Introduction
Definition of Philosophy: Asking the root and fundamental questions about anything and everything.
Major Heads (divisions):
- Logic (principles of correct [following the agreed upon semantics and syntax of the language] thinking)
- Metaphysics (philosophy of reality/being)
- Epistemology (philosophy of knowledge)
Minor Heads:
- Ethics (moral philosophy)
- Aesthetics (philosophy of beauty)
- Natural Philosophy (philosophy of nature/natural world)
- Philosophy of Mankind (nature of humankind)
- Philosophy of Mind (mind/brain issues)
- Political Philosophy (philosophy of the community of humans)
- Economic Philosophy
- Philosophy of History
- Philosophy of Religion
Definitions from Intro Class:
Property: anything a person can own
Ownership: the privilege of possession and the making of final determinations about a specific property that is recognized and enforced by the community
Immigration: the movement of humans from one geographical location (typically a sovereign nation) to another geographical location (typically another sovereign nation) with the intent to remain permanently or for an extended period of residence.
Philosophy: asking the root and fundamental questions about anything
Major Heads of Philosophy: Major areas of inquiry in philosophy
A. Logic Notes: see my Critical Reasoning Tab
1. Read Sections 1 and 2.
B. Epistemology Notes:
- Introduction
Epistemology Δ (from the Greek episteme, knowledge) = the philosophical inquiry into the nature of knowledge (what is it and where does it come from)
School of Thought Δ = a particular set of answers to a question or set of questions.
Anyone who holds to this – no matter where they are or when they lived – are within the school.
e.g. As an answer to the question of what is the most just economic
system, one could be in the Capitalism School or the Socialism School.
At a minimum, most philosophers understand that knowledge comprises some type of data (cognitive information and/or sense data) residing in the individual (either innate or coming from the outside)
- The Nature of Knowledge
JTB Theory (Plato’s theory of knowledge)
Something is to be considered “knowledge” only if it meets all of the three following criteria:
- There must be a belief, i.e. the person must hold something to be the case (e.g.
It is Saturday)
2. The belief must be true (i.e. it must really be Saturday)
3. The belief must be justified (i.e. there must be good reason for holding the belief [e.g. the person heard the siren go off at 10:00])
Other Theories
Many divide knowledge into two types: 1) explicit knowledge = self-conscious awareness of the relevant state of knowledge, and 2) tacit knowledge = implicit, hidden knowledge that resides in the subconscious.
- Sources Of Knowledge
General
a priori knowledge Δ= knowledge that exists in one’s head before and apart from
experience (sometimes referred to as analytic knowledge Δ = knowledge by
definition)
e.g. If one is told that country A is north of country B and the country B is
north of Country C, then one can infer and have a priori knowledge that country A is north of country C.
a posteriori knowledge Δ= knowledge that comes only after one experiences the thing.
e.g. Bob touches a hot stove. Bob has a posteriori knowledge that the stove
is hot.
- Schools Of Thought
Socrates’ view = 1) the soul existed before birth and had first hand experience of that world. The experiences and therefore knowledge of that existence is brought forward into this world. Some of that information is readily recalled, some of it has to be revived through discourse; 2) there are intermediaries between that other dimension and this one, and these intermediaries can give revelation, i.e. information that could not otherwise be discoverable. They are gained by divination practices.
Scholasticism Δ = the position that the church (i.e. the religious leaders and/or religious texts [canon] are the source of truth and anything that contradicts this is false. Scholasticism presupposes Revelation as a source of knowledge.
Revelatory Schools = positions that hold that information can be and is transferred from the spiritual dimension to the material dimension through some divine being. This information can be propositional (propositional Δ = coming in the form of words, sentences, assertions) or non-propositional ( non-propositional Δ = coming in the form of actions without concurrent words)
Innatism = the position that knowledge is innate, that humans have are either 1) born with a complete knowledge of the universe and simply have to learn to tap into it, or connected to/coexist with the “universal mind” and simply have to focus attention to that part of us and search this mind no different that any other time we search our memory for other old information.
Rationalism Δ = the position that reason (the use of rational processes) has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge. The school presupposes the existence of innate logic and ideas. Many Rationalists believe that all genuine knowledge of the real world is a priori knowledge.
