Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj 

View from Heidegger's Hut 

Ramana Maharishi 

Jacques Derrida 

Humanism Lecture Ten

Humanism Lecture Ten 6/12/05


Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

Existentialism - emerged from Paris after WWII – in contemporary form – existential affected: the novel, theater, poetry, art, and theology.

There are many different kinds of existentialism – human existence.

Socrates summed it up when he said that all thought and activity should be directed toward enhancing the meaning of human existence.

Philosophy has mainly dealt with the problems of metaphysics, ethics, and knowledge - and has bypassed the concerns of humans and their destinies – where they are going in their lives.

Humans with the rise of science were becoming more and more de-humanized – forced to fit their lives into the rhythms of machines – ie. timepieces.

Also: the breakdown of religion had brought about a sense of meaninglessness in peoples lives.

This meant some people trying to recreate their lives without religion – and others returning to religion as a source of meaning – Christian Existentialism, and Existential Psychology.

But whether they were theists or atheists – the one thing that they had in common was that philosophy had become too academic for them – and that it was to far away from their real lives.

There is no “system” of existential philosophy – but some of its basic themes can be found in its main thinkers – we will look at a number of them over the next few classes – but we will begin Kiekegaard – a Danish philosopher who is an important early philosopher in existential thought.

Kierkegaard

Many of the ideas of the existentialism that first came out of Paris after WWII – is expressed in the thought of Soren Kierkegaard.

Kierkegaard only lived to 42 years old, but during that time he wrote a lot of books – these books were soon forgotten after his death – they had a huge effect when they were rediscovered by German scholars in the early decades of the 20 century.

Kierkegaard was trained in the thought of Hegel – but when he heard the lectures of Schelling lectures in Berling which were critical of Hegel – Kierkegaard agreed with Schelling:


(quote 1)

“If Hegel had written the whole of his Logic and then said … that it was merely an experiment of thought, then he could certainly have been the greatest thinker who ever lived. As it is, he is merely comic.” – Kierkegaard

The term ‘existence’ is reserved for the individual human beings. To exist, for Kierkegaard, means being a certain kind of individual who strives, who considers alternatives, who chooses, who decides, and who, above all, commits himself. None of these acts are considered in Hegel’s philosophy.

Feuerbach: “Do not wish to be a philosopher in contrast to being a man … do not think as a thinker … think as a living, real being … think in Existence.”

What made Hegel “comic” for Kierkegaard was that Hegel tried to capture all of reality in his system of thought – but had lost the most important thing: existence.

What It Means to Think Existentially

For Kierkegaard: to think in Existence is to recognize that one is always faced with personal choices.

For this reason: thinking should deal with their own personal situation and how to make the best choices.

Hegel’s philosophy was about universals – and not about the individual – it wanted people to think not to be – to think the Absolute Idea rather than being involve in decisions and commitments.

Kierkegaard drew a distinction between spectator and actor – saying that only the actor is involved in existence.

The spectator can be said to exist but the term existence doesn’t really belong to things that are inactive.

Example: A horse and cart – a man asleep – a man awake – only the conscious driver can be said to exist – in that he or she is involved in existence.

Kierkegaard criticized rational knowledge very strongly – he reacted very strongly against the emphasis on rational knowledge in the early Greeks – which he said had continued through all of Western philosophy and the Christian religion.

Greek philosophy had been too greatly influenced by a high regard for mathematics – he did not want to reject mathematics – or science – in the proper uses – but he did reject the idea that we could use mathematically or scientific mode of thought when trying to understand human nature.

Mathematics and science have no place for the human individual – only for the universal.

Plato only emphasized the universal – platonic form, the true, the good – Plato thought if a human knew the good they would do it.

Kierkegaad thought this was false and did not show our real place in the world – our real predicament – even when we have knowledge we are still in the position of having to make a decision.

Philosophy can lead us all over the place – but eventually we have to come back to the moment of decision – the predicament of having to make a decision.

Kierkegaard saw in the Bible story of Abraham the typical condition of humans: what kind of knowledge could help Abraham to decide whether to obey God and kill his son?

The most important moments in life are very personal – where each person becomes aware of themselves as subjects.

Rational thought only what each person has in common – the same – but subjectivity is what makes each person different – thus mathematics and science cannot, according to Kierkegaard – leads us to genuine existence – true existence – authentic existence.

Truth as Subjectivity

Truth is subjectivity

What Kierkegaard meant by this is that for an existing, striving, deciding person there is not outside truth – a pre-made truth.

(quote 2)

“the highest truth attainable for an Existing individual [is simply] an objective uncertainty held fast in the most passionate personal experience …”

Kierkegaard did agree with Socrates’ claim of ignorance – and pointed to this as an example of his notion of truth, saying that:

“the Socratic ignorance which Socrates held fast with the entire passion his personal experience, was thus an expression of the principle that the eternal truth is related to the Existing in individual.”

This would suggest that the development of knowledge is not the only important thing in life – what is just as important is the development of the personality.

The Existential Situation

Kierkegaard describe the human beings’ existential situation – as the difference between what he or she is now and what he or she ought to be.



(quote 3)

Existential situation

what he or she is now

what he or she ought to be

We move from our essence to our existence

This is seen in Christianity as the idea of the Fall and original sin.

Kierkegaard saw that human beings are cut off from their essence because we know that we are going to die – that we are finite – we try to do something to make ourselves forget this but it only makes things worse – we add guilt and despair to our anxiety.

Our existential self is a movement away from our essential self – our essential self is our connection to the infinite – to God – who is infinite.

Until a human realizes his or her essential self – their life is full of anxiety.

This anxiety is caused by the feeling that one’s essence is separated from their existence.

This feeling of separation makes a human want to recover – bring together these two parts – this movement to bring them together – Kierkegaard calls: stages on life’s way.

(quote 4)

The Three Stages:

The Aesthetic Stage

The Ethical Stage

The Religious Stage

Kierkegaard’s system is different than Hegel’s – in that Hegel’s system moves via thinking and dialectic process – whereas Kierkegaard’s is the movement from one level to other via an act of choice – Hegel’s moves gradual toward a knowledge of the Absolute Idea – whereas for Kierkegaard it is an actualization of the individual through an act of personal commitment.

The Aesthetic Stage

First stage.

Acts according to impulses and emotions – the chief motivation is to enjoy the pleasure of the senses.

Resents anything that would limit his choices – Kierkegaard says that the aesthetic man exists in that he chooses the aesthetic.

However – he senses that there ought to be more than just the emotions and the senses to life.

Kierkegaard makes a difference between human’s as spirit and as sensuousness.

Kierkegaard says it is the spirit that calls us past sensuousness.

It is one thing to be able to discuss or think about this theoretically – but Kierkegaard says that the thing is for each individual to discover these two possibilities in themselves.

The individual is faced with an either/or situation – to stay with what in known in the aesthetic or to move on to the next stage – this cannot be done through thinking but only through an act of choice – or decision.

The Ethical Stage

Second level.

The aesthetic human has no universal standards but accepts only what he likes or doesn’t like – the ethical human accepts rules of conduct that reason makes.

Ethical rules give the ethical man’s life form and consistency.

The ethical human accepts limits on his or her life that ethical rules create.

The aesthetic human accepts on whatever feels good at the time – the ethical human limits themselves to ethical rules formed through reason.

However, eventually the ethical human sees that no matter how hard they try or think about it that they cannot keep their ethical rules absolutely – that he or she can’t fulfill the moral law.

This creates another either/or situation – the ethical human can remain at the ethical level or recognize his or her need for God to whom he belongs and from whom he or she must get their strength.

The movement from the ethical to the next stage – the religious stage – again, cannot not be done by thinking – but the movement to this stage can also not be done by an act of choice or decision - it must be done by an act of faith – by a leap of faith.

The Religious Stage

The difference between reason and faith is important in the religious stage.
A human’s move from the aesthetic to the ethical needed reason – because ethical laws and rules are an expression of the universal reason of humankind.

But the movement for the ethical to the religious needs something else other than reason – it needs faith – this is because the God which one becomes aware of is not object but subject – so God cannot be known objectively – as in reason.

(quote 5)

The secret of religious consciousness is that the existing individual cannot pursue God in an objective way or bring God to light objectively.

This is in all eternity impossible because God is subject , and therefore exists only for subjectivity in inwardness.

The relationship between God and each individual is a unique and subjective experience. There is no way, before the actual relationship, to get any knowledge about it.

The despair of the aesthetic stage moves one to the ethical stage – the guilt of the ethical stage moves on to the either/or moment of the leap of faith into the religious stage.

Humanism Lecture Eight

Humanism Lecture Eight 24/11/05

Georg W.F. Hegel (1770 – 1831)

The reason that Hegel is so important to philosophy is because he turned around very quickly what Kant had said – that all of reality is NOT knowable.

Re: phenomena and noumena

Hegel said: “what is real is rational and what is rational is real” – and from this concluded that everything is knowable.

Most 20th century philosophy is ways of revising or rejecting his absolute idealism – and the philosophy of Karl Marx is a reworking of Hegel.

