CENTRE FOR LIFELONG LEARNING
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY KLI08F
1
Contents
Preface: Reading Philosophy
3
General Introduction
5
Part One: Epistemology
6
Week One: Plato I
6
Week Two Aristotle I
8
Week Three: Descartes I & Hume I
10
Week Four: Locke I & Leibniz
12
Part Two: Being and Reality
14
Week Five: Plato II
14
Week Six: Aristotle II & Descartes II
15
Week Seven: Locke II & Berkley
16
Week Eight: Hume II
17
Part II: Body and Mind
18
Week Nine: Plato III & Aristotle III
18
Week Ten: Descartes II & Spinoza
19
Week Eleven: Schopenhauer and Brentano
20
Week Twelve: Conclusion
21
Glossary of Technical Terms
22
2
Preface: Reading Philosophy
So far as concerns philosophy only a selected group can be explicitly
mentioned. There is no point in endeavouring to force the interpretations
of divergent philosophers into a vague agreement. What is important is
that the scheme of interpretation here adopted can claim for each of its
main positions the express authority of one, or the other, of some
supreme master of thought - Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, , Kant.
But ultimately nothing rests on authority; the final court of appeal is
intrinsic reasonableness. A.N. Whitehead (Alfred North Whitehead)
As philosophers we have two aims
1. To devise arguments for the purpose of supporting a position
2. To evaluate arguments to see if they offer good reasons for accepting a
particular view
We pursue these aims when we read philosophy as much as when we write it
for ourselves. So we need to read actively and critically. Our purpose in reading
philosophy is not to glean facts, not even facts about what the author is saying.
It is not enough to be able to give an account of what has been said. Nor are we
interested in discussing an author's use of language. So reading philosophy is
different from reading scientific or literary works.
Reading critically requires identifying what the argument is and evaluating the
success of that argument. To do this we need to:
• Identify the conclusion;
• Identify the premises.
Of course most of the time a philosopher will not say 'this is the conclusion I
want to prove and these are the premises'. These will be embedded in a
discussion that includes background information, clarification of terms and ideas,
definition of key terms, analysis of specific points, explanations, and illustrative
examples. Not all of these things will be directly relevant to the argument.
Getting Started
In approaching a piece of philosophy for the first time try to be open-minded.
Sometimes this will be easy because it is an abstract problem on which you
have no opinion and a philosopher you know little about. However, even if it is a
subject which really matters to you don't make a judgment until you have read,
and are sure you have understood, the argument being put forward. You may
not want to agree with a writer but if the argument is well made you cannot just
3
dismiss it because you do not like the conclusion; you must have good grounds
for rejecting it. Don't be impressed just because a piece is written by a famous
philosopher, as all the extracts we are going to read will be. You should regard
philosophy as a process. No answer is good for all time. Each philosopher adds
her arguments to the general and ongoing project of solving the big questions.
Criticising those arguments helps us to get nearer to the truth or at least to good
answers. Don't dismiss philosophical ideas as siIIy or eccentric. Even if they
strike you as odd, think about them carefully. This is especially important to
remember when reading historical works. Earlier writers may have begun with
different assumptions than you. It is appropriate to question those assumptions
and their relevance to the ongoing debate. Ideas with which you disagree or
which you regard as outmoded may offer insight. Support any evaluation you
make with reasons.
Active Reading
You will need to read pieces of philosophy several times. The first reading
should be a skim through to get a sense of the overall structure. You should aim
to identity the main conclusion and the key premises. Philosophers usually
signpost the stages in an argument so look out for words like:
• because, since, given this argument;
• thus, therefore, hence, it follows that, consequently;
• nevertheless, however, but;
• in the first case, on the other hand;
• a better response, for the following reason.
Some of these words are used to indicate the conclusion and some are used to
indicate stages in the argument, that is to give it structure and stop the reader
losing the thread.
The second reading should be slow and careful. Now your aim should be to look
at the detail
•
•
•
•
•
•
What are the meanings of the key terms used - are the definitions
adequate/appropriate?
How is the argument structured?
What is the central point being made?
How are the various ideas related to one another?
Do the premises or conclusion conflict with anything you know to be true?
How well do the examples work?
Don't get sidetracked by examples. These are used for a variety of purposes: to
illustrate a point to make it clearer or sometimes to show that a specific position
would have undesirable consequences. Examples are not arguments and
4
discussing the details of an example is very often not relevant. Just ask if it does
in fact illuminate the point at issue or provide a counter-example which weakens
the original argument.
