Philosophy: Mind & Machine Chapter 1

What We Will Discover * Philosophy has a rich and fascinating history. * Philosophers explore questions ranging from logic and mathematics to morality and art. * Philosophy helps us to better understand our beliefs and the beliefs of others and to examine, defend, and criticize those beliefs. Philosophy is an unusual discipline, not just because it has an enormously long history, but because it spends a good bit of time investigating what philosophy itself is. In this chapter, we look at what philosophy is, how philosophers approach their subject, and what the benefits of philosophical inquiry are. We will also include a brief overview of the rich and fascinating history of the development of philosophy in the West. 1.1: What Is Philosophy? Here we will explore what philosophy is, including some of its history. We will focus on Western philosophy, and the most important philosophers of that tradition, but it is good to keep in mind that there are other important traditions in the history of philosophy. One of the most important things philosophers do is ask questions, and we will identify some of the questions that have engaged philosophers for thousands of years. What Do Philosophers Do? As humans, we are naturally curious—something often quite evident in children. Plato tells us that philosophy begins in wonder. Human beings wonder about themselves, about other people, about where they came from, about where they are going, and about what they should do while they are here. Human beings are naturally curious, and each question one asks leads to another, then another, and then another. One way of thinking about philosophy, then, is that it is the systematic attempt to answer the general questions human beings have always asked, and the debate that naturally follows each proposed answer. Philosophy combines curiosity—wonder about the world and all that is in it, and even beyond it—and criticism—objections to answers, suggestions of new answers, and new objections to those new answers. As should be clear, philosophical inquiry has one other important feature: It never ends. We do, on occasion, seem to discover solutions to specific philosophical questions. But the pursuit of philosophy will continue as long as there are things we don't understand, and as long as we remain curious. The word philosophy comes from two Greek words. We see one of them, philein, or "to love," in the name of Philadelphia, the "city of brotherly love," and in the word philanthropy, love for human beings. We are familiar with the other word, sophos, from such words as sophisticated and sophomore: It means wisdom. Thus, philosophy is, literally, the love of wisdom and refers to the unending search for answers to questions. To be successful, then, in philosophy, one must be curious, want to understand, be willing to learn, and, perhaps most importantly, be patient. For, as we will see, exploring these questions can take a bit of time and energy. Philosophers sometimes have a reputation for being a bunch of old guys sitting around investigating issues that few others are really interested in. But if we stop to think about some of these issues, we may discover that all of us are interested in getting answers, or at least a better understanding of the questions with which philosophers concern themselves. What is a human being? Does a human being have a soul, and, if so, what happens to it after death? Is it wrong to steal food to feed one's family? Are there other intelligent beings in the universe, and, if so, how would we recognize that they are intelligent? What kinds of questions can be answered by natural science, and what kinds of questions cannot be? Is democracy the best form of government? If it is, who should be allowed to vote? How can a majority be prevented from oppressing minorities within their own society? What am I really saying when I claim to know something? Can I know that something is right or wrong in the same way I can know the answer to a simple mathematical equation? Philosophy involves the asking of questions and the pursuit of answers. It can help us better understand our own beliefs as well as the beliefs of others. Can you think of a time when the "pursuit of wisdom" helped you defend your ideas or better grasp someone else's ideas? These, and many, many other questions are central to philosophy, but we also see that they have important results for how we conceive of human beings, how we treat each other, and how we construct social rules to be able to live as a community. Anyone who has an opinion about abortion, about the right to die, about what should be taught in the public schools, or about any of a wide variety of government decisions on taxes or military policy, then, may wish to appeal to philosophy to support that opinion. The better we understand the philosophical assumptions behind our own beliefs, the better we understand those beliefs themselves. And, if we wish to defend those beliefs against those who object to them, we may wish to explore what exactly those beliefs are and what they imply. We may also wish to improve our skills at constructing arguments to defend those beliefs. Even though everyone may be able to have an opinion, it is something else to be able to insist that one's views aren't just opinions, but beliefs backed up with evidence, arguments, and reason. Philosophy is the attempt to provide