Philosophy: Mind & Machine Chapter 5

What Does It Mean to Be Human? What We Will Discover * We learn a great deal about what we know by examining how we know things. * Moral questions hold an eternal fascination for human beings, and continue to present profound challenges to them. * The relationship between God and human beings—if any—informs many of our notions about what it means to be human. By now we have seen quite a lot of philosophy! We will conclude here by briefly summarizing the results of the inquiries pursued here, in terms of what those results say about being human in the contemporary world and what philosophy has to contribute to that understanding. But, as the final section will indicate, the very nature of philosophy will reveal any such results as preliminary and part of an ongoing, never-ending investigation. 5.1 Results from Epistemology Epistemology is the philosophical investigation into this question: What can we know? The question, at first, seems pretty simple: It seems pretty obvious that I know that 3 + 5 = 8, that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that my chances of winning the lottery aren't very good. I also know how to tie my shoes, boil water, and send an e-mail. Epistemologists seek to take such claims and submit them to rigorous analysis. One thing they will distinguish, as we see above, is knowing that something is true, such as a simple mathematical claim, and knowing how to do something. Thus, "knowing that" is not the same as "knowing how," and when we discuss knowledge, it will make a difference which kind of knowledge we have in mind. For a child, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, chances are it's probably a duck. As adults, we can't always rely on sensory information alone to form knowledge claims. Epistemology also focuses on how we gain the knowledge we do, and how we evaluate its reliability. One way of doing this is to keep separate the subject, that which makes the knowledge claim, and the object, that which the claim is made about. If I say, "Bill knows the window is open," then, "Bill" is the subject, and the (allegedly open) window is the object. Generalizing, we can speak in terms of "S knows that p," where "S" represents the subject and "p" refers to the object. This is such a common way of proceeding in epistemology that it is often called S knows that p epistemology. This allows us to consider the roles the subject and the object play in a knowledge claim. If Bill is ill or looking from a long way away or his eyes aren't very good, that can change the reliability of his claim. If the object is not well lit or if there is another reason it might not be what it seems to be, that will also change the reliability of the claim. For the most part, we tend to think that ordinary–sized objects, seen in decent light by a subject having no particular problems perceiving it, will give us reliable knowledge claims. When we use our various senses to make a knowledge claim, they may support each other. If something looks like a rock, and feels like a rock, and makes a "rock–like" sound when struck, I may be more confident that it is a rock than I might be by using a single sense, such as touch. There can also be the case that what one sense tells me conflicts with what another sense tells me: It is pretty easy to imagine encountering some food that looks great but smells awful or vice versa; this also has be factored into what I can claim to know in this particular situation. We'd like to be able to look out the window and determine what we know about the world, but few people can claim they posesss such clairvoyance. Two fundamental results that are worth emphasizing emerge from the work of epistemologists. First, we don't seem to be able simply to look at the world around us and determine what we know with certainty. In other words, we can't establish what is true about the world simply on the basis of our perceptions. Sometimes called the myth of the given, this implies that we also must interpret the information we are given through our senses; in addition to our sense perceptions, we also need a concept to make sense of those perceptions. Second, fundamental to the conceptual analysis we use to understand what the senses tell us is language. How we describe an object of knowledge, or how we state a knowledge claim, will play an important role in what precisely is going on in that specific knowledge claim. In short, when we evaluate a knowledge claim, we need to look not only at the evidence our senses provide, but also at the interpretation of that evidence and how that evidence is described. Correspondence theories of knowledge rely on the idea that we know something if and only if what we judge to be the case is the case. So, if I say, "The car is red," the correspondence theorist will say I know the car is red if and only if in fact the car is red (the claim and what the claim is about correspond). But, as we have seen, there can be problems with the correspondence theory, many of which are due to what we just saw: the myth of the given. As an alternative, coherence theories of knowledge regard our knowledge claims as a whole set of claims; if they form a coherent set of beliefs, that serves as the basis of our knowledge. Any new knowledge claim will have to fit into this set; if it doesn't, either the new claim must be rejected, or one or more of the other beliefs will have to be adjusted. We saw problems with this theory, as well; a set of claims can be completely consistent and coherent, without providing the kind of account about the actual world the epistemologist presumably is interested in providing. An occupational hazard of being a epistomologist is that there will always be someone to challenge your knowledge claims. All epistemologists confront the occupational hazard of skepticism; skeptics will always be there to challenge the confidence of any epistemologist who claims to give an adequate account of knowledge. Skeptics may say that various knowledge claims are not really knowledge or, more radically, that no knowledge claims can ever be sufficiently justified to qualify as knowledge. Of course, there have been various responses to skepticism: Some have confronted skepticism and tried to refute it. Others have lowered the standards of what we must meet to call something "knowledge": perhaps, then, knowledge claims do not have to be absolutely certain, but only meet a somewhat lower standard, of being likely or probable or the best candidate available or warranted. While the pure, abstract investigation into human knowledge has its own fascination and challenges, it also plays an important role when we apply these kinds of results to specific issues. We focused on scientific claims, particularly those of evolutionary biologists, and challenged Intelligent Design and Creationism. Here we see how epistemology has important results for science and religion, and making clear what our knowledge claims are, and how they can be justified—if they can be justified—will continue to be a rich field of investigation and philosophical argument, with important implications for all who regard knowledge, science, and religion as significant: in other words, for human beings! 