As you read you should prepare a brief outline of piece giving the stages of the
argument (mark parts of the text if necessary). When you have finished reading
you should produce a summary or paraphrase. You may think you have fully
understood an argument but if you cannot put it into your own words then you
probably haven’t. A paraphrase/summary probably won’t be shorter than the
original. In some cases it may even be longer if you have put technical terms
into simpler language.
You will undoubtedly have to read a piece more than twice. I can’t tell you how
many times - this will vary according to what you are reading. Each piece of
philosophy will be different.
Evaluation
It isn’t enough just to reiterate what an author has said. You must use your own
judgment to decide if:








The conclusion follows from the premises
Do the premises give you a good reason to accept the conclusion?
The premises are true or at least reasonable assumptions
What the consequence of accepting this position are:
What do you gain from it?
What do you lose?
Does it lead to contradictions?
Does it lead to absurdity?
General Introduction
Each philosopher we will be reading is given a brief introduction before the first
extract of his work. You may be surprised at the range of their interests. The
subject divisions we have today did not always apply because it was possible to
pursue a variety of interests rather than opting for a specialism. This was partly
because it was philosophical questioning that led to the development of various
disciplines and partly because less specialized knowledge was needed to
pursue scientific endeavours. You may also be surprised that questions about
God were so important whether or not traditional beliefs were accepted. These
philosophers lived in societies where belief in God or some higher power was
the norm and rejection of this belief system required justification,
5
Part 1: Epistemology
Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, is one of the major branches of
philosophy. It is concerned with the nature, sources and validity of knowledge.
The main questions the epistemologist tries to answer are, 'What is knowledge?'
'How can knowledge be obtained?’ How can it be justified?', ‘How can
knowledge be defended against the sceptical challenge?' The first explicit
treatment of knowledge is found in Plato's Theatetus and after Descartes
epistemology became the central philosophical discipline. The definition of and
the conditions of knowledge are important to many areas of philosophical
thought but also to other subject areas such as science, history, law and the
social sciences.
Week One: Plato I
The safest general characterization of the European philosophical
tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean
the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully
extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas
scattered through them... A.N. Whitehead (Alfred North Whitehead)
Plato (429 - 347 B.C.E.) was born in Athens. His teacher was Socrates who
appears as a character in many of his works. Plato is one of the most influential
writers in the history of philosophy. Philosophy as we know it today, a critical
systematic method of inquiry is considered to be his invention. His questioning
of reality led him to grapple with the nuances of language as well as the
problems of philosophical procedure. He wrote at a time when writing was
coming to displace the art of memory and he was as suspicious of this new
method of passing on information as modem commentators are of computers
(see Phaedrus)
Plato wrote his philosophy in the form of dialogues. These usually involve an
investigation into a concept by Socrates who questions his opponents'
assumptions to the point of collapse.
For further information about Plato's life and a general guide to his philosophy
see:
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http
Hare, RM. Plato Oxford University Press; Oxford, New York,
Annas, Julia. Plato: A Very Short Introduction Oxford University Press; Oxford
and New York
6
Class Reading:
Innate Knowledge: Plato, Meno 79e-86c Cottingham pp 3- 12
Knowledge versus opinion: Plato Republic 474b-483e Cottingham pp 12 -19
Make notes on the following points:
Reading 1
•
•
•

•
•
•
What is the conclusion Socrates is arguing for?
Where is the overall conclusion stated?
Mark the passages where the premises are given.
Why does Plato use a mathematical example?
Can you think of alternative examples to illustrate this point?
How persuasive is Socrates point?
Can you refute him?
Reading 2
• What is the conclusion Socrates is arguing for?
• Where is the overall conclusion stated?
• Mark the passages where the premises are given.
Why does Plato think that knowledge and opinion are different powers or
faculties?
• What are the consequences of this division?
• What is the realm of forms?
• Is it a good solution to the problem of change?
Secondary Reading:
Annas, Julia An introduction to Plato's Republic. Clarendon Press; Oxford &
New York 1981. Chap 8
Cornford, F M. Plato's theory of knowledge. London, 1935.
Pappas, Nickolas. Plato and the Republic Routledge; London, 1995 pp 128 135
7
Week Two: Aristotle I
Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.E.) was a pupil of Plato. Along with Plato he is
considered one of the greatest philosophers and a founder of philosophical
method. He taught Alexander the Great and founded the Lyceum in Athens. He
wrote on many philosophical and scientific topics including, logic, ethics, politics,
biology, psychology and astronomy amongst others. Not all of his works
survived. Some we only know about through reports written in the centuries after
his death and of some we only have fragments. But we have detailed notes of
lectures written by him and taken by students. He differs from Plato in his
interest in and observation of natural phenomena, although it should be
remembered that he did not always proceed as a modem scientist would.
