications and Definitions
"The problem of synthetic a priori knowledge involves epistemological, metaphysical and semantic considerations" (Pojman, 367).
"A priori and a posteriori are latin terms that were first developed in the Middle Ages by scholastic philosophers.
Leibniz used both to prove knowledge. Kant further developed the notions.
Is there synthetic a priori knowledge? Kant held that it was necessary from a logic standpoint.
"A. Epistemological Categories
1. A priori knowledge does not depend on evidence from sense experience. (Plato's innate ideas and Leibniz's 'truths of reason') for example, mathematics and logic.
2. A posteriori knowledge depends on evidence from Sense experience. (Plato's 'appearance' and Leibniz's 'truths of fact') - empirical knowledge.
B. Metaphysical Categories
1. Necessary truths 'are' true in all possible worlds (for example, the statement that, 'God exists' according to the ontological argument).
2. Contingent truths 'are' true in the actual world but not in all possible worlds (for example, the fact you exist and were born after January 1, 1800)
C. Semantical categories
1. Analytic-predicate is contained in the subject, explicative, not ampliative (for example, 'all mothers are women')
2. Synthetic - predicate is not contained in the subject but adds something to the subject ampliative, not explicative (for example, Mary is a mother)" (Pojman, 367-8)
Combinations
Synthetic a priori knowledge is affirmed by rationalists and denied by empiricists.
Neither believe that there are such things as analytic a posteriori knowledge because that implies a contradiction.
Kant, a radical rationalist, held that all knowledge was grounded in a priori knowledge.
"The essential claim of those who hold to synthetic a priori knowledge is that the mind can grasp connexions between ideas (concepts) that are not strictly analytical related" (Pojman, 368).
Kant's Chart of Knowledge
Analytic
|
Synthetic
|
|
A Priori
|
-Entailments
-Identity Statements
-Tautologies
-Definitions
|
-Mathematics
-Exclusionary
-Presuppositions of experience
-Moral Judgments
-Laws of Logic
-Metaphysical
|
A Posteriori
|
XX
|
-Empirical
“All bodies are heavy”
“John is a bachelor”
|
The Kantian Theory About Synthetic A Priori Knowledge
The question: How are synthetic a priori judgments possible? This is Kant's primary concern in his Critique of Pure Reason.
Kant (via Ewing) makes four claims about synthetic a priori judgments
1. They are logically necessary - wholes that determine their own parts
2. They are not derivable from particular sensations (but empirical experience is the trigger to cause them to arise)
3. They are presupposed in all of our experience
4. They are contributed by our minds.
Synthetic a priori knowledge is of the conditions of experience, not of reality.
A.J. Ayer critiques the notion of the synthetic a priori knowledge from a conventionalist's point of view. He believes that all the supposed a priori knowledge can actually be reduced to analytic truths.
A.C. Ewing counters Ayer and is in favor of it. Maintaining that if nothing else, the laws of logic are a priori.
W.V. Quine denies the notion of containment being meaningful. (Containment is the notion of an idea being expressed in the definition of the word: bachelor contains the ideas 'unmarried' and 'man'). Since Quine denies containment then he makes no distinction betwixt analytic and synthetic judgments. This also rids him of a priori judgments.
H.P. Grace and P.F. Stranson disagree with Quine.
Roderick Chisholm defends a priori and analytic knowledge.
Saul Kripke throws a major curveball, contending that is possible to have a posteriori necessary truths and non-necessary a priori knowledge.
VII.1. A Priori Knowledge
Immanuel Kant
Kant (1724-1804) was born in Königsberg and never left the town.
He was deeply pious and Lutheran
He was inhuman in his orderliness. Some citizens of Königsberg set their clocks by Kant's walks.
The Critique of Pure Reason started a revolution in theory of knowledge.
He was "woke from his dogmatic slumber" by Hume.
Kant held that we have incredible structured minds that interpret and categorize all experiences that we have. This is the "Kant's Copernican Revolution"
Kant's distinctions between a priori and a posteriori knowledge is famous.
A priori knowledge is what we know prior to experience. A posteriori is knowledge we gain through experience.
Hume considered all knowledge of matters of fact a posteriori and only analytic statements a priori.
Kant rejects Hume's theory and states that it is possible to have a priori knowledge of matters of fact.
Kant holds that all knowledge begins with experience, but it does not mean that all knowledge arises out of experience.
Kant also holds that mathematical truth is synthetic (the predicate ads something to the subject) not analytical.
Other synthetic a priori knowledge is knowledge of time, of space and of causality.
A priori
|
A Posteriori
|
|
Analytic
|
Tautologies & entailments
|
None
|
Synthetic
|
Causality, Space and time, 5+7=12, and the moral law
|
Empirical judgments
|
Basically, an analytic judgment explicitly states a subject and its definition in the predicate. If an analytic statement contradicts itself it is false.
There are two types of synthetical judgments:
1) a priori
2) a posteriori
Synthetical judgments cannot be deduced solely from the Law of Contradiction, but they are still subject to it.