5.2 Results from Ethics Ethical inquiry is quite prevalent in everyday life. At home, with friends, and even on the job, we often find ourselves asking, "Did I do the right thing?" While epistemological inquiry can get very technical, very difficult, and very confusing, its topics can seem a bit too abstract to really get some people excited. Ethical inquiry—which can also get very technical, very difficult, and very confusing—has the advantage that it deals with questions that are of obvious relevance for our everyday lives. How should I act? What is right and wrong? How do I determine if I did the wrong thing? What ethical rules should children be taught? How can people resolve a dispute if they fundamentally disagree on right and wrong? Is there a right and wrong, or are such terms "relative" to a given culture, or given individual? Or are those ethicists right who say that if I regard something right, that really just amounts to my saying, "I like it"? If I object to something as immoral, that just means "I don't like it"? These, and many, many more questions arise in the study of ethics, and the answers to them will clearly have an impact on our lives and the lives of others with whom we live and work. Virtue ethics, on the other hand, calls more into account what we come to expect from certain people. If experience has taught us that a person provides assistance, then we call on that person for help when we need it. Ethicists attempt to provide a systematic account of our moral evaluations of human behavior, and to give us a way of justifying those evaluations. Utilitarians adopt an approach that suggests, given a set of alternatives, an act should be done if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number. How precisely these calculations are made, and how utilitarians respond to traditional problems raised for this approach, continue to be discussed and debated. Deontologists don't deny that acts have consequences, but they do argue that the consequences should not play a role in determining whether an act is morally right, or praiseworthy, or not. Rather, the deontologist focuses on rules, such as Kant's claim that one acts in accordance with a rule only if all rational agents should so act, as if that rule were a universal law. In addition to specific counterexamples that critics of deontology have offered, some regard this approach as too rigid and too sterile to produce an intuitively appealing ethical theory. A third ethical theory, virtue ethics, focuses not on the act but the actor: A virtuous person will be one who develops characteristics that are morally good, such as courage, temperance, and generosity. By acting in such a way, the virtuous person develops these characteristics further but also will see that they must not be taken to an extreme. Thus, a person who is generous is not acting virtuously by being too generous (we might call this being "extravagant") or not generous enough (what we might call being "stingy"). Some have objected to virtue ethics as not providing sufficient clarity on what these precise virtues are; others, such as relativists, might argue that one culture's virtues may well be another culture's vices. Personal ethical considerations are the foundations of a society that seeks to treat individuals justly. For instance, members of the jury use their own sense of ethics as part of their decision process in courtroom proceedings. This part of ethics can be, as noted, quite abstract, and often leads to metaethics, or the attempt to study ethics itself. But from a more practical standpoint, applied ethics takes various ethical theories and, as the name suggests, applies them to specific ethical questions. Some ethical questions have a very long history: Is it ever right to lie? Can I make a promise that I am willing to break? Can I violate an important ethical rule to survive, or to make sure my family survives? Others are more recent, or at least have changed with the development of newer technology. For instance, in questions of euthanasia, if a life-support system can keep a person "alive" indefinitely, how does that change one's evaluation of the right to die? If we can develop a way of determining in advance the sex of our child, should we? As our understanding of other animals and their ability to feel pain and possibly even "think" increases and becomes more sophisticated, should that be factored into our consideration of how those animals should be treated? As we also saw, ethical theory, and the application of that theory, plays an important role in our understanding of politics. Presumably our society wants to develop a set of laws that treats people justly; how should we understand that sense of justice? Plato, Locke, Rousseau, Rawls, and Nozick all give different accounts of what a just society would look like and how it would produce results that promote a society that is both fair and productive. Each of these responses, in turn, has its share of critics. But as we saw, the study of ethics, both its theory and its application, can shed a great deal of light on what we regard as the best kind of society in which to live. 5.3 Results from Theology Epistemology is a fascinating study, and an important one: After all, we do want to know things, and we want to be able to say why we know things. The importance of ethics is probably obvious: Understanding what is right and wrong is fundamental not just to the way we treat each other as individuals, but it plays a crucial role in understanding how a just society should be structured. Questions about religion seem to carry even greater weight, for these questions not only concern how we act in this world but address topics that involve the afterlife and eternity. It is difficult to identify a field of philosophy that raises more fundamental questions than the philosophy of religion and the related discipline of theology. Although it seems that religion would be diametrically opposed to the logic–based pursuit of knowledge discussed by Descartes and others, there are few fields that raise more fundamental philosophical questions than theology. Traditionally, questions about religion and faith have been grounded in our understanding of God, and