Empiricism Δ = the position that all knowledge comes from experience. Many Empiricists believe that all genuine knowledge of the real world is a posteriori knowledge.
Kant’s Theory (transcendental idealism) = both experience and reason play a role in knowing. Humans are born with innate, pre-set logical categories, and these categories, though empty at birth, allow us to structure the sense impressions that our experiences bring us resulting in genuine knowledge of the world around us.
- Modes of Surety Of Thought
Surety of thought… taking some proposition to be the case (true), comes in differing levels of objective strength. All of them result in the person operating in their life as if the proposition is true. This doe not mean that all propositions accepted make a difference in the life… not at all. Most of us believe that John Kennedy was assassinated. But to the vast majority of those who accept that fact, it has no practical meaning in their life. If is just another single bit of information dropped into a huge tub of other things that are held to be true. Now, if someone were told that their parent was assassinated, this would have profound impact on the life… this would be a major life changing bit of information. The strength with which one could hold these two propositions, however, would be relatively the same…until they had some kind of corroborating/proving data to back up the first delivery of information.
The strength that people hold to things can be amazing. We all know of or have heard of people that hold on to the possibility that a loved one was miraculously saved from a tragedy the seemingly no one could life through (like the Twin Towers collapse) or that stubbornly refuse to believe that a lover had been unfaithful even though it is reported by a friend. The subjective strength with which they hold to the original proposition is rooted NOT in how they learned about it, per se, but in what it would cost them, emotionally to now let go the original proposition… and no longer hold it to be the case.
Objective Strength Levels (one holds something to be the case, having gained the information by the following means):
1) Know Δ= to have sufficient immediate (first hand) recallable information
We have hundreds… thousands of individual experiences every day…things we see, smell, taste, feel, and hear thousands of things. We do not necessarily remember all of these things…most likely, very few. Things that have significance tend to be much more recallable than the others.
To know something, requires two things. First, the information must have been obtained first hand…you have to have been there. You had to have gotten the sense data directly at the event. Second, you have to be able to recall the information. I give exams all the time. It often happens that students miss a question while the exam is being administered… only to have the answer pop into their head right afterwards. Let me ask you for you take… would you say that during the exam, at that moment when the student was unable to recall the correct answer, that the student knew the information? Most would simply not be able to use the word “know” when describing the student’s mental state. So, to be able to call a mental state “knowing”, the person needs to be able to recall the information.
Given this understanding of the term, you must by now realize that there are very few things in life that you can say that you know…at least proportionally. All the stuff that happened in the universe before you existed…all the stuff that will happen after you exit the place, and all the stuff that happened in the universe while you were on board that occurred outside of your immediate sense apprehension….all of that…you cannot “know”. This means that all the stuff you were taught in school, all that you have read in newspapers, magazines, seen on TV and the Internet….ALL of that is stuff that you do NOT know. You actually “know” very little. Precious little, in fact. And this is true of ALL of us.
2) Think Δ= to have some, but insufficient immediate (first hand)
information, therefore having to fill in with mediate (second-hand) information or logical inference. This cognitive state happens when we someone has some first hand information about an event, but not complete information. Say, you are at a football game, but were not able to get some tickets outside the stadium. You decide to stay outside the stadium and listen to the game on a radio. You hear the announcer say that the home team halfback is getting ready to score, and then you hear the crown erupt with cheers. You cannot say that you “know” that he scored. You have some first hand information, but only that the crowd was roaring. That, in and of itself, is not enough to say that you “know” that a touchdown was scored. However, you “know” that something big happened. You know that you were hearing a play-by play on the radio. You “believe” that the radio was bringing you accurate information; therefore you fill in the void of your first hand experience with trusted mediate information and/or logical inference…and “think” that a touchdown was scored.
When you say that “you think” something is the case, you emote a slightly less sense of assuredness that when you say that “you know” something is the case.
Now, of course, you realize that people use words in different ways and that there is no right or wrong definitions. But these are common usages of these terms and you should pay close attention to other’s employment of them. Quite often, people will use the term “know” when they have no first hand information at all. If it is important to you to clarify, you will have to ask them how they are using that term. You know as well as I that there are many people out there who act like they “know” things that, in fact, they do not. They might think or believe them strongly…and argue for them passionately…but they do not “know” them.