Both Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) and Friedrich Schelling (1775-1854) were philosophers of the beginning of German Idealism.

Hegel’s first published work was: “Difference between the Philosophical Systems of Fichte and Schelling – Hegel showed a dislike for Fichte and was more sympathetic to Schelling.

Hegel’s first major work was: “The Phenomenology of Mind” and later his “Phenomenology of Spirit” and many, many, other books.

Dealing with the Legacy of Kant

Following closely upon Kant’s Critical Philosophy was German Idealism as created by Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel.

Kant’s philosophy – the categories of the mind – time and space, cause and effect, existence and negation, etc – are all concepts that mind has before experience and this is what makes knowledge possible.

The noumenal world – what the world is like when the categories are not imposed upon it.

thing-in-itself

The idealists, especially Fichte, saw the big contradiction in this:

(quote 1)

How is it possible to say that something exists but that we can know nothing about it?

Do we not already know something about it when we say that it exists?



There are things that are:

unknown (but knowable)

unknowable

For Kant the only things that exists are the objects perceived though the categories of the mind – so how can this thing-in-itself be said to ‘exist’?

The idealist put forward the opposite idea to Kant – that whatever exists, must be knowable – thus, Hegel’s saying: “what is real is rational and what is rational is real”

Fichte, and some other Idealists, believed that Kant had made real progress in philosophy – so took his idea of categories of mind – but took out the idea of the thing-in-itself – this became the idea that the entire universe is a product of the mind.

Hegel took up this idea – he thought also that the very Kant’s thing-in-itself was a product of the mind.

Thus, there is nothing unknowable – and reality can be known. Because Hegel (and other Idealists) got rid of this idea of the thing-in-itself.

Because there is nothing unknowable – we can know reality – all reality is a form of mind – but there are many objects not created by us – and if they are not created by us – but are a form of mind – then there must be a universal mind – therefore all objects, and indeed, the whole universe, are the products of an Absolute Mind.

This Absolute Mind possessed the same sort of categories of mind that Kant suggested – the categories of mind of the individual – for Hegel this categories don’t belong to any subject – but are actual realties – independent of any person.

It is not that the categories make objects – but that categories ARE objects.

For example – What is a chair? It is the sum of the categories – categories never appear by singularly – by themselves.

(quote 2)

Knowing and Being are two sides of the same coin

Ultimate reality is be found in the Absolute Idea

Hegel saw that there were objects and subject, a person and the world – but the central idea to his philosophy is that the any object of our consciousness is itself thought – thus he came to the conclusion that Ultimate reality is be found in the Absolute Idea.



(quote 3)

So far – the two major points in Hegel’s philosophy are:

(1) Hegel rejected the idea of an unknowable thing-in-itself

(2) The nature of reality is thought, rationality, and the ultimate reality is the Absolute Idea

Another word for the Absolute – theologians would call this God. But what Hegel meant by it was – not a Being separate from the world – but that appearance is reality.

Hegel didn’t mean, as Spinoza did, that the world is all One substance – Hegel saw the Absolute is a process – a unified complex system.

The Absolute is not separate from the world but is the world when seen in a special way.

Hegel thought that the Absolute could be reached by human reason because the Absolute is disclosed in Nature as well as in the workings of the mind.

What connects these three: Absolute, Nature, and the human mind is Thought.

(quote 4)

A person’s thinking is shaped by Nature – by the way things behave.

Things behave in Nature as they do because it is the Absolute expressing itself through the structure of Nature.

Thus: A person thinks about Nature the Absolute express itself in Nature.

Just as the Absolute and Nature are process – so also is human thought; a dialectic process

Dialectic – discovering and testing truths by discussion and logical argument.

Logic and the Dialectic Process

Hegel laid great stress on logic.

Hegel thought that logic and metaphysics were the same thing – because knowing and being were the same.

Logic – thought Hegel – was the process by which we discover the Absolute.

This form of logic was a dialectical process which was triadic.

(quote 5)

Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis

This would finally end in the ‘Absolute Idea’.

Thought moves – and contradiction – rather than stopping thought – acts as a moving force in human reason.

Let’s look at how this works – first Hegel’s most basic triad – Being, Nothing, Becoming.

Thought always moves from the general and abstract to the specific and concrete.

The most general concept is Being. How can we go to this concept to another? In other words, how does thought move?

Aristotle: Blue is Blue.

Being is such an all encompassing concept that to give it any content it is no longer the concept of pure being but the concept of something – and because of this we can say that Being is nothing at all – or non-Being.

When ever we try to think of Being with no particular content the mind goes to non-Being or Nothing. This means that in some sense Being and Non-Being are the same!

But to understand Being and Nothing as the same is, said Hegel, one of the hardest things for thought to do.

Hegel’s main point is that Nothing has been deduced (thought) from Being.

At the same time, the idea of Being leads the mind back to Nothing.

(quote 6)

Thesis (Being) – Antithesis (Nothing) – Synthesis (Becoming)

This movement of mind from Being to Nothing produces a third category – Becoming.

The answer to how something can both Be and Not-Be is Becoming.

This is the same form of logic that Hegel uses to arrive at the Absolute Idea.

It is the from of logic that is history which leads to Absolute Geist.

Humanism Lecture Seven

Humanism – Lecture Seven 21/11/05

Remember: we left Kant where he was trying to discover if there could be such a thing as a synthetic a priori statement.

(quote 1)

Some kinds of ‘synthetic a priori’ statements:

every straight line is the shortest distance between two points

in all changes of matter in the universe the quantity of matter remains unchanged

all men are free to choose

The last statement “all men are free to choose” is a metaphysical statement – the first one is a mathematical statement – and the third one is a physics statement.

Kant thought that if synthetic a priori statements were justifiable in mathematics and physics that they must also be justifiable in metaphysics.

And remember: Kant wanted to philosophize about those things outside of experience – God, beauty, freedom, goodness –things that he felt Hume had taken away from him with his empiricist philosophy.

Kant solved this problem of the synthetic a priori by: creating a new relationship between the mind and its objects.

If we assume a relationship between mind and its object – Hume believed that the mind is passive and that simply receives its information from the objects – from this it follows that the mind would have information only about that particular object.

But the mind makes all kinds of judgments and decisions about objects that it will never experience – it can also make judgments about objects that it hasn’t experience and about the ways in which they will behave in the future.

This kind of knowledge cannot be explained by Hume’s theory of knowledge.

Kant’s theory was the reverse of Hume’s.

(quote 2)

The mind does not conform to the mind – BUT objects conform to the mind!

“failing of satisfactory progress in explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.”

“hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects. But all our attempts to extend our knowledge by establishing something in regard to them a priori by means of concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in failure. We must, therefore, make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge … If intuition must conform to the constitution of the objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter a priori; but if the object (as object of the senses) must conform to the constitution of our faculty of intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.”

Kant did not mean that the mind creates objects – rather that the mind brings something to the objects it experiences.

Kant agrees with Hume that our knowledge begins with experience – but Kant thought that the mind was an active agent doing something with the objects it experiences.

That is: thinking involves not only impressions through our senses – but we also make judgments about what we experience.

Just as someone who wears coloured glasses sees everything in that colour – so every human being thinks with the natural structure of the mind.

The Structure of Rational Thought

(quote 3)

“there are two sources of human knowledge, which perhaps spring from a common but to us unknown root, namely sensibility and understanding. Through the former objects are given to us; through the latter they are thought.”

Knowledge is cooperation between the knower and the thing known – but even though I can know the difference between myself as knower and the thing I know – I can never know the thing in itself – why? – because the moment I know it – I have to know though the structure of my mind – I can never know the thing in itself.

My mind always brings ways of thinking to things – and this always affects my understanding of them.

The question that Kant then wanted answered:

(quote 4)

What does the mind bring to the given raw materials of our experience?

Categories of Thought and Forms of Intuition

The work of the mind is unify and synthesize our experience – it does this by putting on our experiences in certain forms of intuition: space and time.

We perceive things as in time and space – space and time are NOT ideas that we get from experience.

Space and time are a priori – space and time are the glasses through which we see all objects.

But there are other ‘intutions’ - apart from space and time - though which we see the world:

(quote 5)

quantity (we have in mind one or many)

quality (we have in mind negative or positive)

relation (we have in mind cause or effect)

modality (we have in mind possible or impossible)

All of these intuitions are what let us make sense of the world out of numberless sense impressions.

The Self and the Unity of Experience

What makes it possible for the world to make sense to us from a infinite number of impressions?

From his examination of the mind – Kant came to the conclusion that there must be a self that senses an object, remembers its characteristics, puts the forms of space and time, and cause and effect – all of these functions must happen in the one self – because if one self sensations, and other self had only memory, and so on there could never be a unified understanding of the infinite impressions.

(quote 6)

Where and what is this single self that brings all these infinite impressions together?

Kant calls it: “transcendental unity of apperception” – or “transcendental ego”

He uses the word “transcendental” because we never experience – but we know that it must be there – in other words, it is a priori.

Kant would say that it has to be there for us to be having any kind of experience.

As the world is unified – we also have a sense of our own unification.