philosophers have constructed elaborate and sophisticated arguments proving the existence of God. The ontological argument seeks to show that the existence of God cannot be separated from the thought of God, and therefore God must exist. The cosmological, or first cause, argument proposes that the universe must have come into existence at some point, and that the first cause could only be God; since the universe exists, God must exist. The argument from design notes the remarkable intricacy of those things in the world, from the location of earth at its precise location from the sun, the various physical constants that make life on earth possible, and the amazing complexity of such organs as the eye and the human brain. If such things could not have arisen by accident, then a cosmic designer or engineer—God—is required to provide it. In contrast to these results, other philosophers have insisted that the presence of actual evil in the world makes a conception of God that includes being omniscient (all–knowing), omnipotent (all–powerful), and omnibenevolent (all–good) inconsistent. In short, if there is evil, an all–knowing, all–powerful, and all–loving God allowed it to occur. Questions about God, and God's relationship to human beings, naturally raise questions about the human soul. What does the term "soul" itself mean? Is the soul different from the mind? Is the soul part of the body, or something radically distinct from the body? If radically distinct, how can the soul interact with the body? Furthermore, if a person is free, how can that be established, and what does it imply? If all events are caused by earlier events, why aren't all my decisions caused by the earlier events that led to those decisions? If they aren't caused, what aspect of the human being allows us to be free? Or do we merely regard ourselves as free and, if so, is that a sufficiently rich sense of freedom to satisfy most human beings? No matter the topic, it seems there will always be debate in the public sphere centered around religion. As we can see, these are difficult and important questions. How we answer them will lead to significant issues when we consider religion not as a personal commitment but in its role in society. Many people who share a basic religious commitment disagree over general issues within that religion, and clearly there are many disputes between religions. There are also debates, of course, between those who are religious and those who are not, whether they are atheists, agnostics, or secular humanists or choose some other term to describe themselves. How religion plays out in the public sphere, its role in politics, and criticisms of that role will continue to provoke lively debate, and not just among philosophers. Finally, questions about the soul, about God, and about the relationship between God and people raise a host of challenging issues surrounding the question of what a person is. If a computer can provide answers that cannot be distinguished from those of a human being, is there a difference between the two, and, if so, what is it? Is there something unique about the human mind that cannot be captured by even the most sophisticated computer? More tragically, if a person is in a permanent vegetative state, and his or her mind has little or no brain activity, is he or she still a person? What is the relationship here between the mind and being a person? Is it dependent upon intelligence, or a soul, or a mind, or what, precisely? Our answers to these kinds of questions will have significant implications for how we want to be treated and, of course, how we treat others. For fundamentally, all these questions ultimately lead to one, very basic question: What does it mean to be human? 5.4 Preliminary Conclusions In his famous Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant proposed three fundamental philosophical questions: 1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope? Elsewhere, Kant argued that these three questions, as important as they are, are really preliminary to the ultimate and fundamental philosophical question: 4. What is a human being? As we might imagine, the answers to all four of these questions have generated an almost unlimited supply of responses, and criticisms of these responses. Some find this frustrating; after all, it would certainly be nice to get answers to each of these questions, and answers on which everyone could agree. But that is to misunderstand the philosophical enterprise. Unlike accountants, engineers, or chemists, philosophers recognize that the kinds of questions they deal with will never be resolved, and certainly not in a way that satisfies everyone. Those questions that philosophers explore that do get resolved—and there have been some!—are no longer the kinds of questions philosophers examine. These questions are those that are, instead, examined by physicists, sociologists, biologists, psychologists, and others. Unlike engineering, mathematics, or other subjects offering explicit solutions, there are no clear–cut answers in philosophy. But instead of seeing this situation as frustrating, and as a dead-end path to follow, philosophers regard it as an opportunity. Philosophy offers a unique opportunity to discuss the most important questions one can investigate, using all the tools human beings have developed, and continue to develop, to make that investigation more rigorous, more informative, more explicit, more comprehensive, and more lucid. Given its topics, one should not expect final answers but should obtain a greater understanding of oneself, and others, by the very search for those answers. This will, of course, include taking a few false steps along the way and encountering criticism of the answers we do provide. It is, then, the journey that counts, and that criticism should be seen as offering guidance for returning to a path down which useful and productive answers may be found. Our conclusions may always, in a fundamental sense, be preliminary, but participating in the search for those conclusions, however faltering and occasionally baffling, may ultimately be what it means to be human. It may well be that the conversation that we have with others about these basic questions may be what informs our understanding, better than anything else, about what, precisely, it means to be human. Ch 5 What We Have Learned * The simple question "what does it mean to be human?" leads to fascinating questions and endless conversations. * Epistemology, ethics, and theology all have important contributions to make to understanding this fundamental question. * Philosophical analysis provides a great deal of clarity for understanding some of the most important problems we confront and will continue to generate questions about what a human being knows, what a human being should do, and what a human being may be able to hope for. Some Final Questions 1. If someone tells you that we don't need to examine the reasons that support our beliefs, how would you respond? What might justify the examination of our beliefs and of the arguments that support them? 2. There seems to be a pretty big difference between what does happen and what should happen. We know, for instance, that murder is wrong, although people continue to commit murder. Why should we continue to explore moral questions and seek to improve our arguments for our ethical views? 