As in the case of Plato, Aristotle was writing and teaching near the beginning of
philosophy and so lacks an inherited technical language. He pays attention to
the uses of ordinary language and is often developing theoretical positions that
we still use today. To read his philosophy is exciting because his searching for
answers to fundamental questions laid many of the foundations of philosophy.
His interest in observation as a basis for answering philosophical questions
leads us to the first example of a popular division in philosophy between
Rationalism and empiricism.
The debate between rationalists and empiricists primarily concerns the question
of how we gain knowledge. Rationalists maintain that there are significant ways
in which knowledge and concepts can be gained independently of sense
experience. These ways are intuition, deduction from intuited premises and
innate knowledge, knowledge that we have by virtue of our rational nature.
Experience may trigger a process by which knowledge is brought to
consciousness but experience itself does not provide us with this knowledge
(see Plato "Innate Knowledge", reading for last week). Furthermore, the
rationalist argues that knowledge gained in this way could not have been gained
by experience and is superior to empirical knowledge. The empiricist maintains
that all knowledge must be gained through the senses. It is possible to be a
rationalist with regard to mathematics and empiricist with regard to the physical
sciences. The debate only
occurs if the two positions are applied to the same subject. Traditionally the
philosophers of the early modem period who we will be studying and sometimes
Plato and Aristotle are divided into opposing schools of rationalist and empirical
thought. However, this division can be misleading as we shall see in the course
of our study.
For more information on this see:
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
Cottingham, John The Rationalists Oxford University Press; Oxford & New York,
1988. Chapter 1
For further information about Aristotle's life and a general guide to his philosophy
8
see:
AckriII, J. L. Aristotle The Philosopher Clarendon Press; Oxford, 1981
Barnes, Jonathan Aristotle Oxford University Press; Oxford and New York, 1982
Barnes, Jonathan. Aristotle A Very Short Introduction Oxford University Press;
Oxford and New York, 2000
Class Reading:
Demonstrative Knowledge and Its Starting Points: Aristotle Posterior Analytics
Cottingham pp 19 - 21
Make notes on the following points:
• What is the conclusion Aristotle is arguing for?
• Where is the overall conclusion stated?
• Mark the passages where the premises are given.
• What is the role of sense-perception?
• How are particulars and universals related?
• On what points does Aristotle’s theory differ from Plato's?
Secondary Reading:
Taylor, C.C.W. “Aristotle’s Epistemology” in S. Everson (ed.) Epistemology
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge & New York, 1990.
9
Week Three: Descartes I & Hume I
Descartes (1596-1650) is considered as the first modem philosopher. He was
also a mathematician and scientist. Although he is often classed as a rationalist
philosopher he did not reject empirical methods but his approach to knowledge
was dictated, in part, by the belief that mathematical principles underpinned
reality. He rejected the qualitative descriptions and explanations of scholastic
philosophy in favour of a description cast in quantitative terms. The Meditations
were written in the first person and invite the reader to participate in the
enterprise of philosophy. It is one of the first works which expresses the view of
the author without following the conclusions of an acknowledged authority.
For further information about Descartes' life and a general guide to his
philosophy see:
The Stanford Encyclopedia of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-works/
Gaukroger, Stephen Descartes: An Intellectual Biography Oxford University
Press; Oxford & New York, 1995
Sorell, Tom. Descartes Oxford University Press; Oxford & New York, 1987.
Reissued as,
Tom Sorell Descartes: A Very Short Introduction Oxford University Press;
Oxford & New York, 2000
Hume is the most important philosopher to write in English and a prominent
figure of the Scottish Enlightenment. His works remain influential. He was
openly atheistic in an age when University careers depended on religious
affiliations. In his philosophical work he aimed to extend the methods of
Newtonian science to the study of human nature. His work contains an early
form of psychological study.
For further information about Hume's life and a general guide to his philosophy
see:
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/
Ayer, A. Hume: A very short introduction Oxford University Press; Oxford & New
York, 2000.
Class Reading:
New Foundations for Knowledge: Rene Descartes, Meditations Cottingham pp
22 -26
Scepticism vs. Human nature: David Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Cottingham pp 37 -41
10
Make notes on the following points:
Descartes
• What is the conclusion Descartes is arguing for?
• Where is the overall conclusion stated?
• Mark the passages where the premises are given.
• What is Descartes’ purpose in doubting everything?
• Explain his sceptical arguments.
• Can you prove you are not dreaming?
• Why does he introduce the malicious demon?
• Why does he think the proposition ‘I am, I exist' is necessarily true?
Hume
• What is the conclusion is arguing for?
• Where is the overall conclusion stated?
• Mark the passages where the premises are given.
• Which kinds of scepticism does target?