I bring to myself the same glasses when I experience myself (quote 5) – as I do when I look at the world.

Phenomenal and Noumenal Reality

Phenomena and noumena

The importance of Kant’s philosophy is that it says that human knowledge is forever limited.

(quote 7)

Kant’s limitation of knowledge takes two forms:

(1) Knowledge is limited to the world of experience.

(2) Our knowledge is limited by the “glasses” that we see it through.

Phenomenal reality – the world as we experience it.

Noumenal reality – the world ‘as it is’ – before we perceive it through our “glasses”.

Kant said that we can never experience ‘noumenal reality’.

In other words, there is a reality that exists independently of us which we can never experience.

Transcendental Ideas of Pure Reason as Regulative Concepts

There are three ideas important to us because the help to unify or make sense of the world for us – these ideas are a priori:

(quote 8)

Self (source)

World (place)

God (cause)

These ideas – like noumenal reality – are things that we can never experience. Kant said that they are transcendental because that are not objects in our experience.

These are the metaphysical subjects to which the rationalists argued proofs for – the mistake Kant says that they made was to think that they were transcendent and not transcendental

(quote 9)

“there is a great difference between something given to my reason as an object absolutely, or merely as an object in the idea. In the former case our concepts are employed to determine the object [transcendent]; in the later case there is in fact only a scheme for which no object, not even a hypothetical one, is directly given, and which only enables us to represent to ourselves other objects in an indirect manner, namely in their systematic unity, by means of their relation to this idea. Thus, I say, that the concept of a highest intelligence is a mere idea [transcendental] …”

Humanism Lecture Six

Humanism – Lecture Six 17/11/05

Humanism – and the idea of the human – is based on the idea that a human is fundamentally a reasoning (thinking) being – and that human reason can solve human problems – so that much of what we a discussing as we discuss these philosophers is there critiques and understanding of reason – very important to this discussion is Kant – we have already discussed Hume and Rousseau – who both in a way represent different models of reason – both of these thinkers were very important to the philosophy of Kant – who tried to bring these two conceptions of reason together.

It is important to take this tour through different conceptions of reason so that we might understand the argument that we are going to approach eventually – that of Jean-Paul Sartre’s and Martin Heidegger’s response – the approach should give you not only an understanding of Humanism as perhaps the most important idea in Western philosophy – but because it is such an important idea in Western philosophy it will also gives an overview of the most important ideas in the whole tradition.


Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Kant lived all of his eighty years in Konigsberg – in fact he never traveled further than 10 kilometers from the place he was born.

(quote 1a)

“two things fill me with ever new and increasing admiration and awe … the starry heavens above and the moral law within”

(quote 1)

Critique of Pure Reason (1781)
Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (1783)
Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics (1785)
Metaphysical First Principles of Natural Science (1786)
Critique of Practical Reason (1788)
Critique of Judgment (1790)
Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason (1793)
Perpetual Peace (1795)

Kant is very important to Western philosophy.

Kant had a picture of Rousseau in his bedroom – Rousseau’s idea of ethics was very important to Kant – just as Hume woke Kant out of his “dogmatic slumbers.”

Kant wanted to overcome this problem of determinism and free-will.

Kant thought too that there was a real danger in science trying to describe human nature in terms of cause and effect.

On this scientific model there would be no room for freedom or God.

The two main philosophies in Kant’s time were: British Empiricism and Continental Rationalism


(quote 2)

Kant criticized:

The ‘dogmatism’ of Rationality

The ‘skepticism’ of Empiricism

dogmatic means to strongly argue that something is true with very little evidence
skepticism – almost the opposite – thinking that it is almost impossible to say anything is true for sure

Rationality can be accused of dogmatism because it makes many claims without the evidence of the senses.

Because rationalism is at the very heart of metaphysics which are central to ethics – rationalism is the idea that we have knowledge of realties beyond our experience just by moving from idea to idea (like proof of Descartes, etc proofs of God) – like we do in mathematics.

But Hume and other empiricists argue that we can only have knowledge from experience and perception – impression and ideas.

We have already discussed Hume and how his questioning of causality led to the questioning of science altogether.

But it was science itself that raised two questions for Kant:

(1) this we have already discussed that science’s mechanical view of the universe could bring freedom and God into doubt.

(2) How to explain scientific knowledge – what it is.

Kant discovered that these two problems were similar – in that the explanation of scientific knowledge and the explaining of metaphysics – thought concerning freedom and God – were the same.

Kant said that what the scientist is doing when he is describing reality is the same as what the metaphysician is doing when he or she philosophizes about freedom and ethics.

(quote 3)

In science and metaphysics there is some datum which gives rise to judgment in human reason
So Kant is said to have brought a new life to philosophy at this time because no longer was it a battle between the schools of rationalism and empiricism – but now it was reason that was central to both.

data – facts or information used in deciding or discussing something.

It was this that Kant is known for – examine the reason that is common both to rationalism and empiricism – this he does in his most famous book – Critique of Pure Reason.

The work of philosophy from Kant on – is the examining of what human reason can do.

Kant’s Critical Philosophy

Kant had been a rationalist philosopher until he read the work of David Hume.

Remember what rationalism is: rationalism is the idea that we have knowledge of realties (like God) beyond our experience just by moving from idea to idea.

But after reading David Hume – Kant began to question rationalism – but he did not want to go all the way – because he did not want to give up some of the subjects of rationalism – i.e. God, freedom, and morality/ethics.

These topics of God, freedom, morality – were topics which a philosopher could not ignore.

So Kan want to build upon what he thought was good in both and rationalism and empiricism and reject what was not good.

Kant invented a whole new approached in philosophy to do this: critical philosophy.

(quote 4)

Critical Philosophy: the analysis of the powers of human reason.

“a critical inquiry into the faculty of reason with reference to all the knowledge which it may strive independently of all experience”

Critical Philosophy asks this question: “What and how much can understanding and reason know, apart from all experience?”

So where rationalist might try to prove the existence of God only through reason – Kant thought that the question they should ask themselves is – not whether they have proved through reason the existence of God or not – but does reason have the power to answer such questions.

Kant thought that it was crazy for rationalist/metaphysicians to argue amongst themselves about the trueness of their arguments without first asking themselves if reason was up to the job.
Critical philosophy was for Kant not to do away with metaphysics – but to prepare for it by asking how is a priori (knowledge before experience) knowledge possible.

The Nature of a Priori Knowledge

Kant thought that we were able to gain a type of knowledge that did not need experience – though he agreed with David Hume and other empiricists that our knowledge began with experience – but it doesn’t stop there.

(quote 5)

“though our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all rises out of experience”

To understand what Kant means by this we have to think back – again – to Hume’s argument about causality - Kant thought that Hume was right that we do not experience causality – but Kant thought that Hume was wrong in thinking that causality was just a habit of our minds connecting two events together – Kant thought that rather our knowledge of causality came with (was already there) with the two event – and agreed with Hume that our knowledge of causality didn’t come out of experience (causality was not something that we experienced.

What is this a priori knowledge? Knowledge such as mathematics, or knowing that every change must have a cause – the kind of knowledge that cannot be come from experience.

In other words, experience cannot show us that every change must have cause – since we cannot have experienced every cause.

Knowledge based on experience can NEVER give necessity or universal understanding – but a priori knowledge CAN - example: 1+1=2

Kant came to an understanding that there was obviously a priori knowledge – but what he wanted to know was: How is a priori knowledge possible?

But it simply a question of how a priori knowledge is possible – but …

(quote 6)

How is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?

analytic
synthetic
a priori
a posteriori

Humanism Lecture Five

Humanism – Lecture Five 10/11/05


Jean-Jacques Rousseau lived during the French Enlightenment and was alive at the same time as many other famous philosophes

(quote 1)

Voltaire (1694-1778)

Montesquieu (1689-1755)

Rousseau (1712-1778)

Diderot (1713 -1784)

Condorcet (1743-1794)


All of these believed that human reason is the best guide to humankind’s destiny.

“Reason is to the philosophe what grace is to the Christian.”

Rousseau was unusual than the rest of the philosophes in that he had little education – however, he formed ideas about human nature that his thought has prevailed over many thinkers of the time.

Biography

Born in Geneva, Switzerland.

His formal education ended when he was about 12 years old. He had many types of jobs after this – mostly he got work copying music – he was mainly self-taught – an autodidactic.

He moved to Paris in his late twenties and began to mix in upper circles of French society – met Diderot.

He was always very shy especially around women – in 1746 he met an uneducated young servant girl - Therese Levasseur – who he married in 1768.

Literary Career

Rousseau’s lit career begins with an essay entitled Discourse on the Arts and Sciences (1750).

In this essay Rousseau argues that morals had been corrupted by the replacement of religion by science – by sensuality in art – by licentiousness in literature – and by the emphasis on logic over feeling.

This essay made Rousseau famous – Diderot: “never was there an instance of a like success.”

This was followed by an operetta: Le Devin Village – performed before the King.

A play: Narcisse

Two important works appeared in 1755:

(quote 2)

1755

What Is the Origin of the Inequality Among Men, and Is It Authorized by Natural Law?