3. Imagine no philosophers were around. Would people continue to ask philosophical questions anyway? What would those questions sound like? Why do you think people continue to ask questions about issues they may think will not be answered? Web Links For an interesting, brief statement by a vice president of J.P. Morgan, on the value of studying philosophy, see: http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/john_wright/why_study_philosophy.htm For a religious perspective on the value of studying philosophy, see: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0392.htm For a critical view of the value of philosophy from the biologist and author Lewis Wolpert (and with many informative and accessible links to more information about philosophy) see: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/08/on-wasting-time-with-philosophy-and-a-jab-at-pascal.html Scientists examine the question "what Does It Mean to be Human?" at: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/what-does-it-me/ Biographies Details, and further bibliographical entries, can be located here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/ssc/107185-philosophy-biographies.html All dates are CE unless otherwise noted. Aquinas, Thomas (1225–1274) Known as the "Angelic Doctor"; made important and still influential contributions to theology, politics, and metaphysics, developing a combined view of Aristotle's philosophy and Christianity that leads to a doctrine often called "Thomism" Aristotle (384–322 BCE) Greek philosopher and scientist; one of the most important and influential thinkers in the history of Western philosophy; wrote on virtually all fields known during his era, and made original and significant contributions to logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, and metaphysics, among others Armstrong, Karen (b. 1944) British author of a wide range of texts dealing with religion and comparative religion; best known for her A History of God (1994) Behe, Michael (b. 1952) American scientist, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, and perhaps the best–known advocate of Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolutionary theory Bentham, Jeremy (1748–1832) British philosopher, best known for his early development of utilitarianism Berkeley, George (1685–1753) Irish empirical philosopher known for his view that humans only directly know sensations and ideas, and that only those things exist that are perceived, a view known as subjective idealism or immaterialism Copernicus, Nicolaus (1473–1543) Astronomer, mathematician, artist, and diplomat, among others; generally given credit for the heliocentric hypothesis, that the sun is at the center of a system of planets that includes earth Darwin, Charles (1809–1882) British naturalist whose On the Origin of Species revolutionized biology, arguing that species evolve through "descent with modification" over enormous amounts of time Davidson, Donald (1917–2003) Influential American philosopher; best known for his work in the philosophy of mind, language, and the theory of action, focusing overall on how human beings understand their world, including other human beings Dembski, William(b. 1960) American thinker in philosophy and religion; best known for his advocacy of irreducible complexity as suggesting the need for a supernatural intelligence Descartes, René (1596–1650) French philosopher, scientist, and mathematician, regarded as one of the great rationalist philosophers; sought to provide absolutely secure foundations for knowledge claims about the human soul, God, and mathematical physics Feldman, Fred (b. 1941) American philosopher, working in theoretical and applied ethics Feuerbach, Ludwig (1804–1872) German philosopher who offered views on materialism and religion that influenced other thinkers, particularly Karl Marx Galileo (1564–1642) Italian scientist and mathematician who improved the telescope and used it to make important astronomical observations, which led him to embrace the heliocentric view of the known planets; forced by the Catholic Church to recant his views, and spend the remainder of his life under house arrest; sometimes called the "father of modern science" Gettier, Edmund (b. 1927) American philosopher; best known for challenging the longstanding view that knowledge could be defined as justified true belief; his work led to a subfield of epistemology, sometimes called "Gettierology" Gould, Stephen Jay (1941–2002) American evolutionary biologist and paleontologist who did rigorous science but also was a prolific writer of non-technical articles and books on science for much broader audiences Heidegger, Martin (1889–1976) German philosopher known for his brilliance as well as his difficulty; enormously influential in 20th century philosophy, as well as in literary theory, psychology, and other fields; a controversial figure due to his involvement with the National Socialist Party during the Nazi era in Germany Hempel, Carl (1905–1997) German–born philosopher who fled anti–Semitism in Germany to work in Belgium and, for most of his life, in the United States; best known for developing an influential model of scientific explanation, and the raven paradox in confirmation theory Heraclitus (ca. 535 BCE–ca. 475 BCE) Well–known and important pre–Socratic philosopher who emphasized change and the unity of opposites; notorious for his ambiguous and obscure sayings, now preserved only as small fragments Hume, David (1711–1776) Scottish philosopher and historian; emphasized the senses and what results could legitimately be drawn from the information they provided; made important contributions to the theory of knowledge, ethics, the philosophy of religion, and the philosophy of art; often regarded as a skeptic in his own day, he is now widely seen as possibly the greatest philosopher to have written in English Husserl, Edmund (1859–1938) Influential philosopher in the early 20th century; generally regarded as the originator of a philosophical movement called "phenomenology," which closely examines the subjective relationship