that support. Philosophers, as does everyone else, have disagreements. Two people may disagree about which is better, football or baseball. They may see a movie together and not agree about whether it was a good movie. They can debate the merits of two presidential candidates, or to which restaurant they should go. A parent and young child may have a serious disagreement about what time that child has to go to bed. All these disputes can, and often do, lead to arguments: Ideally the participants try to establish their claims on the basis of evidence, reasons, and logic. Sometimes these arguments can become very heated, and some arguments have been known to lead to violence. Presumably, an argument that is settled violently is one where evidence, reasons, and logic don't play much of a role. Other arguments are settled by one person simply saying, "This is what is going to happen." Thus, a parent who may legitimately say, "This is when you are going to bed!" isn't providing so much of an argument as imposing his or her will on the situation. Philosophers use the word argument in a somewhat different way, one that emphasizes the idea that arguments put forth reasons to accept a conclusion. A philosopher would call this an argument, although there is probably little passion or a threat of violence involved here, the argument for the transitive property in arithmetic: 10 < 20 5 < 10 therefore 5 < 20 For philosophers, then, the term "argument" doesn't imply the idea it often does when we use the term to suggest anger, emotion, and hurt feelings. Rather, in this context, arguments simply present a conclusion and suggest why certain reasons indicate that conclusion is true, or probable. Philosophy East and West As we saw, thinking philosophically comes naturally to people, even though they may not think of it that way, or describe themselves as doing philosophy. But if we are willing to consider our curiosity about certain questions "philosophy," then almost everyone, at one time or another, engages in it. This means, of course, that wherever there are people, there is philosophy! Someone in California may gaze upon a star–filled sky and wonder what her place is in the universe: Has a loving and benevolent God placed here there, or is she merely a well–organized collection of molecules that lacks any particular significance? Of course, someone in China, or India, or anywhere else in the world may have the same question. How we understand the issues involved here, and how we might go about trying to resolve them, is certainly doing philosophy. But the history and traditions that inform our culture will affect the response we offer. One general distinction that is drawn to mark contrasting cultures divides philosophy into Eastern philosophy and Western philosophy. Philosophy exists where there are people, but the history and traditions that inform these individuals' philosophical thought processes will differ. What are some ways your culture and how you grew up affect how you think and solve problems? It is clear that a simple distinction between East and West here is far too simple. Just as there are different philosophical traditions in the West, one might also note that Eastern thought includes Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, and Persian philosophy, all of which are quite different from each other. Within each of these traditions, furthermore, there are extensive debates and disagreements; to mention only one, within Chinese philosophy one can find those who follow Confucius disagreeing sharply with those who propose an alternative to Confucius, and these arguments are over 2,000 years old! We do a disservice to the long tradition of philosophy found outside the West by not making clear the many differences found within Eastern philosophy, in terms of religion, politics, language, and the many contrasting worldviews contained there. At the same time, what is termed "Eastern philosophy" contains many things in common with what is termed "Western philosophy," and to treat them as if they do not share many things would also be incorrect. The many philosophically important interactions between the East and West should, therefore, not be ignored. With that said, however, there is a widely accepted way of talking about the history of philosophy that contrasts Western and Eastern approaches to it. For our purposes here, we will focus on Western philosophy. By this term we mean philosophy as it developed in Greece, and as it has been practiced particularly in Europe and in the Western Hemisphere. Generally, it will be philosophy that was originally written in Greek, Latin, Italian, French, German, Spanish, and English, although it can be found in other languages, among them Hebrew, Danish, and Dutch. Western philosophy looks to Greece as its birthplace: The philosophical traditions that grew out of that Greek conception of philosophy, and in contrast to it, will keep us more than busy enough. Some elements of Eastern philosophy circulate broadly in Western culture. Yoga, for example, is sometimes used for exercise and relaxation but originates from Buddhist and Hindu meditative practices. This is hardly to dismiss Eastern philosophy, its interest, and its profound relevance for many of the questions we will be exploring. Indeed, a number of Eastern conceptions have considerable circulation within the West. Many of us are familiar with the idea