Discourse on Political Economy

In 1761, Rousseau published a love story: Julie, our La Nouvelle Helois – which became the most famous novel of the eighteenth century.

In 1762, Rousseau wrote Emile – which was critical of institutional religion while saying how important religion was to mankind.

In the same year Rousseau published his most famous work: The Social Contract – in this book he tries to describe how we go from ‘the state of nature’ to the civil state – and to answer why the laws that govern humans are legitimate.

Rousseau was not happy as he got older – he suffered from intense paranoia – he accepted an invitation to visit his friend David Hume in England and stayed there 16 months – his autobiography – Confessions – was published after his death in July 1778 – the same year in which Voltaire died.

The Paradox in Learning

Rousseau read that a prize would be give by the Academy of Dijon for the essay that best answered the question:

(quote 3)

“Whether the restoration of the arts and sciences has had the effect of purifying or corrupting morals?”

Rousseau: “I felt myself dazzled by a thousand sparkling lights. Crowds of vivid ideas thronged into my mind with force and confusion that threw me nto unspeakable agitations.”

“man is by nature good, and that only our institutions have made him bad.”


Rousseau was already 38 years old by the time he wrote the essay. – he had read widely – traveled in Switzerland, Italy, France – observed different cultures – had spent time in sophisticated French society and had nothing but bad feelings for the social circles of Paris.

What Rousseau set out to show in his essay was that: “man is by nature good, and that only our institutions have made him bad.”

This is the underlying message of all Rousseau’s writing.

But Rousseau said that this first work – this essay – lacked logic and order – and was the weakest in reasoning that he ever wrote.

For this reason the essay was an easy target for his critics – many readers also had trouble with Rousseau’s thesis: that civilization is the cause of unhappiness or that the corruption of society is caused by learning in the arts and sciences.

Rousseau begins his prize winning essay saying good things about human reason:

(quote 4)

“it is a noble and beautiful spectacle to see man raising himself … from nothing by his own exertions; dissipating by the light of reason all the thick clouds by which he was by nature enveloped.”

“fling garlands of flowers over the chains which weight men down and stifle in men’s hearts that sense of original liberty for which they seem to have been born.”

“the politicians of the ancient world were always talking about morals and virtue; ours speak of noting but commerce and money.”

fashion – doing and looking as others makes us all look alike – making us not dare to be who we truly are – we never know who we are dealing – earlier men could easily see though each other – prevented them having many vices.
politicians emphasized economic aspects of politics.
criticized luxury – it could produce a brilliant but not lasting society – artists and musicians after luxury lower their genius to the level of the times.

One of the ways in which to confront all this is to acknowledge the role of women – “men will always be what women choose to make them. If you wish then they should be noble and virtuous, let women be taught what greatness of soul and virtue are.”

Rousseau – said in the essay – that: the question is not if the man is honest, but is he clever – not whether a book is useful, but well written – rewards are given for cleverness, while virtue is left unnoticed.

Rousseau pointed at some historical evidence that showed that progress in the arts and sciences always lead the corruption of morals.

In the essay – Rousseau said that only Sparta was ideal – because patriotism was the supreme virtue and where arts, artists, science, an scholars were not allowed.

It is quite extraordinary that Rousseau would be praising ignorance and the height of the French Enlightenment – But what Rousseau was really worried about was that all the different points of view brought about by the arts and sciences would bring about confusion with morality.

A stable society is based on a stable set of values and morality – these values can be undermined by philosophy and science.

Rousseau thought this for several reasons: 1) each society is unique and its genius is its own local set of values – science and philosophy seek to discover universal truth – this exposes local values as less than truth. 2) Philosophy and science need proof and evidence but some of the most important moral values cannot be proved – they need through to be believed – what keeps a society together is faith not knowledge.

Rousseau’s argument was not against science and philosophy – but with the movement to popularize these disciplines.

Rousseau respected men like Bacon, Descartes, and Newton – but thought that they were the exceptions – and that the scientific attitude should not be come common amongst the population.

(quote 5)

“It belongs only to a few to raise monuments to the glory of human learning.”

“those compliers who have indiscreetly broken open the door to the sciences and introduced into their sanctuary a populace unworthy to approach it.”

“nature would have preserved them [most men and women] from science, as a mother snatches a dangerous weapon from the hands of her child.”

[Ordinary people should build their happiness upon the opinions which] “we can find in our own hearts, [virtue] is the sublime science of simple minds, [for true philosophy is to] listen to the voice of conscience.”


The Social Contract

In this book Rousseau looks at why we should follow the laws of a society.

This is the book which begins with the famous quote: “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”

In the natural state humans were happy.

Rousseau claimed that humans in the natural state had natural ethics.

(quote 6)

“a natural sentiment which inclines every animal to watch over his own preservation, and which, directed in man by reason and pity, produces human virtue.”

(as man develops social contacts, he also develops vices, because he is motivated by ..)

“an artificial sentiment which is born in society, and which leads every individual to make more of himself than others, and this inspires in men all evils they perpetrate on each other”

The Social Contract – what man loses is his “natural liberty” – what he gains is “civil liberty” property rights.

(quote 7)

The Social Contract

“each of us puts his person and all his power n common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.”

Civil humanism.

Conclusion

Rousseau philosophy is an attack on reason – and gave impetus to the Romantic movement emphasizing feeling (Goethe: “feeling is all”), revived religion, provided a new direction to education (Emile considered by some the best book on education since Plato’s Republic), inspired the French Revolution, and inspired other philosophers – especially Kant – who forgot to take his daily walk while reading Emile - while Hume awoke Kant – Kant said that it was Rousseau who showed him a new theory of ethics – hung a picture of him on his wall – convinced that he was the Newton of the moral world.

Humanism Lecture Four

Humanism – Lecture


David Hume (1711-1776)

Wrote his first book – from the ages 23-27 – A Treatise of Human Nature - never did much.

His next book – Essays Moral and Political – which was an immediate success.

After the success of this book he rewrote A Treatise of Human Nature and renamed it An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding - by which it is known today.

Hume wrote some extensive books on the history of England – Hume wrote three other books that made him famous: Principles of Morals, Political Discourses, and one book which was published after his death, Dialogues on Natural Religion.

Hume wanted to build a science of man – to study human nature by using the methods of physical science – humanism.

Hume read a lot – and he could see there were many different opinions on different things – Hume thought that this was a major philosophical problem.

How can we know the true nature of things?

Hume shared the notion of the Enlightenment that: human reasons can solve human problems – he thought that a clear understanding of human nature and the workings of the mind could be reached.

Hume though discovered that his confidence in finding those answers though reason could not be done – Hume went from believing in reason to skepticism.

Skepticism – a person who believes that truth statements cannot be made.

Hume looked into the way thoughts are formed in the mind – Hume was surprised to find out how limited human thought was.

Hume thought that if all ideas come from experience (empiricism) then we accept the limits to knowledge that this forces upon us.

Hume’s Theory of Knowledge

Hume thought that the only way to answer very difficult questions was to look into the way in which the mind enquires – “examine the nature of human understanding”.

To do this Hume examined three areas:

(quote 1)

Hume’s Theory of Knowledge

Contents of the Mind

Association of Ideas

Causality


Contents of the Mind

nothing seems as unbounded as the mind - imagination not limited by the natural – flying horses and gold mountains – but the mind is limited it can only represent to us those things coming from experience – from perception.

Those perceptions can take two forms: impressions and ideas.

Ideas and Impressions make up the total contents of the mind.

The original is an impression – an idea is a copy of an impression.

The difference between the two is vividness (aliveness) – an actual event and the memory of it.

Vividness – strong and bright.

To feel pain is an impression – to remember it is an idea.

Hume claimed that without an impression we cannot have an idea – because every idea is merely a copy of an impression.

But what of a “flying horse” – we have never had an impression of that – but this is due, according to Hume, the minds ability to compound, transpose, and diminishes.

When we think of a flying horse we just put together (compound) wings, horses – which we have had as impressions.

Hume put the idea of God to this test – and said that it was a expanding of those impressions we get of humans, such as kindness, goodness, and wisdom.

But if all our ideas come from impressions – how do we explain thinking? or the way in which ideas put themselves together in our mind.

To do this Hume examines the next idea …

Association of Ideas

Hume said that it is not by chance that our ideas come together – there must be a deeper bond or joining together.

Simple ideas seem to join together to make more complex ones.

Hume thought that when simple ideas have certain qualities they will associate – come together with other ideas to make more complex ideas.

Those qualities are three in number – they are:

(quote 2)

Resemblance

Contiguity in time or place

Cause and effect


Contiguity – near, touching, neighbouring.

(quote 3)

“A picture naturally leads our thoughts to the original [resemblance]: the mention of one apartment in the building naturally introduces an enquiry concerning the others [contiguity]: and if we think of a wound, we can scarcely forebear reflection on the pain which follows it [cause and effect].”

Of these three qualities it was ‘cause and effect’ that Hume thought the most important – without cause and effect we can have no knowledge.