3) Believe Δ= to only have mediate (second-hand) information, but to attribute
trustworthiness to that source of information. The presence of mediate information alone does not mean that one will believe, for one could not trust the source of information
To believe – to attribute trustworthiness to a source of information -requires four elements:
1) A mediate source of information – Person B
2) Mediate information stated by Person B and received by Person A
3) A person – Party A – who attributes trustworthiness to the source of the information received
4) Party A taking the information to be the case – to be true
e.g. Betty is having chronic stomach pain and goes to the
doctor. The doctor tells her that he is convinced that she has appendicitis, and that he could schedule a scan to find out for sure, but that he does think she needs it. She tells him that she does not need that, because she trusts his judgment.
What Betty knows: that she is experiencing pain (first hand knowledge)
What she believes: that she does not need a scan (trusts the doctor’s assertion)
What she thinks: that she has appendicitis (she has first hand knowledge of the pain and fills in with secondhand information)
Faith Δ= the noun for believing; the body of doctrines which one believes (things that one takes to be the case = is true)
- Concerning Faith
Faith is, at heart a non-religious concept: Using the above definition and understanding of believing and faith, you can see that, since we know very, very little, most of what is in our head is there by faith. We believed our moms, or teachers, our textbooks, our friends, our sources of news. Since our senses are so severely limited in time and space, we have no choice but to have a severely limited tub of stuff that we know. The overwhelming majority of stuff in our heads is information that came to us second-hand…and we trusted the information sources. We believed them. We had faith.
Faith is the default. It is the natural operation in our lives. There is nothing magical, spiritual, or religious about it. It is simply what beings that are limited in time and space have to do…we either take secondhand information as true…or we don’t. Why, then, has the term “faith” taken on such a strong religious connotation? Well, all I can do is offer up my thoughts. I think that there are two main reasons why the term faith has picked up this flavor. Firstly, religion, by definition, deals with spiritual reality. This reality… this dimension is not apprehendable by the five senses. As far as I know, you cannot smell an angel. I am not saying that the various religious traditions do not have their own versions of revelation, incarnation, and temporary physical manifestations of spiritual beings. They do. But still, the world of spirits is a world that human beings cannot have first hand experience of because the five senses do not pick up the data. With zero first hand knowledge of that dimension, there is not, by definition, any chance of knowing or even thinking as the mode of surety of thought. Only believing is possible. Secondly, at least in the western world… in the religious traditions of the west, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the religions are built upon historical events, without which, the religion would be nothing. These events happened in history. They are not just spiritual truths about how the spiritual dimension works (as in the four major eastern traditions). Actual events occurred and the religion is rooted in them and their significance. And the thing is about events…. They happen only once. The people who were there when the events occurred had knowledge of the event. The people who came later could not have knowledge. All they could do is hear or read about the events… hence, all they can do is trust those sources…and therefore all they can do is believe. The religions of the West are religions of the Book…they hold that their sacred texts are deposits of Divine Revelation…God’s words… words to be trusted… believed. Although these traditions are all teleological (they are looking for more events to come to sort of wrap up things), the religions exist today because a significant even happened in history to kick things off. Unless you can go back in time and experience them first hand, you are “limited” to second hand knowledge… and faith.
Three Uses Of The Term:
This is a concept that underlies a broad range of religious thought. There are three main uses for the term today.
1) The root idea of the classical use of the word faith is trust. In its non-religious usage, faith is simply the act of taking something as true based on what you do not experience yourself, but learn about through an intermediate source. If you take it to be the case that your favorite team won the game simply because your friend who was at the game that you missed told you, then you are exercising faith. In religious parlance, it is what you do when you take something to be the case in the area of spiritual matters on the basis of a secondary source, typically holy books or holy teachers. This denotation is the way the term is employed in the western religions, and is done so primarily because of the heavy emphasis on Revelation as a source of truth and as having Sacred Books that contain this information about the spiritual dimension.
2) A second, more recent use of the term in the West, is that faith is what you exercise when you hold something to be the case even though it is illogical or unreasonable. This is a slightly negative term then; it us used to qualify someone’s holding when they do so without good reason, only because they want to hold something or because some questionable source told them to do so.