of karma, the idea that the way one lives will determine one's future. Karma is an ancient idea from Indian religion and philosophy (these are often difficult to distinguish) and plays an important role in Hinduism and Buddhism. Taking this perspective on questions about morality, and the afterlife, produces responses quite distinct from those one tends to find in a Western tradition dominated by Judaism, Christianity, and, in a complicated way, Islam. Rather, we will focus on Western philosophy here for two reasons. First, as noted, Western philosophy alone has more than enough to keep us occupied. Second, Eastern philosophy is far too rich a subject; to attempt to summarize it will almost invariably reduce it to a set of vague and general claims that fail to do justice to that richness. For this reason, Eastern philosophy is generally treated as a separate subject, worthy of intense and critical study. Rather than trying to do too much, then, we will focus on philosophy as it developed in the West. Consequently, when the term "philosophy" is used here, it should always be regarded as meaning only the philosophical views, and traditions, that emerged from Greece and developed in Europe and in the Western Hemisphere. Classical Philosophy and the Greeks The ancient Greek philosopher Plato is considered one of the most influential in the history of Western philosophy. The British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead is famous for having remarked that Western philosophy is nothing but a "series of footnotes" to Plato (Whitehead, 1929, p. 63). While that may be a bit of an exaggeration, Whitehead's point is important: Plato, along with his teacher Socrates, and his student Aristotle, played a fundamental role in setting the agenda for philosophy, including both what kinds of questions philosophy should examine and how it should go about examining them. The influence of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle on the history of philosophy is difficult to overestimate. While we refer to Greek philosophy, it should be pointed out that during this era, there wasn't a single country called Greece, but many different communities in the general area of the country we now call Greece. This included Asia Minor, now part of Turkey, and Italy. What was distinctive about the approach found in this area was the willingness to explore fundamental and general questions and to develop rigorous arguments with others to try and answer these questions. Pre–Socratics The "father of philosophy" is traditionally considered to be Thales (approximately 624 BCE–c. 546 BCE), although it seems unlikely that he was really the first to think about such issues. Thales, from Miletus in Asia Minor, asked a very basic but very difficult question: What is the world made of? His answer, "water," may seem odd until we consider that the human body is about 60% water, that he lived close to the sea that supported his community and its economy, and that water is indispensable for life itself. For our purposes, though, we merely need to note that he was willing to pose such a general question and investigate it, a clear indication that philosophical inquiry had begun. Pre–Socratic philosopher Pythagoras is traditionally credited with discovering what is now widely studied as the Pythagorean theorem. The theorem states that in a right triangle, c2 = a2 + b2, or in other words, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Before Socrates, other important thinkers put forth their views on what the world was like, and what rules, if any, governed that world. Parmenides famously insisted in his "On Nature" that the world is fixed and unchanging, reality is one, and there is no motion and that the world we see changing around us is not the real world but an illusion. In contrast, Heraclitus argued that reality was constantly changing—he said all was in flux, or "always flowing"'—and indicated this by his saying "no one can step into the same river twice." For Heraclitus, the person stepping into the river is always changing, and the waters of the river are always flowing; thus, anytime a person steps into that river, both the person and the river have changed. Heraclitus did seem to think that there was some kind of cosmic order to all of this change, which he called logos, a complex and abstract notion that would, several hundred years later, become an important notion in the Gospels of the Christian Bible. Pythagoras, after whom a famous theorem in geometry is named (which students still learn in high school), insisted on the importance of mathematics for our understanding of reality; although little is known of the philosopher himself, he emphasized that numbers and mathematics might allow us to penetrate the world of appearances to the fundamental real world that underlies those appearances. Socrates These philosophers, and many others, are called pre-Socratic philosophers to note the obvious fact that they preceded Socrates (469 BCE–399 BCE), an extraordinarily influential philosopher. Socrates spent his life in Athens, conversing with anyone who wished to talk with him about basic moral concepts. His student Plato wrote down these conversations, and there we can see Socrates engaged in discussions about courage, love, piety, friendship, education, and other topics. Here we can also see the famous Socratic method, where Socrates proceeds with his conversational