• Why does he think we cannot maintain universal doubt?
• How does his scepticism differ from that of Descartes?
• Why does he allow a limited scepticism?
Secondary Reading:
Descartes
Curley, E. M. Descartes against the sceptics B. Blackwell; Oxford, 1978.
Williams, Bernard Descartes: Project of Pure Enquiry Penguin; London, 1978
Chapters,
2, 3 & 7
Hume
Flew, Anthony David: Philosopher of Moral Science Blackwell; Oxford, 1986
Norton, D.F the Cambridge Companion to Cambridge University Press;
Cambridge & New York, 1993. Chapters 1 & 4
Stroud, Barry Routledge and Kegan Paul; London, 1977.
11
Week Four: Locke I & Leibniz
Locke was a philosopher, academic and medical researcher. In his philosophical
writing he was concerned to use reason to search after truth rather than accept
the established opinion of authority. In the Essay Concerning Human
Understanding he wished to determine the limits of human understanding.
For further information about Locke’s life and a general guide to his philosophy
see
SEP: http://,vww.seop.leeds.ac.uklentries/locke/
Dunn, John, Locke Oxford University Press; Oxford & New York, 1984.
Reissued as,
Dunn, John, Locke: a Very short introduction Oxford University Press; Oxford &
New York, 2003
Leibniz (1646 - 1716) was the independent inventor of calculus (also
independently invented by Newton) and a collaborative philosopher. He never
wrote a systematic expository work in the manner of Descartes or Spinoza. His
philosophy is best seen in his contributions in the form of short papers and
letters to the debates of his time.
For further information about Leibniz’s life and a general guide to his philosophy
see
http://www.newgenevacenter.org/biography/leibniz2.htm
Books:
Rescher, Nicholas. Leibniz: an introduction to his philosophy Blackwell; Oxford,
1979.
Class Reading:
The Senses as the basis of knowledge: John Locke, Essay Concerning Human
Understanding Cottingham pp 26 - 32
Innate Knowledge Defended: Gottfried Leibniz, New Essays on Human
Understanding Cottingham pp 32 - 36
Make notes on the following points:
Locke
• What is the conclusion Locke is arguing for?
• Where is the overall conclusion stated?
• Mark the passages where the premises are given.
• How does Locke think we come to an understanding of universals?
• What is the role of the senses in knowledge?
• What is his objection to innate ideas? Leibniz
• What is the conclusion Leibniz is arguing for?
• Where is the overall conclusion stated?
• Mark the passages where the premises are given.
• What does he use to support innateness?
• What parallel can you see with Plato?
• How effective is the example of the block of marble?
12
• What shows that human reason goes beyond sense-data?
Secondary Reading:
Locke
Nicholas Jolley Locke: His Philosophical Thought Oxford University Press;
Oxford & New York, 1999 Chapter 3
EJ.Lowe Locke on Human Understanding Routledge; London, 1995 Chapters 1
&5
Priest, Stephen The British Empiricists Penguin; London, 1990. Pp 50-61
Leibniz
Cottingham, John The Rationalists Oxford University Press; Oxford, New York,
1988 pp 64 -74.
Jolley, Nicholas Leibniz and Locke: A Study of the New Essays on Human
Understanding
Oxford University Press; Oxford & New York, 1984. Chapter 9.
McRae, Robert "The Theory of Knowledge" in Nicholas Jolley (ed.) The
Cambridge Companion to Leibniz Cambridge University Press; Cambridge,
1995.
13
Part II: Being and Reality
Metaphysics is concerned with the study of ultimate reality, particularly with the
question of being. What really exists? What is the connection between
appearance and reality?
One problem that these questions raise is how knowledge of particular things
can lead to universals. It is one thing to point to a single cat but what am I talking
about when I refer to cats in general? What do all black things have in common?
Another problem is that of qualities. If say that a thing is brown what is it that has
the quality? If qualities can change, say something looks brown in one light and
orange in another, can they be said to be real.
Week Five: Plato II
Reading:
The Allegory of the Cave: Plato, Republic
Cottingham pp 63 - 70
Make notes on the following points:
Now that you have had some practice in reading philosophy the points I ask you
to make notes on will be less specific. Continue to make a note of any new
terminology and particular ideas used by the writer. Make comparisons between
the extracts. Identify the main conclusion and the premises which support it.
Paraphrase the argument. What problems/weaknesses can you find with the
way it has been presented? Do you agree with it? Do the examples help or
detract from the argument? Can you think of your own examples?