3) A third usage, which correlates with how those in the eastern religions use the term, is that faith is simply what you do when you hold any religious tenet or doctrine. The eastern religions are not big on revelation. Although they have sacred books, in general most are not perceived to be texts that contain revelation. They are moreso considered to be books that contain humanly inspired true doctrine, but not that the truth came as a result of a divine being revealing truth to humans in propositional form.
Capsule:
Classical Western Faith – faith is a taking something to be the case (operating as it is true) when some mediate source tells you some information. It is always a response to secondhand information and involves the use of reason.
Modern Western Faith – faith is holding a position, usually religious, without good logic or good sources. It can be a response or initiating act. Often it is used as the opposite of reason.
Eastern Faith – faith is holding a position, usually religious. It is not a response, but an initiating act.
- Three Levels Of Faith
1) Blind Faith Δ: (technically not true faith) when someone believes
something to be the case simply because they want it to be the case.
2) Experiential Faith Δ: believing something to be that case because one has
one or more related past experiences which lead them to trust the source of information
3) Reasoned Faith Δ: believing something to be the case after having
carefully examined either the source of information or the reality of the situation in question
- Three Levels Of Knowing
The definition above is that to know means to have first hand recallable information. This is the most common usage of the term. There are three types of knowledge:
- A priori knowledge – this is knowledge that is in your head. It comes in two flavors. First, there is your knowing that you are thinking. You know that you are thinking… I hope. You know that you are remembering. You know that you like to think about cheeseburgers, or vacations, or romance. This if first hand experience of thinking. This is Immediate Cognition Knowledge. Secondly, there is the interior knowledge that you have as a result of your rational processes. You asked someone out….and she soundly rejected the offer. So, in your head you come to the conclusion that she is unworthy of you. Right? Or maybe just that she doesn’t like you. Either way, you draw conclusions to inductive and deductive arguments in your head (more on those, later.) So, you have things in your head that you know…even though they were not directly experienced by your senses… they came as result of your cognition. This second type is also known as Inferential or Analytic Knowledge.
- A posteriori knowledge – knowledge that has come as a result of you directly experiencing the events, allowing you to draw first hand raw data about them. This is also known as Knowledge By Acquaintance and Direct Knowledge. I prefer to call it Immediate Sense Knowledge.
- Demonstrative Knowledge – knowledge that comes as a result of external demonstration of the truth of something one has not experienced. This knowledge comes as a result of propositions that have come by way of an accepted method of proof. More on this below, but the careful reader will recognize that this is not “knowledge” within the scheme given above…it is actually information accepted by faith. It is taking something to be the case on the basis of mediate information…the only difference here is that the Mediator has used some highly developed means to demonstrate the believability of the proposition. I prefer to call this Reasoned Faith.
- Definition Recap
School of Thought Δ= a particular set of answers to a question or set of questions.
Anyone who holds to this – no matter where they are or when they lived – are within the school.
a posteriori knowledge Δ= knowledge that comes only after one experiences the thing.
a priori knowledge Δ= knowledge that exists in one’s head before and apart from
experience (sometimes referred to as analytic knowledge Δ = knowledge by definition)
Mediate Δ= middle
Immediate Δ= non-mediate; no middle
Mediate Information Δ= information gained through a source; not first hand
Immediate Information Δ= information gained directly through the five senses
Know Δ= to have sufficient immediate (first hand) information
Think Δ= to have some, but insufficient immediate (first hand)
information, therefore having to fill in with mediate (second-hand) information or logical inference
Believe Δ= to only have mediate (second-hand) information but to attribute
trustworthiness to that source of information. The presence of mediate information alone does not mean that one will believe for one could not trust the source of information
Blind Faith Δ= (technically not true faith) when someone believes
something to be the case simply because they want it to be the case.
Experiential Faith Δ= believing something to be that case because one has
one or more related past experiences which lead them to trust the source of information
Reasoned Faith Δ= believing something to be the case after having carefully examined either the source of information or the reality of the situation in question
Logical Positivism Δ= the belief that only that insists that only those things
which are scientifically provable and practical are to be accepted as fact
Scientific Method Δ= an inductive approach to knowledge, using objective,
repeatable tests
C. Metaphysics Notes:
Metaphysics
- Introduction
Ah, now we come to it. The questions of what is real, what does it mean to exist, what is an event, what kind of stuff is there that is real have furrowed the brow of many philosophers over the millennia. All these questions are metaphysical inquiries… inquiries into the root or fundamental nature of reality.