partner to explore issues through a series of questions and answers. We also have Plato's account of Socrates' trial, where he is charged with not believing in the official gods of Athens and with corrupting the youth of Athens. Philosophers still argue about the question of Socrates' guilt, and what the relationship was between the trial and Athenian politics, but we do know that he was found guilty and executed. Yet it tells us a great deal about Socrates that his dying words were to ask a friend to sacrifice a rooster to Asclepius, the god of healing. Socrates, that is, saw death as being cured, in the sense that his mind, or soul, was released from its body. In Ancient Greek, sema is "tomb," and soma is "body"; Socrates seems to suggest, through this sign of respect of Asclepius, that the body is the tomb of the soul, from which it is released upon one's death. Plato Socrates had many followers, but by the far the most famous of these is Plato (428/427 BCE–348/347 BCE), whose writings are carefully read and studied still today. The writings of Plato we have are almost exclusively written as dialogues, and he is generally regarded as one of the two or three greatest prose stylists in the history of philosophy. Although Socrates seemed interested almost exclusively in moral and ethical questions, Plato seemed interested in everything; he wrote on moral philosophy and made fundamental and permanent contributions to political philosophy, metaphysics, the study of knowledge (epistemology), and cosmology. It is hard to discover something Plato was not interested in, and in a sense he combined the views of the three pre–Socratics mentioned earlier. Plato saw that the world we experience through our senses—our eyes, ears, etc.—provided us with information that could be deceptive, but that the world we can know through reason is perfect, eternal, and unchanging. Humans, that is, experience the world of Heraclitus in that we see how it changes and how we can be mistaken about what we experience, but we also have access, through reason and the human mind, to the perfect world of Parmenides, that never changes and is eternal. Pythagoras seemed to influence Plato through the suggestion that much we know about the unchanging eternal world we can discover through mathematics. Thus, Plato constructs a picture of our world as containing the world of experience, which we access imperfectly through our senses, and a contrasting world (what he calls the real world) that we access through the mind and through reason. One can probably see how this picture of a flawed world in which we live temporarily, opposed to a perfect and eternal world, played an important role in the development of Christian philosophy. Plato's most famous book, The Republic, describes how a society might be constructed that would be well–run, and make its citizens both informed and just; The Republic is one of the most influential books in the history of political philosophy although, as do many of Plato's writings, it remains very controversial. Aristotle Ancient Philosophers The philosopher Martha Nussbaum explores the kind of contrast ancient philosophy presented to other ways of thinking about the world. Question: Nussbaum claims that the Greeks turned to reason, and away from "magic," to explain their world. How does this influence the responsibility one must take for one's own beliefs and worldview? Plato's most famous student is Aristotle (384 BCE–322 BCE). Although very much influenced by Plato, Aristotle also emphasized observation and the collection of data and was more oriented toward empiricism, or the idea that we gain important information about the world through our senses. Thus, rather than trying to determine how an animal ran by just thinking about it, Aristotle made many observations of animals in motion; rather than just making hypotheses about how animals developed, he opened up chicken eggs at specific intervals to see at what stages, and how, the various parts of the chicken developed. Much like his teacher, if not more so, Aristotle seemed interested in everything. He was the first Western philosopher to write a systematic treatment of logic; he explored biology, physics, the natural world, and objects in the sky extensively. He wrote long, detailed discussions of the human soul, or mind; he collected constitutions of various states in order to examine and compare them; and he wrote a systematic treatment of political philosophy. He also wrote at least two books on ethics, which continue to be extremely influential in contemporary moral philosophy. He wrote on questions of beauty and on language and made a number of explorations of human reason. He also wrote a very difficult but fascinating and rich treatment of the fundamental questions of philosophy; he called this investigation "First Philosophy," but because it was placed in the standard collection of his work after his book The Physics, this study is now referred to by the Greek term meaning "after physics": metaphysics. While the development of Western philosophy may be a series of footnotes to Plato, that history is equally unimaginable without Aristotle. Indeed, a later and very important thinker, St. Thomas Aquinas, paid Aristotle the ultimate compliment: In Aquinas' writings, Aristotle is simply referred to as "The Philosopher"! Skeptics Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle justifiably dominate