Judgments of experience are always synthetical by nature.
Mathematical judgments are synthetical. This is a fact that eluded people for years.
All mathematical judgments are a priori because they are necessarily true.
Arithmetic judgments like 5+7=12 are definitely true because there is nothing in the notions '5', +, '7' that demands the sum of 12.
Linehan - I think I disagree. The concept of '12', if we truly know it can be analyzed and known as, '0+12, 1+11, 2+10, 3+9, 4+8, 5+7, 6+6, and so forth, provided that we know the notion of '7".
Geometrical judgments are likewise synthetical because they require us to use intuition tadas.
"the essential and distinguishing feature of pure mathematical knolsedge among all after a priori knowledge is that it cannot proceed from concepts, but only from construction of concepts" (Pojman, 373).
Kant criticizes Hume for believing mathematics contained only analytical propositions and metaphysics having only synthetical a priori propositions. But, had Hume realized that mathematics were a priori synthetical propositions he would not have discarded metaphysics.
Metaphysical judgments are synthetical. But, judgments pertaining to metaphysics are analytical.
Definitions like a substance is that which exists as a subject is an analytical judgment pertaining to metaphysics. The concept "substance" is metaphysical but the judgment is analytical and therefore, not a metaphysical judgment.
Metaphysics is different from every other science in the way it produces its a priori cognitions.
Metaphysics receives from outside itself analytic judgments, but uses those analytic judgments to accomplish its end, which is to form a priori synthetical judgments.
"The generation of a priori knowledge by intuition as well as concepts, in fine, of synthetical propositions a priori, especially in philosophical knowledge, constitutes the essential subject of metaphysics" (Pojman, 374).
S3. A remark on the general division of judgment into analytical and synthetical:
The distinction is extremely important, but it is difficult to find in other men's work. It is obscure, and difficult to put into words. Once one discovers it though, they will be able to see the difference in places where they never saw it before.
S4. The General Question of the Prolegomena: Is Metaphysics Possible?
We cannot assume that metaphysics exists as a science, but we can confidently state that there are a priori synthetical cognitions (i.e. pure mathematics).
The question is not whether, but how is metaphysics possible?
S5. The General Problem: How is knowledge from pure reason possible?
Metaphysics stands or falls on the ability or inability to have synthetic a priori knowledge.
There can be an incredibly well put together metaphysical system with tons of truths, but if the architect of that system has not given an account to how one comes to know a priori synthetic judgments then, "to all that which thou protest me thus, I refuse to give credence, and hate"
If we did not see true synthetical a priori judgments in life then we would see that the question of how to come by that knowledge as insoluble.
To solve this we must divide it into four parts:
1) How is pure mathematics possible?
2) How is pure natural science possible?
3) How is metaphysics in general possible?
4) How is metaphysics as a science possible?
I am so irritated! Kant spends this entire last section suspending others from metaphysics but gives no definite answer. Ahh! I am thoroughly agitated right now. This is on e of the biggest disappointments in my brief (about fourteen months now) investigation into philosophy!
Metaphysical judgments are synthetical. But, judgments pertaining to metaphysics are analytical.
Definitions like a substance is that which exists as a subject is an analytical judgment pertaining to metaphysics. The concept "substance" is metaphysical but the judgment is analytical and therefore, not a metaphysical judgment.
Metaphysics is different from every other science in the way it produces its a priori cognitions.
Metaphysics receives from outside itself analytic judgments, but uses those analytic judgments to accomplish its end, which is to form a priori synthetical judgments.
"The generation of a priori knowledge by intuition as well as concepts, in fine, of synthetical propositions a priori, especially in philosophical knowledge, constitutes the essential subject of metaphysics" (Pojman, 374).
S3. A remark on the general division of judgment into analytical and synthetical:
The distinction is extremely important, but it is difficult to find in other men's work. It is obscure, and difficult to put into words. Once one discovers it though, they will be able to see the difference in places where they never saw it before.
S4. The General Question of the Prolegomena: Is Metaphysics Possible?
We cannot assume that metaphysics exists as a science, but we can confidently state that there are a priori synthetical cognitions (i.e. pure mathematics).
The question is not whether, but how is metaphysics possible?
S5. The General Problem: How is knowledge from pure reason possible?
Metaphysics stands or falls on the ability or inability to have synthetic a priori knowledge.
There can be an incredibly well put together metaphysical system with tons of truths, but if the architect of that system has not given an account to how one comes to know a priori synthetic judgments then, "to all that which thou protest me thus, I refuse to give credence, and hate"
If we did not see true synthetical a priori judgments in life then we would see that the question of how to come by that knowledge as insoluble.
To solve this we must divide it into four parts:
1) How is pure mathematics possible?
2) How is pure natural science possible?
3) How is metaphysics in general possible?
4) How is metaphysics as a science possible?
I am so irritated! Kant spends this entire last section suspending others from metaphysics but gives no definite answer. Ahh! I am thoroughly agitated right now. This is on e of the biggest disappointments in my brief (about fourteen months now) investigation into philosophy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)