between the conscious subject and its world Ibn Rushd (1126–1198) Often referred to by the name "Averroës"; expert on a vast number of subjects, including Aristotle's philosophy, science, mathematics, music, and logic; his philosophy sought to reconcile Aristotle with Islamic thought Ibn Sina (ca. 980–1037) Persian philosopher of vast learning; best known for his contributions to medicine and interpretations of Aristotle and neo–Platonism; in the Western tradition, often referred to as "Avicenna" Kant, Immanuel (1724–1804) German philosopher often regarded as the most influential philosopher of the modern era; attempted to show the necessity of concepts in order to make judgments about information provided by the senses; famous for having written the three great Critiques: Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason, and Critique of Judgment; made fundamental contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of art, and philosophy of religion Kuhn, Thomas (1922–1966) American physicist and historian of science; best known for his extremely influential, and controversial, account of the development of science in terms of dominant and revolutionary paradigms described in his 1972 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Locke, John (1632–1704) British philosopher and political theorist; best known for an early and lengthy defense of empiricism in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding and a defense of classical liberalism in his Two Treatises of Government; his political theory had a profound influence on the thinking of those who founded the United States Maimonides (1135–1204) Important and influential philosopher who wrote on a variety of subjects, including medicine and Aristotelian and Jewish thought; regarded as one of the greatest interpreters of Jewish theology Mandeville, Bernard (1670–1733) Born in the Netherlands, but lived mostly in Great Britain; famous for suggesting in his The Fable of the Bees that individual greed (a vice) could promote social wealth (a virtue), as in the saying "private vices, public benefits" Mendel, Gregor (1822–1884) Austrian monk whose work on pea plants led to discoveries fundamental to what became the rigorous scientific study of genetics Mill, John Stuart (1806–1873) British philosopher; best known for developing a sophisticated account of utilitarianism; made important contributions to economics and politics; his On Liberty is widely regarded as a classic defense of freedom Newton, Isaac (1643–1726) British scientist and mathematician; widely regarded as one of the greatest minds ever to live, inventing (with Leibniz) calculus, providing a rigorous foundation for physics through his account of mechanics, gravity, motion, among many other contributions Nietzsche, Friedrich (1844–1900) German philosopher; enormously influential in the 20th century due to his scathing criticism of both everyday moral thought and the moral philosophers who supported that thought; famous for his unique and distinctive style and vicious critique of religion, specifically Christianity Nozick, Robert (1938–2002) Prominent American philosopher; best known for his defense of libertarianism in Anarchy, State and Utopia, but also did important work in rational decision theory and epistemology Paley, William (1743–1805) British theologian; known for his argument that the intricate design of nature shows that God must have designed it, just as a watchmaker is needed to design a watch Parmenides (5th century BCE) Notoriously obscure and difficult philosopher who was a significant influence on the views of Plato, particularly his contrast between the world of appearances and the permanent, eternal, unchanging world that is genuine reality Pascal, Blaise (1623–1662) French mathematician and philosopher; a brilliant mathematician who developed a way of dealing with binomial expressions still known as Pascal's triangle; also wrote intensely personal reflections, still widely read, published as his thoughts or Pensée Plato (ca. 428/427 BCE–ca. 348/347 BCE) Greek philosopher; student of Socrates, teacher of Aristotle; regarded without question as one of the two or three most important philosophers in the history of Western philosophy, making indispensable contributions to political theory, ethics, metaphysics, as well as an understanding of what philosophical inquiry itself was Popper, Karl (1902–1994) Born in Austria, but worked for the most part in Great Britain; an important philosopher of science and scientific methodology, particularly in contributing to the understanding of what was involved in confirming (or disconfirming) a scientific hypothesis Protagoras (ca. 490 BCE–420 BCE) Early Greek philosopher; character in an important Platonic dialogue named after him; explored questions of relativism and whether virtue is something that is learned or something with which one is born Ptolemy (ca. 90–168) Astronomer from Egypt (though a citizen of Rome) whose contributions provided a comprehensive account that served as the standard view of astronomy until Copernicus and Galileo Pythagoras (ca. 570 BCE–495 BCE) Pre–Socratic philosopher who was influential for his insistence on the importance of mathematics; known still for the theorem about right triangles that bears his name Rand, Ayn (1905–1982) Russian–born American writer who expressed her philosophical support for radical freedom and independence, as well as egoism and atheism, through her many popular novels and non–fiction books Rawls, John (1921–2002) American political philosopher, best known for his defense that justice should be understood in terms of fairness; proposed in A Theory of Justice that if people were to design a society in which they would live behind a "veil of ignorance," those things that lead to injustice (such as discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, race, class, and other things) would be eliminated or minimized; widely regarded as one of the most influential political thinkers of the 20th century Russell, Bertrand (1872–1970) Prolific British philosopher who made fundamental contributions to mathematics, set theory, and mathematical logic; wrote popular discussions on a very wide range of philosophical, political, social, historical, economic, and cultural questions Searle, John (b. 1932) American philosophy producing influential work in the philosophy of mind with his famous Chinese Room thought experiment and in the philosophy of language through his account of speech acts, such as promises Sellars, Wilfrid (1912–1989) Influential philosopher in epistemology; widely recognized among philosophers for having given an important account of perception and that perception always brings with it certain theoretical