There are several subheads under the broad topic of Metaphysics. I will touch lightly on a few in these notes. Others as well as these will be delved into more deeply in the readings.
A. Substance (Schools)
- Monism Δ = the position that there is only one type of substance in the universe
- Materialistic Monism Δ = the position that there is only one type of substance in the universe and that this substance is material, i.e. it is made of matter, no matter how tiny the particles. This would be the operating view of most scientists in their work, whether or not they personally hold to it.
- Spiritualistic Monism Δ = the position that there is only one type of substance in the universe and that this substance is spirit, i.e. it is made of non-matter energy, no matter how substantive the physical world appears to be. This position is the metaphysical basis of many of the Eastern Religions, but has also come to be held by modern Western Particle Physicists who have come to the conclusion that there are not really particles, only concentrations of energy; this is especially true of those who hold to some type of Web Theory that asserts that there is a universal presence of energy and all “stuff” (Δ = any and all non-descript items) in the universe is simply a particularized and localized expression of this energy.
- Dualism Δ = the position that there is in the universe two different types of substances in the universe, both material and spiritual. There are many views within this school that have differing views concerning the origins and interactions of these two dimensions. This view is the metaphysical basis of the three Western Religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
- Metaphysical Materialism/Realism Δ = School of thought that holds that there is Observer Independent Reality. Reality exists without any observers necessary.
- Metaphysical Idealism Δ =School of thought that holds that there is Observer Dependent Reality. Reality exists only as a function of (necessary) observers.
B. Things
- A “Thing” = a particular individual entity that exists somewhere in time and space (see below for fuller discussion on the importance of understanding “things”). Anything that is corporeal (Δ = an entity that has extension [Δ = takes up space, either physical or spiritual] is typically considered as a “Thing” and one of more of these “things” is considered “stuff”. My simple definition for a corporeal is that it has edges. Its essence exists somewhere and then eventually, as you move geographically, stops. Past the edge, the essence is no longer there. Things, conceptually and theoretically could be both matter and spirit, given a dualistic universe. A human being is a thing that has edges – her skin. Given a common understanding of angels, notwithstanding how many could sit on the head of a pin (co-existing in space and time), they can sit on the head of a pin. They are somewhere at some time. They are not omnipresent (Δ = existing everywhere in the universe at the same time). They have spiritual edges.
- In the consideration of an incorporeal entity, one must give a little latitude in terminology. Both the top Eastern and Western Religious systems have a doctrine of a divine being that is an omnipresent entity/energy. Since the common understanding is that the universe does not have edges, then if the Divine Being is co-extensive with the universe, then the Divine Being does not have edges. Nothing wrong with that, per se. Here is the rub. If we are going to use corporeality as a requirement for entity to be a thing, then the Divine Being must not be a thing. To put it bluntly, God is a nothing. That makes me a bit nervous painting God this way. So, I have the options of either changing the way I use the term “thing” or to say that in general it means this, but when used with a divine being it means that other. I prefer to refer to God as the Divine Thing primarily because my second best choice – Divine Being, connotes a personality, which is Westo-centric as this is how God is portrayed in the Western religions and is not how He/She/It is presented in the Eastern traditions where the Real Big Divine is portrayed more like a non-personal power or force.
C. Events
- Requirements
- A “Thing” has to be present for there to be an event. Imagine a universe in which nothing exists… it is totally empty. Can there be events? No. For an event to occur, it has to happen to some “Thing” in the universe.
- Time Δ = the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another (taken from Dictionary.com). If it were not circular, I would love to define time as the structure within events occur and define an event as an occurrence within the structure of time. But alas, you would smack me, so I won’t.
- Change Δ = any difference, no matter how small (down to the movement of an electron or quark) in the substance of an entity or in the relation of one entity to another.
- Determinism
-
- Hard Determinism Δ = the position that all events are predetermined, i.e. that they had to happen exactly as they did. There is no chance. Nothing else could possibly have occurred differently than it did.