Causality

Hume’s most famous ideas have to do with causality –for Hume the very idea of causality – that we can know the causation – to be very doubtful.

Hume asks the question: What is the origin of the idea of causality?

And because all ideas must first come from impressions – he looked for the impression that was at the foundation of the idea of causality and could find no such impression.

How then does the idea of causality arise in the mind?

When we say cause and effect what we mean is that A causes B – but what is our experience of this – Hume says three relations:

(quote 4)

First: There is the relation of contiguity, for A and B are always close together.

Second: There is priority in time, for A, the “cause,” always come before B.

Third: There is constant conjunction, for we always see A followed by B.


There is another relation that idea of causality suggests to us and that is: necessary connections.

But – Hume says – there is no object, no matter how hard we study it, will imply the existence of another – no matter how hard we study oxygen it will never tell us that mixed with hydrogen it will give us water.

It is only when we see them together that we know this.

So while we have impressions of contiguity, priority, and constant conjunction – we do not have an impression of necessary connections.

Causality is not a quality in the objects we observe – but is a “habit of association” in the mind produced by repetition of instances of A and B.

And remember – Hume believed that causality was central to all kinds of knowledge – thus his attack on the principle of knowledge – undermined his belief in knowledge – thus his skepticism.

Humanism Lecture Three

Humanism – Lecture Three 4/11/05



The Enlightenment

The Enlightenment is the culmination of the Renaissance.

The thinkers of the Enlightenment are called philosophes ­– wanted to cread a society that was more rational and humane.

They adopted Descartes doubt – and doubted inherited opinions and tradition.

(quote 1)

“We think that the greatest service to be done to me is to teach them to use their reason, only to hold to truth what they have verified and proved” – Denis Diderot (1713-1784)

verify – make sure that something is true or accurate

Denis Diderot – - chief editor of the Encyclopedia - progress of civilization measure of man’s goodness – morality – like Rousseau thought that education should promote curiosity rather than claims to truth.

The Enlightenment grew out of the Scientific Revolution.

The philosophes wanted to apply the scientific method to the human world and fix it.

Issac Newton discovered the laws for physical world – couldn’t there be same kind of laws to be discovered for human society – such as government, law, ethics, economics.

Christianity and the Search for Natural Religion

The philosophes criticized Christianity for its unreason and superstition.

Relying on the kind of scientific method that Bacon suggest – they rejected the idea of miracles, angels, devils as mere imagination.

Relying on the deductive methods of Descartes – they examined the Bible and found many contradictions and extreme claims – using scientific method challenged Christianity’s claim on the Truth.

They also attacked Christianity for seeing humans as evil and helpless without God’s help. To establish an enlightened society the power of the church had to be broken.

(quote 2)

Francois Marie Arouet (1694-1778), known to the world as ‘Voltaire’

Voltaire

the recognized leader of the French Enlightenment – lived in England in 1720s – admired English freedom, commerce, science – argued strongly against Christianity – which he thought caused many of the problems in French society – he thought that Christianity would be destroyed by the “weapons of reasons’ – many ideas of Christianity make no sense to reason at all yet people have killed and slaughted each other over those ideas.

Natural Religion

Many of the philosophes were atheists, but most were deists (believers in God) – including Voltaire. The deists tried to change Christianity with science and reason – natural religion – thus they denied that the Bible came from God – they rejected mysteries, prophecies, and miracles, and the virgin birth, Jesus walking on water, the Resurrection – as going against reason – they thought that God created the world – but once created let it run on its on.

For these deists the essence of religion was morality – not rituals or church authority.

Political Thought

Apart from Christianity being bad – the philosophes thought that despotism was another evil confronting humans.

despot/despotism – a ruler with unlimited powers – usually a cruel use of those powers.

So – two main ideas of the Enlightenment – destroy the power of the Church – make religion reasonable – and lessen the power of their rulers.

The philosophes thought that political solutions could be found for the problems that beset society.

Hobbes and Locke

Two very important political philosophers of the Enlightenment were:

(quote 3)

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

John Locke (1632-1704)

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

Hobbes

believed that only absolute rule by a King – could hold peoples passions in check – this is what he wrote in his most famous book – Leviathan (1651) – tried to make a political philosophy based on scientific method – thus rejected the idea that the King’s authority comes from God – thought that people were selfish and grasping – withough a strong state people would be out of control.

Locke

thought that people were essentially good - in his book Two Treaties of Government (1690) – said that people were born with rights to life, freedom, and property – and it was the state’s obligation to protect those rights – therefore, no government, King, or ruler has the right to take those rights away – if the government fails to protect natural rights then the people must have a way of getting rid of that government.

Locke’s philosophy inspired the American and French revolutions – and he idea that the people have the right to oppose and get rid of a government that doesn’t protect or takes away their natural rights – was the justification the American colonies used to pull away from England.

Rousseau

(quote 4)

“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” – Rousseau, The Social Contract (1762)

Rousseau saw the state as corrupt – only used to help the rich and powerful – the state robed people of their natural freedom and took away their feeling for others and the common good – wanted a real democracy – admired the Greeks – direct democracy

The Enlightenment and the Modern Age

The Enlightenment holds key ideas of today world.

(quote 5)

Key Ideas of the Enlightenment:

autonomous reason – capable of thinking independent of authority

rational and secular interpretation of nature and society

value of science and technology as a way to make a better future

free people from intolerance, cruelty, and oppression

separation of church and state

These ideas of the Enlightenment spread from Europe to the US and helped from the Declaration of Independence – which put into words many of John Locke’s ideas.

the government gets its authority from the people who it governs
that human beings are born with natural rights
the government has a responsibility to protect those rights
the people have a right to resist a government which threatens those rights

Another important thing – was that Enlightenment philosophers broke with Christian ideas of human nature and the purpose of life.

For the Christian: men and women were born in sin, suffering and misery were there because that was God’s plan, relief could only come from God, social inequality was part of God’s plan also.

For the Enlightenment philosopher: injustice and suffering were man-made problems which could be solved through reason, had confidence in peoples’ ability to gain happiness by improving their earthly conditions, and express a theory of human progress that did not need God.

The Enlightenment philosopher believed in the power of reason and rationality in three main ways:

(quote 5a)

1. Human beings are free to the extent that their actions are carried out for a reason. Actions prompted by traditional authority, whether religious or political, are therefore not free; liberation requires weakening if not overthrowing this authority.

2. Human rationality (reason) is universal, requiring only education for its development. Because they are rational beings, all human beings have certain rights, among them the right to choose and create their own lives.

3. The true form of all things (the laws by which things operated) could be discovered, whether of the universe, of the mind, of good government, of a happy life.


However, today many people are not convinced of the Enlightenment’s notion of progressively better future through science – especially because of events in the 20th century such as WWI and WWII.

In his book, The Enlightenment, the contemporary writer, Peter Gay says this:

(quote 6)

“The world has not turned out the way the philosophes wished and half expected that it would. Old fanaticisms have been more intractable, irrational forces more inventive than the philosophes were ready to conjecture in their darkest moments. Problems of race, of class, of nationalism, of boredom and despair in the midst of plenty have emerged almost in defiance of the philosophes philosophy. We have known horrors, and may know horrors, that the man of the Enlightenment did not see in their nightmares.” – Peter Gay, The Enlightenment.

Humanism Lecture Two

Humanism – Lecture Two 1/11/05


The Spread of the Renaissance

With the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries spread to Germany, France, England, and Spain.

These in the north were also devoted to the ancients.

Erasmian Humanism

(quote one)

Erasmus (1466-1536)

Francois Rabelais (1494-1553)

Thomas More (1478-1535)


Eramus

Dutch - made humanism international - He also taught study of the ancients – but must be linked to Christianity – was the first humanist who used the printing press – argued against the ‘justified’ war of Augustine and Aquinas – and for the virtues of tolerance, friendliness, and gentleness – which for him were all Christian virtues.

Rabelais

French - a humanist – also a comic writer – known best for his book Gargantua and Pantagruel – which celebrates earthly life and earthly enjoyments – it possible to have heaven here on earth if we stop listening to the clergy – in the book people eat and sleep when they wanted and read, wrote, sang, and played many instruments and learned to speak many languages – there was only one rule: Do What You Want – admired Eramus – believed in peoples native goodness

More

English – a lawyer by profession – after refusing to recognize that Henry VIII was the head of the English Church – was beheaded as a traitor – his most famous work is Utopia (a place where everything is perfect) - in it he write of a perfect place where private property is eliminated – Utopian has come to mean an realistic vision of a perfect society.

The Renaissance - review

Marks the beginning of modernity.

Humanism was the idea that the human being was free to make their own destiny – it didn’t depend on God.

Human beings made history – not God.

Humanist liked the secular learning of the Greeks and Romans – rather than the philosophers of the Middle Ages – because the Greeks and Romans cared about many of the same things that they did.