notions (known as the myth of the given) Sextus Empiricus (ca. 160–210) Physician best known for his accounts of radical (Pyrrhonic) skepticism in which it is argued that nothing can ever be known for certain and that recognizing this leads to a feeling of tranquility Singer, Peter (b. 1946) Australian philosopher, now living in the United States, who draws on utilitarianism to defend a controversial account of animal rights; discusses many other areas of applied ethics Socrates (469 BCE–399 BCE) Known chiefly through the writings of his greatest student, Plato, examined a wide variety of moral questions through a unique technique of questions and answers, now known as the Socratic method Thales (ca. 624 BCE–c. 546 BCE) Regarded as the first philosopher in the Western tradition; suggested that water was the fundamental substance that constituted the world; few if any genuine examples of his writing exist Turing, Alan (1912–1954) English mathematician and logician, known to philosophers for having described the Turing test to examine whether machines can think; known to computer scientists for having helped create the modern computer; known to historians for having helped solve German military codes during World War II von Hayek, Friedrich (1889–1992) Economist, born in Austria but who also lived in Great Britain, Germany, and the United States; known for his The Road to Serfdom defending laissez–faire free market capitalism and classical liberalism Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1889–1951) Austrian philosopher, though often worked in England, who made fundamental contributions to the philosophy of language and the understanding of what philosophy can and cannot accomplish; often regarded as the most influential philosopher of the 20th century References Aristotle (2002). Nichomachean ethics. (J. Sachs, Trans.). Newburyport, MA: Focus Philosophical Library, Pullins Press. Armstrong, K. (2009). The Case for God. New York: Knopf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990). Darwin, C. (1859). .On the origin of species.. London: Murray. Davidson, Donald (1974). On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. .Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 5–20. Dawkins, R. (1995). River out of Eden: A Darwinian view of life. New York: Basic Books. Dembski, William M. (1998). Intelligent design as a theory of information access. Retrieved from http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm. Descartes, R. (1984) Meditations on first philosophy. In The philosophical writings of Descartes vol. II. (J. Cottingham, Trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Dworkin, G. (2009). Short takes. Retrieved from http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/11/short-takes.html. Feldman, F. (1978). Introductory ethics. New York: Prentice Hall. Gaunilo of Marmoutiers (1992). A reply on behalf of the fool. St. Anselm's Prosologion, with A Reply of the Fool by Gaunilo and The Author's Reply to Gaunilo. (M.J.Charlesworth, Ed.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Gettier, E. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23: 121–123. Gilder, Josh (2001). PBS's "Evolution" series is propaganda, not science. Retrieved from http://www.trueorigin.org/pbsevolution01.asp. Gould, S. (1997). Nonoverlapping magisteria. Natural History, 106 (March): 16–22. Harris, S. (2006). Letters to a Christian nation. New York: Vintage. Hempel, C. (1945). Studies in the logic of confirmation I. Mind, 54 (213): 1. Hume, D. (1910). An enquiry concerning human understanding, § IV Harvard Classics Volume 37. New York: P.F. Collier and Sons. Humes, Edward (2007). Monkey girl: Evolution, education, religion, and the battle for America's soul. New York: Harper Collins. Kant, I. (1997). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals (Y. K. Abbott, Trans.). London: Longman's Green. Kant, I. (1929). Critique of practical reason (N. Kemp-Smith, Trans.). New York: St. Martin's Press. Kant, I. (1996). Critique of pure reason (Werner Pluhar, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett. Kant, I. (1997). Critique of practical Reason. (trans. Mary Gregor). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kant, I. (1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. (M. Gregor, Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kant, I. (1956). The moral law: Kant's groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. (H. J. Paton, Ed.). London: Hutchinson University Library. Kierkegaard, S. (2006). Fear and trembling. (S. Walsh, Trans). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mackie, J. L. (1955). Evil and omnipotence. Mind 64: 200–212. Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn. Mill, J. S. (1909). On liberty. Harvard Classics Volume 25. New York: P. F. Collier & Son. Moore, G. E. (1936). Is existence a predicate? Aristotelian Society Supplementary volume 15: 154–88. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977). Navin, E., Thomas, J., NISC Comparative Sequencing Program, & Soojin V. Yi (2006). Variable molecular clocks in hominoids. PNAS 103 (5): 1370–1375. Nietzsche, F. (1968). The Antichrist. (R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.). New York: Penguin. Nietzsche, F. (1973). Thus spoke Zarathustra. (R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.). New York: Penguin. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books. Paley, W. (2009). Natural theology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pascal, B. (1999). Memorial. (Elizabeth T. Kuhn, Trans.). Retrieved from http://www.users .csbsju.edu/~eknuth/pascal.html. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (2010). U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Retrieved from http://religions.pewforum.org. Plato (1997). The apology of Socrates. Plato: The Complete Works. (J. M. Cooper, Ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett. Pope Gregory XVI (1834). Singulari nos: On the errors of lammenais. Retrieved from http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16singu.htm. Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge. Pressman, E. R. (Producer) & Stone, O. (Director). (1987). Wall Street. U.S.: Twentieth Century Fox. Rawls, J. A. (1971). Theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ryle, Gilbert (1949). The concept of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Schlafly, S. (2008). Ben Stein provokes the liberal wrath. Human Events. Retrieved from http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26369. Searle, (1980). Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3): 417–457. Sellars, W. (1956). Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, in Herbert Feigl and Michael Scriven, eds., Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume I: The Foundations of Science and the Concepts of Psychology and Psychoanalysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 253–329. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: New York Review/Random House. Whitehead, A. (1929). The function of reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wittgenstein, L. (1951). Philosophical investigations. New York: Blackwell Publishing. Glossary abiogenesis is the study of how organic life may have arisen from inanimate matter. Academic skepticism took its name from Plato's Academy, arguing that no claim could be determined to be true (or false). act utilitarianism applies the idea of utilitarianism to specific acts, emphasizing that what is moral is what produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Contrast with rule utilitarianism. aesthetics studies questions having to do with beauty, as well as philosophical issues that arise in discussing art. analytic is often contrasted with synthetic. A sentence is said to be analytic if its truth value can be determined solely on the basis of the terms used in that sentence. anarchy is a conception of political power that rejects the state and advocates the greatest amount of individual freedom that is possible. arguments present one or more reasons to support a specific result or conclusion. categorical imperative is a term used by Immanuel Kant to describe an obligation that is absolutely necessary and binding on all moral agents. Classical philosophy is used to describe the philosophy developed in Greece and surrounding areas between the 6th century BCE and the 6th century CE, including the important thinkers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. coherence theory of knowledge views knowledge as a set of interlocking beliefs that must be consistent with and interrelate to all of our other beliefs. consequentialism is a general term for ethical theories, the best–known being utilitarianism, that evaluate the morality of an act in terms of its results or consequences. correspondence theory of truth regards a sentence as true if it corresponds to a fact or feature of the world. democracy is the idea that the power of a given state rests with the people, often expressed in terms of the desires of the majority of the people in a given state. dogmatism is the view that maintains beliefs and claims either without reason and evidence, or in spite of criticism and examination. emergent property describes a property that results from a collection of things, but which no individual thing possesses; a crowd may be unruly, although no individual by himself or herself is unruly until united with the other (also unruly) members of the crowd. empiricism characterizes the view that our knowledge is ultimately derived completely from the various sense impressions we have. environmental ethics studies those moral issues that arise in examining the environment and human beings' relationship to the environment. epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. essential property is the kind of characteristic that an object must possess to be that kind of an object. Having three sides is thus an essential property of a triangle. ethical egoism is the view that all human behavior should be regarded as done in the self–interest of the individual person, in order to satisfy that person's goals and desires. eudaimonia is the term used by the ancient Greeks to indicate a justified state of happiness. Coming from the words meaning "good" and "spirit," it is often translated as "human flourishing," particularly to indicate that eudaimonia is not simply pleasure but also refers to one's sound mental state. euthanasia, from the Greek for "good death" refers to intentional killing or allowing someone to die, generally for merciful reasons. evolutionary theory is the biological theory that regards the development of life as the result of genetic changes, over time, leading to certain features that give organisms advantages against competitors, and those features becoming more and more prominent within a population. Theory is often reduced to the slogan "descent with modification." existentialism was a philosophy developed in the 20th century that emphasizes the radical freedom of individuals and the responsible way of dealing with that freedom. Golden Mean is the middle point between two extremes of too little or too much, particularly in the context of Aristotle's ethics. For Aristotle, all virtues must be possessed appropriately, not in an excessive or deficient way. human genome project sought to map the entire DNA sequence of the genes that constitute the human being. It was completed in 2003. inductive arguments offer support for conclusions in such a way that the conclusion is only probable. The degree of that support will indicate the inductive strength of the specific argument. Given the evidence, the better it supports the conclusion, the stronger the argument is said to be. infinite regress occurs when a chain of reasons leads to no result but generates an endless sequence of reasons and justifications. Intelligent Design (ID) is a view that the complexity and intricacy of nature (including human organs and their functions) could not have arisen without an intentional designer creating that complexity and order. knowledge by acquaintance is arrived at by a knowing subject, such as a human being, actually interacting with the object in such a way that knowledge can arise. libertarianism is a doctrine of minimal state interference, beyond its few legitimate roles (such as enforcing contracts). It also emphasizes individual freedom in both thought and action. logic is the systematic study of the rules used in reasoning. magnanimity comes from the Greek for "great soul," and is used by Aristotle, among others, to describe a person who is generous and noble in thought and deed. medieval philosophy describes an era of philosophy, generally from around St. Augustine (354–430 CE) to around Francis Bacon (1561–1626), that was influenced greatly by the Greeks but perhaps even more by the development of the world's great monotheisms, Judaism, Islam, and, in the West particularly, Christianity. metaphysical naturalism is the view that the world is constituted solely of natural things, including physical matter, forces, and other subjects that can be examined by natural science. It thus denies the existence of such supernatural entities as God or angels. metaphysics seeks to explore the absolute and fundamental questions of the world and what exists in (and outside) of that world. methodological naturalism does not deny the possibility of the supernatural but examines questions by assuming that supernatural entities cannot be used in explaining phenomena, particularly in science and related disciplines. modern philosophy refers to the period that begins with Francis Bacon (1561–1626) or René Descartes (1596–1650) and ends with Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) or, sometimes, G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831). myth of the given is the term given by American philosopher Wilfrid Sellars to indicate that even our individual sense perceptions involve more than just those perceptions. It is sometimes expressed as the idea that "perception is theory laden." neo–Platonism was the development of Plato's views in new ways, often quite different from Plato's views. It also generally sought to reconcile some of Plato's philosophical views with Christianity. Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA) was term introduced by Stephen Jay Gould to explain that religion and science dealt with distinct issues, and that one field's approach could not offer a satisfactory solution to questions that arose in the contrasting area. ontology is the philosophical study of being and seeks to show what exists and what is. phenomenology was a philosophical movement, and method, developed by Edmund Husserl (and Martin Heidegger) that focused on what aspects of the world were present to a conscious subject and explored the relationship between that world and that subject. philosophy of language was, and is, an influential philosophical movement that focuses closely on how language can generate philosophical problems. It often seeks to dissolve philosophical problems by showing that they arise from the misuse of language. philosophy of mind is the philosophical study of various things thought to do with the (human) mind, including consciousness, beliefs, and the relationship between the mind and the brain. philosophy of religion is the philosophical exploration of issues that arise with religion, including the existence of God, the problem of evil, determinism, and the afterlife. physician–assisted suicide (PAS) is the controversial actions of a medical professional, generally a physician, who either helps or, in some cases, does not prevent, a terminally ill patient from committing suicide. political philosophy explores questions that arise specifically within politics, including questions of justice, fairness, and what political structures are more appropriate for human flourishing. procedural knowledge is often referred to as "knowing how," as in the case of cooking or fixing a flat tire, to indicate that one possesses the appropriate knowledge needed to achieve a certain practical goal. propositional knowledge is often referred to as "knowing that," as in such situations as reporting a mathematical fact or determining the mass of a given object. One is said to know, then, that "2 + 3 = 5" or that "the rock weighs 20 pounds" or knows the propositions that express these claims. Pyrrhonic skepticism was an extreme form of radical skepticism, found in the writings of Sextus Empiricus. It holds that no claims can ever be known to be certain, including the claim that we can't ever be sure that no claims can be known to be certain. The skeptic's desire was to quit asking questions and seeking the truth, and if that goal was reached, one automatically achieved a state skeptics called "tranquility." rationalism is often contrasted with empiricism in its commitment to innate ideas that people are born with and belief that the senses do not lead to truth but may interfere with reason, which is the real source of the truth. reflective equilibrium is a term made famous by John Rawls to describe the mutual agreement two or more people reach by exchanging ideas, offering compromises, and adjusting beliefs to fit better those of the others. relativism is the view that one's beliefs are conditioned by one's culture, society, and/or community. It rejects absolute claims; all assertions must be evaluated in terms of the context in which they arise. rule utilitarianism applies the basic principle of utilitarianism—that what is moral is what produces the greatest good for the greatest number—to develop general rules of moral behavior on the basis of that principle. Contrast with act utilitarianism. S knows that p epistemology is a term used by epistemologists to describe the basic question of knowledge, where "S" is the subject, or knowing subject, and "p" is the proposition or knowledge claim S may or may not know. sentience is the ability to feel, or perceive, and is often used to characterize organisms that can feel pain and pleasure. skepticism is a general term indicating some degree of doubt, from a small amount to an extreme amount, relative to a given claim. Social Contract is a tradition in political philosophy to describe the formal, and very often the informal, rules and conventions people agree to in order to live together in society. Socratic method is the question–and–answer strategy Socrates employs, particularly in the early dialogues of Plato, to investigate philosophical questions. solipsism is the philosophical position that asserts that one can only be certain that one's own mind exists. speciesism is the view that one species—generally human beings—unjustifiably defends and promotes its own species' interests over the interests of other species. temperance is the standard translation of the term Aristotle uses to describe the appropriate balance between excessive consumption (self–indulgence) and excessive rejection (insensibility) of various pleasures, particularly bodily pleasures. Turing test is a thought experiment, often attributed to Alan Turing, that suggested that if we were unable to distinguish human responses from computer responses, when we were unable to see the source of those responses, then we would have to conclude that machines think. utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines the moral value of an act in terms of its results and if those results produce the greatest good for the greatest number. As a consequentialist theory, it is contrasted with non–consequentialist theories, such as deontology. utility is a term used to indicate any activity or object that generates some use. veil of ignorance is the term introduced by John Rawls to describe the position under which people might design a future society. Being behind this veil meant that no one could determine what kind of person one might be in that future society (in terms of race, gender, religion, etc.), and this would thus generate the fairest society. Young Earth Creationism (YEC)< is the view, based on a literal reading of the Hebrew Bible, that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.