Secondary Reading:
Annas, Julia An introduction to Plato's Republic. Clarendon Press; Oxford &
New York, 1981. Chapters 9 & 10
Pappas, Nickolas Plato and the Republic Routledge; London, 1995 184.1 pp
139 - 148
Vlastos, G "Degrees of Reality in Plato" in R. Bamborough (ed.) New essays on
Plato and Aristotle Routledge & K. Paul; London, 1965.
White, Nicholas P. Plato on knowledge and reality Hackett Pub. Co.;
Indianapolis, 1976.
14
Week Six: Aristotle II & Descartes II
Readings:
Individual Substance: Aristotle, Categories Cottingham pp 70 -74
Supreme Being and Created Things: Rene Descartes Principles of Philosophy
Cottingham pp 74 - 80
Make notes on the following points:
Make comparisons between the extracts. Identify the main conclusion and the
premises which support it. Paraphrase the argument. What
problems/weaknesses can you find with the way it has been presented? Do you
agree with it? Do the examples help or detract
from the argument? Can you think of your own examples?
Secondary Reading:
Aristotle
Barnes, Jonathan (ed) The Cambridge companion to Aristotle Cambridge
University
Press, Cambridge & New York; 1995. Chapter 3
Lawson- Tancred, H "Ancient Greek Philosophy II: Aristotle” in A.C. Grayling
(ed.) Philosophy 1: a guide through the subject. Oxford University Press; Oxford,
1995.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotlemetaphysics/
Descartes
Cottingham, John The Rationalists Oxford University Press; Oxford & New York,
1988Chapter 3
R. Woolhouse, The Concept of Substance in Seventeenth Century
Metaphysics. Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz Routledge; London & New York,
2002.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
15
Week Seven Locke II & Berkeley
Berkeley (1685 -1753) was a brilliant metaphysician famous for defending
idealism. He was ordained in the Anglican Church and became Bishop of Clone
in 1734. His first important published work was a contribution to the psychology
of vision, An Essay towards a New Theory of Vision. His other two important
works were, the Treatise Concerning Human Nature and the Three Dialogues
between Hylas and Philonous
For further information about Berkeley’s life and a general guide to his
philosophy see:
SEP http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/
Urmson, J.O. Berkeley Oxford University Press; Oxford & New York, 1982.
Readings:
Qualities and Ideas: John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Cottingham pp 80 -85
Nothing Outside the Mind: George Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge
Cottingham pp 91-97
Make notes on the following points:
Make comparisons between the extracts. Identify the main conclusion and the
premises which support it. Paraphrase the argument. What
problems/weaknesses can you find with the way it has been presented? Do you
agree with it? Do the examples help or detract from the argument? Can you
think of your own examples?
Secondary Reading:
Locke
Nicholas Jolley Locke: his philosophical thought Oxford University Press; Oxford
&New York, 1999 Chapter 4
Priest, Stephen The British Empiricists Penguin; London, 1990. Pp 73 -81
Berkeley
Priest, Stephen The British Empiricists Penguin; London, 1990. Pp 108 - 116
http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/introlberkeley.html
16
Week Eight: Hume II
Class Reading:
The Limits of Metaphysical Speculation: David, Enquiry Concerning Human
Understanding
Cottingham pp 97-102
Make notes on the following points:
Make comparisons between the extracts. Identify the main conclusion and the
premises which support it. Paraphrase the argument. What
problems/weaknesses can you find with the way it has been presented? Do you
agree with it? Do the examples help or detract
from the argument? Can you think of your own examples?
Secondary Reading:
Norton, D.P. Ed. The Cambridge Companion to Cambridge University Press;
Cambridge, 1994. ch. 3
17
Part II: Mind and Body
The philosophy of mind as a subfield of philosophy in its own right is a relatively
recent development. However, questions about the mind have arisen from the
earliest philosophical speculations. Plato and Aristotle were concerned with
analyzing and classifying the parts of the psyche. They talk of the soul rather
than the mind. The modem formulation of the mind/body problem begins with
Descartes who regarded the mind and body as separate substances.
Week Nine: Plato III & Aristotle III
Class Reading:
The Immortal Soul: Plato, Phaedo Cottingham pp 127 - 133
Soul and Body, Form and Matter: Aristotle, De Anima Cottingham pp 134 - 138
Make notes on the following points:
Make comparisons between the extracts. Identify the main conclusion and the
premises which support it. Paraphrase the argument. What
problems/weaknesses can you find with the way it has been presented? Do you
agree with it? Do the examples help or detract from the argument? Can you
think of your own examples?