The Scientific Revolution

(quote two)

The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment

1543 Publication of Copernicus’s On the Revolutiosn of the Heavenly Spheres begins modern astronomy

1605 Publication Francis Bacon’s Advancement of Learning

1632 Galileo’s teachings are condemned by the church, and he is put under house arrest

1687 Publication of Issac Newton’s Principia Mathematica

1690 Publication of John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government

1733 Publication of Voltaire’s Letters Concerning the English Nation

1751-1765 Publication of the Encyclopedia edited by Diderot

1776 American Declaration of Independence

1789 French Revolution begins

There was a huge change in the way humans saw the universe – the earth was no longer at the center of the universe – this changed the way in which people thought about themselves, society, and the purpose of life.

However, the scientific revolution included not only a new way of seeing the world – but also a new way of asking questions about nature and the universe – and recognition of how science might serve humans.

Two important thinkers that helped introduce this scientific revolution were Francis Bacon and Rene’ Descartes.

(quote three)

Francis Bacon (1561-1626): The Inductive Method

Rene Descartes (1596-1650): The Deductive Method

[analytic and synthetic arguments]


Francis Bacon

Strongly supported science and scientific method – thought scholastic philosophers had keep science from growing till that time – shouldn’t rely on the ancients ie. Aristotle - knowledge needed to be organized in a new way – the inductive method.

(quote four)

The Inductive Method

careful observation of nature
collection of data
general laws (hypothesis)
testing of those laws

Such a method would not rely on the Bible or myths or stories, etc – knowledge should help us to improve human life – wanted governments to set up scientific institutions - knowledge is power.

Rene Descartes

(quote five)

The Deductive Method

used in mathematics and physics

begin with a ‘first principle’ and build knowledge step by step from that

a ‘first principle is something that cannot be doubted

Descartes wanted to find something that he could believe to be absolutely true – this would be his first principle – and on that he would build – he began by doubting everything that he could doubt – he could doubt what he saw in front of him – he could doubt that anything that he was thinking was true – but he could not doubt that he was thinking – on that he built his first principle – “I think – therefore I am”.
Therefore Descartes had a starting point for knowledge.

The scientific achievements of the modern age have been a combination of both the deductive and inductive methods.

(quote six)

Picture of Descartes teaching Queen Christina of Sweden.

The Meaning of the Scientific Revolution

This scientific revolution was key in forming the modern world that we know today – today we see the universe as very different than they did in the Middle Ages – we know that the earth is one of billions and billions of stars and perhaps even planets – and that the universe is almost 12 billion years old – do you think that such a universe could have been created just for human beings?

This new view of the universe weakened Christianity and the need for and belief in God.

Everywhere in scientific academies, in salons, and in coffee houses educated men and women met to discuss these new ideas. European culture was going through a big change because of the rise of science and a secular spirit.

More and more authority could be challenged – not only the church’s but also now the ancient’s – their views and understandings had to pass the test of scientific testing.

This new way of seeing things – brought about – first by the Renaissance humanism – and then the scientific revolution – brought about the beginning of the Enlightenment.

It was the confidence in human abilities expressed by the Renaissance that gave thinkers of the scientific revolution confidence in the power of the mind.

More and more this confidence in the power of the human mind – autonomous reason – gave people the feeling that humans would eventually discover all of nature’s secrets – and that by gaining more and more knowledge humans would progress to a better and better future.

This idea of humans progressing to a better future through science and reason was the very basis of the Enlightenment.

Humanism Lecture One

Lecture One: Humanism 27/10/05

Humanism is an active ethical and philosophical approach to life, focusing on human solutions to human issues through rational ("reasonable") arguments, without recourse to a god, gods, sacred texts or religious creeds. Humanism, born in European Renaissance universities, originally referred to a student or teacher of Greco-Roman literature.

Humanism - a group of beliefs that concentrates on common human needs and seeks rational (rather than divine) ways of solving human problems.

Ancient: 500 BCE – 500 CE
Middle Ages: 500 CE – 1400 CE
Renaissance to the Enlightenment: 1350 CE – 1789 CE

The Middle Ages formed the middle period in a traditional schematic division of European history into three 'ages': the classical civilization of Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and modern times. The Middle Ages of Western Europe are commonly dated from the end of the Western Roman Empire (5th century) until the rise of national monarchies, the start of European overseas exploration, the humanist revival, and the Protestant Reformation starting in 1517. These various changes all mark the beginning of the Early Modern period that preceded the Industrial Revolution.

Middle Ages began to decline in the 1300s. This decline opened up the possibility of the Modern Age.

Question: What do you know about Christianity? Be good in this life and be saved in the next.

Philosophers of the Middle Ages were called scholastics and the philosophy of the Middle Ages was called scholasticism. Scholasticism was based on reason, but that reason had to agree with the Scriptures, such as the Bible.

Give example: creationism vs evolution

Society: Scholastic believed that society and nature were a hierarchy with God at the top – then the church – then Kings

Knowledge: Knowledge from God (as in the Bible) was the highest. Knowledge from the senses was less than revealed knowledge.

Nature: the sun goes around the Earth: Ptolemy.
Galileo: Earth goes around the Sun.

Knowledge coming from the senses or from the observation was seen as being weak. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) showed the value of reason – to love the intellect was to honor God and not to weaken faith in God – and said that in those questions not involving belief in God – like things in nature – people should only trust reason and experience.

In the modern world, our relationship to society, knowledge, and the universe has change enormously.

We trust our senses even if they contradict the Bible or other scriptures.


There is an understanding that people are equal and that no one is necessarily better or closer to God than anyone else.

This modern view is based on the idea that mankind – Man – can reason and find out things – gain knowledge by himself – that truth about the universe, nature, and society is best worked out by Man and his ability to reason – and is not found in the Bible or from the Christian Church.

This view begins to develop during the period from the Renaissance (about 1350) to the Enlightenment (1543: Copernicus’ On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres to 1789: French Revolution begins)

The philosophers of the Enlightenment wanted to free people from tradition which couldn’t face the test of reason.

The modern age begins with the Renaissance.

Famous artists:

Michealangelo
Bottitticelli
Leonardo Da Vinci


A secular outlook develops during the Renaissance.

Secular - not concerned with spiritual or religious affairs; worldly.

The city-states of Northern Italy become wealthy. People become more concerned with enjoying this life than with salvation in the next life.

Florence became the centre of the Renaissance.

The pleasure of living well in this world seemed more exciting than the promise of heaven in the next world.


Individualism was another mark of the Renaissance.

The individual should be freed from concern about God and the otherworld so that they can excel in this life.

Humanism – during the Renaissance meant the study of ancient Greek and Roman literature. The classics of the Greeks and Romans did not have to fit to the Christian world view – as in the Middle Ages, ie. Aristotle.

To speak well, to write well, and to live well it was necessary to know the classics: Homer, Iliad, Odyssey, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero.

In fact, the person who has been called the father of humanism, Petrarch (1304-1374) was drawn particularly to Cicero – the Roman stoic philosopher –who thought that it was not only necessary to be well educated but also to be able to speak well. wisdom combined with eloquence.

Petrarch and his followers set up schools which taught this Ciceronian idea.

Like the Greeks, the people of the Renaissance thought that humans were capable of excellence in all fields – different than the Christian idea of Original Sin.

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) he wrote the first in the West on political philosophy – The Prince – in it he wrote of a new political theory with no Christian ethics or morality – a political theory where the main aim was the survival of the state by any means. Successful Princes have not worried about religious or moral ideas or considerations. Machiavelli gave no divine purpose to the state – it only aim was to survive. He secularized and rationalized political philosophy – a trend in thought that we can see today as modern.

Ethics Lecture Ten

Ethics Lecture Ten 30/11/05

Today I would like to continue our discussion of Chuang Tzu and ethics.

Chuang Tzu offers itself to many different understandings – today I would like to offer you just three – they are not the only ways to read this work.

The purpose of the Chuang Tzu is self-transformation – but it is not what is usually thought of self-transformation – what self-transformation usually means is a big change in what one is – instead – we are to assume that the author (Chuang Tzu) has already been transformed – is already changed.

For the reader – for us – the Chuang Tzu presents to us styles of life that are meant to be attractive to us – styles of life of which we have no experience.

At the same time the style of life which we are living now is subtly shown to be foolish – and the spontaneous and free life is presented as a real possibility.

The word “approximate” is important here.

Approximate – almost correct, but not exact.

Chuang Tzu does not suggest that there is only one kind very good life to be followed.

Spiritual power can be expressed in a lot of different styles of life and a variety of physical forms.

Also: what Chuang Tzu is suggesting is a wonderful style of life – cannot be describe exactly.

Many times through the Chuang Tzu – he says: maybe this is what I mean – maybe it’s not – Chuang Tzu is always suggesting other meanings for what is written – this is why much of the Chuang Tzu has a lot of humor and jokiness though it.

Another reason that Chuang Tzu does this is because of the way in which he hopes to transform the reader – not by giving them a formula to follow – but in a very different way.

Chuang Tzu’s main emphasis is on: spontaneity and freedom.

Non-Moral Improvement

The transformation at the heart of the Chuang Tzu cannot be understood just in terms of moral improvement.

The movement to the style of life that Chuang Tzu is suggesting may not included becoming a more ethical person – but it does involve having a better life.