- Theistic Hard Determinism Δ = the position that all events are predetermined and have been predetermined by the mind and intent of an all-powerful diving being. This position is presupposed and consciously held by a large number of Muslims as well as strongly Calvinistic Christians. The best way to sum it us is that all events are pre-intended by someone who can carry it all out without fail. This position presupposes an all-powerful Divine Being that has intended to predetermine all events and then by divine power ensures that the events occur as planned.
- Non-theistic Hard Determinism Δ = the position that all events are predetermined and have been predetermined by the laws that govern matter, i.e. the electro-chemical laws that govern all events in the physical world. This predetermination does not involve intention, i.e. there is no “mind” behind it. Just mindless laws governing all things and all events. Leaves have to fall, things have to heat up when impacted by light, and electrons have to revolve at the speed and shell that they do. No other options, no other choices. This position presupposes Materialistic Monism.
-
- Soft Determinism Δ = the position that some things are predetermined (typically the vast majority of events that are not interfered with by “minds”) and other things are not predetermined, i.e. minds with free will can choose to inject their will into the material world and override the determined events. A human, an angel, or God can intervene and catch the falling leaf.
D. My Thoughts on Time, Space, and Things
- Time Defined
Δ = the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another
- Time Presupposes Things
- As the definition implies, Time is a system that relates That being the case, there is no Time if there are no events. Again, given the above discussion, there are no events if there are not Things. So, it follows that Time is a function of Things. No Things… no Time.
- Therefore, in a chronological universe, Time was not always here, per se. Time came into being as useful concept only when there was 1) a Thing hanging around somewhere and 2) this thing could and did change. A non-changing Thing does not presuppose nor require the existence of Time. Any changing Thing not only presupposes and requires Time, the change in the Thing allows for the idea and measurement of Rate and therefore the passage of Time.
- Space Presupposes Two Things
- Just as Time requires a Thing…and specifically a changeable thing that changes, Space also requires a Thing. If you imagine a universe where nothing exists, it is hard to imagine space in any meaningful way. There is just…. No-thing. But once a single Thing exists, space – conceptually – becomes meaningful because any Thing, if it exists, must exist somewhere.
- So, conceptually, Space presupposes the existence of a Thing. On top of that, for Space to have anything beyond conceptual existence, there must be two Things. Only with the existence of two Things can one conceptually conceive of the measurement of Space and the notion of Motion. If only one thing exists, Motion cannot be grasped conceptually. Only when there are two Things, can there be any rational understanding of Motion as change in Spatial Relation. (This all, of course, presupposes an edgeless Universe. If the universe has edges, then space can exist as a meaningful concept without the existence of Things.)
- Therefore, Time, Events, Change, Rates all require the existence of one Thing, and Space, Motion and Velocity, …require the existence of at least Two Changeable Things in an edgeless universe. In a Materialistic Monist Universe, Space and Time literally came into existence when first one Changeable Thing and another Thing came into being respectively. In Spiritualistic Monist Universe, there is no time and space as there are no Things. In a Dualistic Universe, there was no Time and Space even if an omnipresent incorporeal God existed (unless you classify the thoughts of God as events). Space came into existence when any corporeal entity came into being and Time came into existence only when a changeable Thing arrived on the scene and, in fact, changed. These distinctions can be meaningful and important if one conceives of Spiritual Corporeal Beings as Changeable or not. It also has impact on one’s understanding of Cosmogony (Δ = study of the origins of the Universe), Cosmology (Δ = study of the structure of the Universe), and the application of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics to the Material and Spiritual Dimensions of the Universe, if they exist.
Note: the term universe typically refers to the either the place where all things exist, or the sum of all things that do exist. The entire whole of existence, so to speak. Consider this: if there were an alternate universe, or alternate dimension, then that space or the things in it would be a part of “the sum of all things that do exist, so they would be part of the universe. Almost by definition, there can only be ONE universe. There certainly could be more than one dimension within the universe, but not matter how many there were….from one to a billion dimensions, they would all together comprise the whole of existence and therefore all be part of ONE universe.
The following is a link to my complete paper on Things, Space, and Time.
On Things Space Time Complete 9-27-11
Philosophical Psychology Notes