Secondary Reading:
Plato
Kraut, R (ed) The Cambridge Companion to Plato Cambridge University Press;
Cambridge, 1991. ch. 7
Aristotle
Barnes, Jonathan (ed) The Cambridge companion to Aristotle Cambridge
University Press; Cambridge & New York, 1995. ch. 6
18
Week Ten: Descartes II & Spinoza
Spinoza (1632 - 1677) was born in Amsterdam in a community of Portuguese
Jews living in exile. Although he was a gifted scholar and may have been
groomed for a career as a rabbi he was excommunicate in 1656 for defending
heretical opinions. He later worked as a lens grinder to support himself while he
studied and wrote. The Ethics is a systematic critique of the traditional
conceptions of God, human beings and the universe.
For further information about Spinoza’s life and a general guide to his
philosophy see:
Scruton, Roger Spinoza Oxford University Press; Oxford & New York, 1986.
Reissued as:
Scruton, Roger Spinoza: a very short introduction Oxford University Press;
Oxford &New York, 2002
Class Readings:
The Incorporeal Mind: Rene Descartes, Meditations Cottingham pp 145 -151
The Identity of Mind and Body: Benedict Spinoza, Ethics Cottingham pp 152 154
Make notes on the following points:
Make comparisons between the extracts. Identify the main conclusion and the
premises which support it. Paraphrase the argument. What
problems/weaknesses can you find with the way it has been presented? Do you
agree with it? Do the examples help or detract from the argument? Can you
think of your own examples?
Secondary Reading:
Descartes
Cottingham, John The Cambridge companion to Descartes Cambridge
University Press; Cambridge & New York, 1993. ch. 8
Ree, Jonathan Descartes Penguin; London, 1974. ch. 9
Spinoza
Bennett, Jonathan A Study of Spinoza's Ethics Cambridge University Press;
Cambridge & New York, 1984. pp 141 -151
Cottingham, John The Rationalists Oxford University Press; Oxford & New York,
1988 Chapter 4
SEP: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-psychological/
19
Week Eleven: Schopenhauer and Brentano
Class Readings:
Body and Mind as Manifestations of Will: Schopenhauer, The World as Will and
Idea Cottingham pp 160-164
The Hallmarks of Mental Phenomena: Franz Brentano, Psychology from an
Empirical Standpoint. Cottingham pp 170-176
Make notes on the following points:
Make comparisons between the extracts. Identify the main conclusion and the
premises which support it. Paraphrase the argument. What
problems/weaknesses can you find with the way it has been presented? Do you
agree with it? Do the examples help or detract from the argument? Can you
think of your own examples?
Secondary Reading:
TBA
20
Week Twelve: Conclusion
The discussion this week will cover topics arising during the course, and will be
agreed by the class by week 11 of the course.
21
Glossary of technical terms
ANALYTIC Three common definitions (1) An analytic truth (e.g. 'Bachelors are
unmarried') is true solely in virtue of the meanings of the words that express it;
(2) an analytic truth (e.g. 'Bachelors are unmarried') is one whose negation is
or implies a self-contradiction; (3) the idea or concept represented by the subject
term contains that represented by the predicate term (this applies only where the
proposition is of subject-predicate form) - e.g. the idea of a bachelor contains
that of being unmarried. Analytic truths are to be contrasted with SYNTHETIC
ones, and exemplify A PRlORl knowledge.
A POSTERIORI The opposite of' A PRlORl'. A posteriori knowledge can be
established only by experience (usually: sense-experience) or reasoning from
experience. Example: 'There are nine planets in the solar system.'
‘EMPIRlCAL’ is a synonym for 'A posteriori'. See also EMPIRlCISM.
A PRIORI A priori knowledge is knowledge which can be established
independently of experience or reasoning from experience. Examples of a priori
truths: 'Bachelors are male'; '2+2=4'. ANALYTIC truths are a priori; whether
there are other kinds of a priori truths is controversial. See also RATIONALISM.
ARGUMENT Piece of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to
conclusion. Kinds include INDUCTIVE and DEDUCTIVE.
ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY In an argument from analogy we take two things
which are similar in some observed ways and infer from this similarity that they
are similar in other unobserved ways. If the observed similarity is not relevant to
the posited unobserved similarity then this is a form of FALLACY.
BEG(GING) THE QUESTION Unsound reasoning in which one needs already
to have established the conclusion in order to be entitled to assert one of the
premises offered in support of the conclusion one is trying to establish. Hence
the argument assumes the truth of the very point one is trying to prove. ('My
client did not steal this money because she is not a thief). Compare CIRCULAR
ARGUMENT. People on TV chat shows, etc., have lately taken to using 'begs
the question' as equivalent to 'invites the question’ or 'gives
rise to the question'. Don't confuse this popular usage with the philosophical
meaning of the phrase.