To begin to understand this we might a basic difference between:

(quote 1)

(1) Ethics (good and bad)

(2) A life that is better or worse. (style of life)

“I should be able to live my life exactly as I please – as long as it is not hurting anyone else”

In Western ethics the idea of good or bad has usually be limited to those things that might harm another person (J.S Mill, On Liberty) – and in modern Western society it is important that there should be a private part of life not subject to control by others.

There has been a strong tendency in Western ethics to limit ethics to the first category – what harms people – and to NOT include the second category in ethics.

These two are much closer together in Eastern ethical philosophy.

In fact, in Western ethics there has been a strong focus on (1) has led to ethical theory dividing itself into two areas:

(quote 2)

Western ethics has focused on:

(1) Society’s control of the individual (legal, political, ethical)

(2) The individual’s right to independence.

Aristotle: ‘the contemplative life is best for the human being.’

G.E. Moore (1873-1958) Principia Ethica (1903)

This makes it very hard for some Western ethical philosophers to understand what meant by style of life ethics, such as we find in the Chuang Tzu.

There have been some exceptions - such as Aristotle – who we have mentioned – who suggests that the contemplative life is best for the human being – but we cannot say that it is unethical – bad – to live a life that is not contemplative.

We also would not understand the last chapter of Principia Ethica – where Moore talks about those things that are the greatest goods for us to associate with – personal affections and aesthetic enjoyments.

The Chuang Tzu is NOT about ethics – in the (1) sense. There are no rules offered that you should keep or not keep.

The transformation in is not primarily an ethical change – but a change in how one thinks and feels – and in the new behavior that expresses this change.

One of the key insights – one of the things that the Chuang Tzu says is: a person can be ethically good and still have a very unsatisfying life (in other words, not achieve the goal of ethics which is to have a happy and satisfying life) – of course, someone could be ethically bad and have an unsatisfying life as well.

Becoming Spontaneous

(quote 3)

emotions

motivation and conduct

What is spontaneity?

spontaneity is the is part of all thought and action

some people are more spontaneous than others

The transformation in the Chuang Tzu is between one’s emotions and motivation and conduct.

We can look at this connection between emotions and motivation and conduct by looking again at this idea of spontaneity.

The main idea is: we are not creating our thoughts – they are appearing spontaneously – you do not know what you are going to think next.

Mozart: “I do not know from where my musical ideas come from – they do not feel like they are mine”

This idea of thoughts coming from some unknown place is right through the Chuang Tzu:

(quote 4)

“Pleasure in things and anger against them, sadness and joy, forethought and regret, change and immobility, idle influences that initiate our gestures – music coming out of emptiness … no one knows from what soil they spring” – Chuang Tzu, No. 50

These spontaneous thoughts can undermine our sense of who we are – or who we think we are.

But I need NOT ACT on my spontaneous thoughts or desires – remember: this is Kant’s notion of “duty” – but in the Chuang Tzu the point is to see this at the beginning of a chain of thought not at the end.

The Chuang Tzu is suggesting, at the very least, that we lessen the urgency of our desires – and to act in the knowledge of our inherent freedom – our always already free state from desire – is to act, by definition, spontaneously.

(quote 5)

“where desires and cravings are deep, the impulse which is from Heaven is shallow” – Chuang Tzu, No. 84

“[it is best that a person] does not inwardly wound his person by likes and dislikes, the he constantly goes by the spontaneous and does not add anything to the process of life” – Chuang Tzu, No. 82

No effort – what is put in it place – re-cognition – recognition not intention.

That were we might say it is the overcoming of desire that leads to freedom – the Chuang Tzi – and Daoism more generally points to the idea that we are always already free of desire – if we can but just recognize it – and from that freedom from desire flows that spontaneous free energy and creativity that expresses itself as the skillful means of spontaneous ethical action.

It is through this re-cognition that deeper regions of the mind are accessed.

Fluidity and Character

The self is fluid and multilayered.

Chuang Tzu says that there are benefits to staying in touch – in connection with these deeper layers – that energy and creativity can be released and help to change one’s thought and behaviour.

What about the negatives of this idea of a fluid self: the inability to take responsibility and to maintain a consistent character.

But is there a deeper responsibility – to take responsibility for that which takes responsibility.

What most strongly comes under pressure is the idea of character – it requires constancy.

(quote 6)

“What constancy requires is a high level of predictability in decisions involving trust and responsibility or core requirements of morality, and a degree of stability in one’s basic attitudes and feelings toward others” – Joel J. Kupperman, Learning from Asian Philosophy.

“Constancy and sincerity do not require that a person never change their mind, but they do require that changes not be abrupt and capricious” ” – Joel J. Kupperman, Learning from Asian Philosophy.

Ethics Lecture Eight

Ethics - Lecture Eight 23/11/05


Today we will look how tradition and community affect the formation of self – particularly as it appears in Confucius and in relation to Aristotle.

(quote 1)

We will look at three areas:

(1) Community and tradition are factors in the formation of the ‘self’.

(2) How communities and traditions form the ‘self’ is a major deciding factor in the excellence of the ‘self’.

(3) Confucius gives a very good account of this process – especially as it progresses in advance education.

We will look at the early stages – childhood – in the development of self. Then look at the formation of self during the teenage years and how one becomes a really good person.

The Development in Childhood of the Foundation of Self

(quote 2)

“the community often underestimates to what extent a long and intricate childhood history has restricted a youth’s further choice of identity change”
- Erik Erikson, Identity, Youth, and Crisis (1968).

Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics – is full of comments on the ethical importance of early upbringing and on how it should be managed.

Confucius’s leading student Master Yu has much to say on this:

(quote 3)

“Those who in private life behave well towards their parents and elder brothers, in public life seldom show a disposition to resist the authority of their superiors” – Master Yu, Analects

“We ought to be brought up in a particular way form our very youth, as Plato says, so as to delight in and to be pained by the things that we ought …” – Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics

“In educating the young we steer them by the rudders of pleasure and pain …” – Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics

Good family relations are the trunk of goodness.

It is developing the right “habits” in childhood that is central for Aristotle – those “habits” are created by steering the young with the rudders of pleasure and pain.

In other words, good habits need to be associated with pleasure and bad habits need to be associated with pain.

But this idea of developing habits by connecting them with pain has its limits – they seem to have power when the circumstances are familiar and less power when the circumstances are not familiar – such as war.

For Aristotle in Nichomachean Ethics - a good set of habits only gives us the foundation of personal goodness – it is not the goodness itself - the habits should come before hearing the philosophy of good.

In the Nichomachean Ethics talks about how a good child becomes a good person:

(quote 4)

“The soul of the student must first have been cultivated by habits for noble joy and noble hatred, like earth which is to nourish the seed …The character, then, must somehow be there already with a kinship to excellence ...” – Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics.

But how do we create good children?

This is where Aristotle and Confucius are very different – Aristotle thought what were needed were the right laws.

It is well-known that Confucius did not think that it was laws that brought about ethical development – ethics.

(quote 5)

“I could try a civil suit [court case] as well as anyone. But better still to bring it about that there were not civil suits” – Confucius, Analects

“Govern the people by regulations, keep order among them by punishments, and they will flee from you, and lose all self-respect” – Confucius, Analects

To Confucius the law should be there as a last resort – Confucius would say that any society or community that needs to use laws to maintain good and ethical relations between people has become corrupted.

Confucius would have rejected Aristotle’s emphasis on rules in the upbringing of children – what were more important were good role models – good examples.

When talking about leaders Confucius says that it is the leader’s own goodness which changes and makes good the behavior of those around him.

Confucius would say that if there is greed among our leaders that this only encourages a feeling of greed that causes crime in the general community.

Just as leaders should be good role models – set a good example – so should parents be a good example to their children – good parents – like good leaders encourage goodness in children – Confucius thinks that punishment is a undesirable last resort.

What is central is for Confucius is that tradition and community values enter the lives of children through their parents.

For Confucius – a major role of parents was to show children how the child’s actions may be seen by other in the community – this is the educating of the child in basic social life.

Though tradition – particularly the songs and stories of the community that the child learns – they find out about all the ways of being good and of being bad – and what actions are rejected by the community.

Many psychologists and philosophers would say that a child’s personality is formed by the time that they become teenagers.

Jean-Paul Sartre, in Being and Nothingness, says that the choice of self in childhood structures all the rest of the choices that we make throughout the rest of lives – for Sartre, this is what makes people very predictable.

The freedom that is central to Sartre’s philosophy is either variations on what is shaped by the self we choose in childhood – or the idea that we could rechoose this childhood choice of self – and so begin to behave differently.

We may think that the personality is largely formed by the time we are teenagers – but if we think of virtue or goodness as being a part of that self – then we can see the further development of character leaves much to be decided.

Becoming Really Good

Confucius thought that this further development of goodness – from the partly formed self of the child going into their teenage years – required ethical education.

Confucius thought that in teaching the student that the teacher should just give the student some of the subject and allow them to complete the rest – this was important especially in ethical instruction – because it made the student active rather than passive – which is important if the student is to make the ethics their own.

This making of ethics you own Confucius saw as a very gradual process – many, many, adjustments to our character.

All of this requires though – a self that is close to goodness – and this is what should be accomplished during the childhood period.

There was a progression to this ethical education:
(quote 6)

“Let a man be first incited by the Book of Songs, then give a firm footing by the study of ritual, and finally perfected by music” – Confucius, Analects

To Confucius good music was ethically important – it was more than “bells and drums” and had the power psychologically to balance us and make us more ethically aware.

One of the ways in which we can begin to see more clearly the role of tradition and community in the Confucian process of making a person good – is if we continue our contrast of Confucius with Aristotle.

But first – let’s just review what we have looked at so far:

(quote 7)

- a basic way of thinking and acting in the world is formed by our parents, community, and tradition by the time that we are teenagers – learning to love what is good and hate what is bad.
- ethical education beyond this is seen by both Aristotle and Confucius as intellectual
- for Aristotle this ethical education is based on being able to make better choices
- for Confucius this ethical education is based on training in emotion and ritual

So one of the ways that we can begin to see the differences between them is to think of having to make an important decision:

- for Aristotle there will be a range of choices – and along with your own ability to choose well – you may also get advice from friends, etc – but the important thing is to judge and choose well.
- for Confucius it is important to see that there are more than one person involved in the decision.

Training in ritual and music helps not to have narrow views – to be able to see the other person’s point of view –why? – because Confucius thought ritual and music often involve performance by more than one person – so that one learns to relate to others – but Confucius also thought that ritual and music help us to understand performance and to Confucius ethics was as much about performance more than it is about thought.

It was tradition that, Confucius thought, was a presentation of a good self – not only as a source of advice and inspiration – but also a role-model.

Confucius saw the parent-child relationship like this – the child models themselves on the good example of the parents – who have modeled themselves on their parents, etc.

Confucius thought that ritual and music capture and express styles of behavior – when performing music or ritual – one enters into these and makes them part of themselves.

Confucius thought community important because our choice takes place in the context of a variety of points of view – like David Hume, Confucius thought that we should take seriously the opinions of others in the community – they may see something about ourselves that we cannot.

There are some philosophers in the Western tradition for whom community and tradition are important:

Alasdair MacIntyre
David Wong – who argues that effective agency requires relationships within the community.
Hume and Hegel - both give importance to tradition and community in ethics.

But it is Confucius for whom tradition and community are very important in the later stages of development of a good self.

Confucius believes that the self that a person develops will be based on a layer of imitation of parents (who have imitated their parents – tradition) as well as behavior that has been encouraged by parents.

It at this stage that the child becoming an adult – can enter into the advanced education of ritual and music – as the basis of building the good self.

Ethics Lecture Six

Ethics – Lecture Six 16/11/05


Both Confuciusian (and other Asian ethical theories) and, in Western philosophy, Aristotelian ethics could be said to be concerned with formations of the self (subject).

Or: we could say the development of the self.

Explain: formation of self or development of self.

Who we are is closely connected to what we choose – in fact some people some people might go as far to say that who you are IS the choices that you make.

Lets begin with the look at the simple development of a person – who they are – and then look as some philosophical views the development of self.

These are some developmental terms to do with the formation of self.

(quote one)

Temperament

Personality

Character

Even when a baby is very small we might say that the baby has it own way of responding to certain events – loud sounds make it cry – it likes to watch TV, etc. – this we might call temperament.

Later when that child grows ups and into their teenage years - they begin to act and think in certain ways – these patterns of acting and thinking are what we call personality.

These patterns of acting and thinking can change – and we will discuss what may make someone change their personality later in the lecture.

Character - is a person’s reliable pattern of making ethical choices – so if someone has no reliable pattern we can say that they have no character – if the person has a faulty or a pattern that doesn’t work well – we could say that they are of bad character – if a good or well working pattern of good character.

So it is possible that someone might have developed a good personality – outgoing, relaxed, charming – and yet may not have developed a reliable pattern of ethical choices – in other words, chararacter.

Character – like personality – can change.

If there are ethical issues to do with the formation of the self baby – they are seen as the responsibility of the parents or teachers and not of the baby.

We think that babies and very young people are not able to make decisions about their development – or formation – of self.

This all a description of the formation of self – the next question we need to ask is: Is the formation of self ever finished?

The answer to this question I would say is ‘no’.

Let’s look at this in more detail and lets see how this formation of self relates to certain Asian philosophies – such as Confucianism and Buddhism – and how they form their ethics.

But first we need to understand this term:

(quote 2)
Second nature
A habit or mode of behavior so long practiced that it seems innate, as in Driving in heavy traffic is second nature to Chris. It alludes to the fact that very frequently repeating something makes it seem completely natural or inborn.
So that a person might have a developed a personality based advice and expectations that they get from parents and teachers plus some of their own ideas of what they should and shouldn’t do.
But sometimes this development is not so smooth – there might be a very developed personality – but a not so developed character – which become developed by a reflective examination usually of how the world actually is – and this is followed by a change in the direction is which one wants to develop their character.
This change of direction is the development of second nature – repeatedly making choices and taking actions so often that they seem as if you were born with that ‘nature’ – habitually.
(quote 3)
This phase of reflective examination in the development (or formation) of self that leads to a second nature is central to most classical Asian philosophy.
Upanishads
Bhagavad-Gita
Most Early Buddhist Texts
Analects of Confucius
A Western philosopher for who second nature is central is Aristotle.
While many Asian philosophies and ethical theories share this concern with Aristotle with the development of a second nature – what the second nature should be and how to get there is very different for each of them.
One thing is the same: all of them think that our ordinary human nature (what we might call our first nature) – the one that we begin with as babies and which develops as we get older – of desires and pleasure seeking – should be replaced with a second nature.
Some classical Hindu philosophy and in early Buddhist philosophy to reject this first nature quite strongly (all of it has to go) while in Aristotle and Confucius – there is not such a strong rejection of first nature – though both Aristotle and Confucius think that we can improve our natures.
For Aristotle – the foundation of goodness is good habits – but to develop these good habits a person needs a reflective phase – an insight phase - where they understand which habits are good.
(quote 4)
The ‘formation of self’ and the acquiring of a ‘second nature’ are very important in the ethical systems found in Asian philosophies - and in Aristotle.
What should be our second nature?
How do we work towards it?
What benefit does it have for our lives?
These questions are not entirely absent from Western philosophy – but they do not get the same strong focus as in Asian philosophy.
If we can change our character – how do these changes take place? It is interesting to note that there is quite a lot of agreement between psychologists and philosophers – both East and West – that acts of will (to want to be a different person) DO NOT play the biggest part in change – what is more important to a person who want to change their character is situation
In other words, the places and routines that a person puts themselves in.
So- according to this theory - some of the most important decisions that a person makes (in the formation of character) are where to go to university, who to marry, what sort of job to do, etc. – and NOT there efforts to try and change themselves.
Each of the decisions of where we PLACE/PUT ourselves leads us to form a life that helps to from character and personality.

David Hume (1711-1776) – the Enlightenment philosopher says in his essay “The Sceptic” – that the way to change yourself is to change you routines and pursuits – and then you will find that you will experience a gradual – not immediate – change in yourself.
This new pattern of living causes changes in personality and character.
In many Asian philosophies the development of a good second nature leads to reliability, trustworthiness, and compassion (meta).
In the Hindu tradition this development of a good second nature can lead to an experience of Brahman – the One reality – an experience of absolute value.
A central idea in the Hindu and Buddhist tradition is that the development of a good second nature is precursor (comes before) an experience of the complete loss of self.
This experience of the complete loss of self (or perhaps, we could say an understanding that there was never any self there to begin with) is said to be in those traditions the end of suffering – or complete fulfillment – or complete happiness and freedom.
In the Daoist and Confucian philosophies (Aristotelian) the need for the development of a good second nature to lead to complete loss of self is emphasized – but they do believe that the development of a good second nature will lead to having a better experience of life – for yourself and others.
In Western ethics we seen: Act and Rule Consequences and Nonconsequentialism – Absolutism and Relativism – Free Will and Determinism,
(quote 5)
‘Asian’ Ethical Philosophy
The development of a Self (through the development of a good second nature) which leads to a life of value.
(quote 6)
Some reasons why the ‘Asian’ ethical model (or a model which takes seriously the connection between what people do and their developed selves) may be better than the ‘Western’ ethical model:
(1) The person’s character limits what a person can or cannot do.
(2) The situations that people get themselves into – where they have to make ethical decisions – are often based on the kind of people they are (the kind of self that they have developed)
(3) To have developed a good second nature is to have a life in which harmony is primary – and conflicts with others are lessened.
The idea of harmony (or sometimes translated as naturalness) is central to Confucius philosophy.
Confucius (551-479 BCE)
It is Confucius to whom many philosophers point to as providing a better account of formation of the self than any Western philosopher (including Aristotle).
(quote 7)
The best way to understand the development of the self is within the context of family, community, tradition, and culture.
It is said that Confucius offers a better, fuller account of this than any other philosopher.Next week we will begin to look at Confucius.