CIRCULAR ARGUMENT Unsound reasoning in which it is argued both that A
is the case on the grounds that B is the case and that B is the case on the
grounds that A is the case. (Consider: 'That there is a god is reliably stated in
our holy book, and we can be sure the holy book is reliable because it's
divinely inspired. ') Compare BEGGING THE QUESTION.
CONCLUSION The part of an ARGUMENT which states the result which the
PREMISES are there to defend.
CONTINGENT Opposite of 'NECESSARY'. Something is contingent if
it could have been different. A contingent truth is a proposition which, though
22
true, might have been false, e.g., 'Mary owns an ice-axe.'
COUNTER-EXAMPLE A way of showing that an ARGUMENT is not VALID. A
counter-example shows that the PREMISES can be true while the
CONCLUSION is false.
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT An argument in which the conclusion is supposed
to follow from the premises in such a way that it would be self-contradictory to
assert the premises and deny the conclusion. Example: All philosophers are
wise. - Premise Socrates is a philosopher. – Premise Therefore: Socrates is
wise. - Conclusion
DETERMINISM The theory that whatever happens (including human acts) is
caused by something else. Physical Determinism maintains that the
'something else' is a physical entity or event; Psychological Determinism
maintains that the cause (at least, the immediate cause) of a human act is a
psychological or mental entity or event (e.g. a desire, a decision).
(N.B. it is wrong to define determinism as 'the view that we have no freedom’,
because whether determinism implies that we have no freedom is a key
philosophical issue. Hard Determinists say determinism does imply that,
whereas Soft Determinists or compatibilists say it doesn't.)
EMPIRICAL See A POSTERIORI.
EMPIRICISM The doctrine that knowledge comes from experience i.e. is A
POSTERIORI.
EPISTEMOLOGY The branch of philosophy that involves the study of
knowledge.
EQUIVOCATION A form of FALLACY where an ambiguity arises because a
term or phrase has been used in two different senses within the one argument.
E.g. The college has a special scholarship designed for poor students. My
lecturer says that I'm one of the poorest students he had ever known so I think
that I should receive a scholarship.
FACTUAL When philosophers speak e.g. of a factual proposition or claim, they
usually mean that it is true or false, especially that it is an EMPIRICAL or at least
non-ANALYTIC truth or falsehood. Hence 'Glasgow is the capital of Scotland' is
factual.
FALLACY A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. A fallacious ARGUMENT is not a
VALID argument.
FALSIFIABILITY A claim (or theory) is falsifiable if and only if there is some
possible empirical observation which could show that it is false.
FIRST-PERSON AUTHORITY I have first-person authority over a belief if it
impossible for me to believe it falsely. A paradigmatic case of first-person
authority is the claim that 'I am in pain, now'. This cannot be falsely believed.
23
FOUNDATIONALISM An epistemological view which claims that we have two
kinds of knowledge or beliefs: basic beliefs which are obvious or self justifying
and non-basic beliefs which are justified by those basic beliefs. The basic beliefs
explain why the justification of knowledge does not involve an INFINITE
REGRESS.
HIGH REDEFINITION Fallacy in which the meaning of a word is narrowed in an
attempt to defend a questionable proposition ('No Scot supports water
privatisation; well, no true Scot does'). Contrast with LOW REDEFINITION.
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT An argument in which a general conclusion (i.e. one
applying to all instances) is derived from a premise or premises concerning one
or many instances (but not all instances).
Example: 'This swan is white, and that one, and that one and ..., therefore, all
swans are white’.
In contrast to a valid DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT there is no self contradiction in
asserting the premise(s) but denying the conclusion of an inductive argument.
INFINITE REGRESS A chain or series that goes on forever. An infinite regress
arises where we posit Xi and, for whatever reason we posited Xi, we also have
to posit X2 and X3 and so on without stop. ('Every event has a cause' requires
us to say that my sudden stab of pain has a cause, that that cause has a further
cause, that that further cause has a yet further cause, and so on indefinitely). If
a claim or theory or argument implies an infinite regress, this is often taken to
have a bearing on the plausibility of that claim or theory, An infinite regress may
characterised as vicious or harmless. A claim or argument implies a vicious
infinite regress where the infinite regress it implies is in principle impossible and
so casts doubt on the claim or argument. A claim or argument implies a
harmless infinite regress where the infinite regress in the case is not impossible.
The claim, 'Whatever you aim at, you seek it for the sake of some further goal',
probably implies a vicious infinite regress; the regress implied
by 'Every event has a cause', would be widely regarded as non-vicious.
LOGIC The branch of philosophy that deals with the formal properties of
arguments and the philosophical problems associated with them. Central
questions in logic include: What is a good argument? How can we work out if an
argument is good or not? What are paradoxes? Can they be resolved? How can
we talk meaningfully about objects that don't exist e.g. Sherlock Holmes, or
unicorns?
LOW REDEFINITION Fallacy in which the meaning of a word is stretched in an
attempt to defend a questionable proposition ('You're stiII using your student
discount card though you graduated five years ago' - 'Ah, but we're all students,
really'). Contrast with HIGH REDEFINITION.
MATERIALISM The claim that only material (physical) things exist. Often used
in PHILOSOPHY OF MIND in contrast to the claim that mental objects and
events cannot be reduced to physical objects and events.
24
METAPHYSICS The branch of philosophy which studies the underlying
structure of reality. Central questions in metaphysics include: Can we act freely?
What
is it for something to exist? How are causes related to their effects? What is
time? What is space? How is change possible?
NECESSARY / NECESSITY Necessity is signified by a 'must' and its cognates.
What is necessarily so is what must be so, and a necessary truth (e.g. '2+2=4'
but not 'Mary owns an ice-axe') is one that must be true - that couldn't not be
true. Philosophers are apt to distinguish different kinds of necessity, e.g. logical
necessity (exemplified by ANALYTIC truths), causal necessity, physical
necessity, psychological necessity, metaphysical necessity moral necessity.
(Consider the differences between: 'If it's a horse, it must be a mammal'; 'It must
have been something you ate'; 'You mustn't tell lies'). The opposite of
'necessary' is 'CONTINGENT'.
NECESSARY CONDITION X is a necessary condition of Y if there cannot be
Y without X. Thus, being unmarried is a necessary condition of being a bachelor,
breaking eggs is a necessary condition of making an omelette, and under Scots
law, corroboration is a necessary condition of being found guilty. Contrast with
SUFFICIENT CONDITION.
PHYSICAL DETERMINISM See DETERMINISM.
PREMISES The part of an ARGUMENT which gives reasons for accepting the
CONCLUSION.
PSYCHOLOGICAL DETERMINISM See DETERMINISM.
RATIONALISM The doctrine that genuine knowledge, or at least the most
significant kind of knowledge, is not established by sense-experience, or at
least not by sense-experience alone, and so is wholly or at least to a significant
extent A PRlORl. Contrast EMPIRICISM
REFUTE To refute a proposition or theory is to establish or prove that it is false.
Lately many people have taken to using ‘refute’ as a synonym for 'deny', but
avoid this usage in philosophy. To deny that God exists is not, in philosophical
usage, to refute (or disprove) the proposition that God exists.
SCEPTICISM Scepticism is the claim that knowledge is either impossible or very
difficult to obtain. Global scepticism is scepticism about all branches of
knowledge. There are also several forms of local scepticism which involve
scepticism about one or more areas of knowledge. E.g. local scepticism about
the external world may lead to SOLIPSISM.
SOLIPSISM A form of SCEPTICISM. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists
except my mind and the creations of my mind.
SOUND A sound ARGUMENT is a VALID argument in which all of the
25
PREMISES are true.
SUFFICIENT CONDITION X is a sufficient condition of Y if, where there is X,
there must be Y. Thus, being a bachelor is a sufficient condition of being
unmarried, cutting off someone’s head is a sufficient condition of their dying, and
being pregnant used to be a sufficient condition of having had sex.
Contrast with NECESSARY CONDITION.
SYNTHETIC Best understood as the opposite of' ANAL YTIC'. Example:
‘Bachelors are untidy' - this is not true solely in virtue of the meanings of the
words in question, its negation is not self-contradictory, and the idea of a
bachelor does not include that of being untidy. (But it might still be true!)
TRUTH-VALUE A proposition’s truth-value is its being true or its being false.
‘Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland' has the truth-value true, and 'Glasgow is
the capital of Scotland’ has the truth-value false. (It may seem odd to speak of
falsehood as a truth-value, but that is how the phrase is used). Many of the
things we say don't have a truth-value at all, e.g. 'Shut up and get out'.
EMOTNISM says that a moral judgement doesn’t have a truth-value Gust as
‘hooray’ doesn’t), but INTUITIONISM says moral judgements do have truth
values.
VALID Term of appraisal applying to arguments. An argument is valid
if the truth of the premise(s) really does warrant us in asserting the truth of the
conclusion. In philosophy, avoid using ‘valid’ as a multi-purpose term of
vague commendation (, The belief that God exists is valid'; ‘That’s a valid
lifestyle'; ‘The theory of psychological egoism is fairly valid'). What's valid or
invalid is an argument; what's true or false is e proposition; so shun the hybrid
phrase, 'valid proposition'.
VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE An account of meaningfulness which claims that all
and only those sentences which can be empirically verified are meaningful.
Particularly associated with the philosophers of the Vienna Circle.
26