discussion of Greek philosophy—what is, along with the study of Roman philosophy, often called Classical philosophy—however, one other important aspect of Greek philosophy should be noted. Originating in Plato's school, quite a while after Plato had died, was a group of philosophers who took their name from the Greek term for "to examine" or "to look at." In time, after this inspection of various philosophical views, these philosophers and their followers came to doubt the truth or reliability of many of these views, and hence are known as skeptics. Even though there were various forms of skepticism, it in general came to be known as a doctrine that questioned whether human beings could actually come to know and understand the fundamental philosophical truths, or even if there were such truths to be known and understood. The influence of the skeptics has been substantial, although it has played a larger role in some eras than in others. However, the skeptics play an important role in any philosophical era: reminding us to be wary of bold philosophical claims, to keep in mind that some claims need to be challenged, and to remember that all philosophical claims must be subject to critical scrutiny. Medieval Philosophy Philosophy has such a long history that its history must be subdivided. Classical philosophy takes in the beginnings of philosophy (although much of those beginnings is very murky) up to, more or less, the fall of the Roman Empire (around 400 CE). Due to Plato's influence on both Christian and non–Christian philosophers, an important thread developed, known as neo–Platonism, originating around the third century CE and continuing to be significant for many centuries after, and it still maintains some influence. The general term for those philosophers who flourished after the fall of the Roman Empire, up to what is now called modern philosophy (which began around 1600), is medieval philosophy. It should be kept in mind, however, that any such distinctions will be, to a certain extent, arbitrary; some philosophers of the modern period may have much in common with neo–Platonism or medieval philosophy, whereas some late medieval philosophers during the Renaissance may seem firmly "modern" in their thought. But the terms are useful, if only as very rough and general guidelines to the long, complicated, and involved history of philosophy. Medieval philosophy blends Classical philosophy with Christian doctrine, as seen in how Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas developed Thomism and established Aristotle as the philosopher of the Roman Catholic Church. Medieval philosophy is most profoundly marked by a single event: the birth of Christ and the subsequent development of Christianity into the dominant religious view of the West. Religious and theological discussions dominate philosophy in this period, and much of Classical philosophy was incorporated into philosophical discussions of Christian doctrine. Thus, Plato's conception of "the real" and his contrast between the imperfect world of everyday experience and the perfect, eternal, unchanging world were easily adopted to compare this world with the afterlife. Thus, St. Paul compares our vision in this world to seeing "through a glass darkly" in 1 Corinthians 13. More systematically, philosophers such as St. Augustine found Plato to be profoundly important, but argued that Platonism was only completed with Christ. In a different way, St. Thomas Aquinas adopted many of Aristotle's arguments to Christian doctrine, developing a view known as "Thomism" and establishing Aristotle as the philosopher of the Roman Catholic Church (and, indeed, of Christianity until the Reformation and the emergence of Protestantism). For centuries, to contradict Aristotle was to contradict Church teaching, and modern philosophy really began when Aristotle's unquestioned authority came to be challenged. In general, then, what is distinctive about medieval philosophy is its combination of Classical philosophy with Christian doctrine. Often the attempt to combine these wasn't very smooth; some might see it very difficult, for instance, to reconcile Aristotle's conception of a God, which is very abstract, with the Christian conception of God who sacrifices his only son to cleanse human beings of sin. An enormous amount of work went into questions such as these, and into philosophical questions that arose within Christianity, such as those about the relationship between faith and reason. Questions about free will, evil, and the nature of God kept medieval philosophers very busy. There were also extensive explorations into logic and metaphysics, while natural science was examined within the dominant framework of Aristotle. While we may tend to think of medieval philosophy as an era dominated by Christianity, there were important philosophers working in different traditions. Moses Maimonides (1135–1204), for instance, was an influential Jewish philosopher, discussing not just traditional philosophical questions but also examining problems in medicine, religion, and ethics. His famous and important commentary on the Torah, or the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, required 14 volumes. Maimonides gave another of his books, presenting some of his own views, what is perhaps the best title ever given to a philosophy book: Guide for the Perplexed. Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd, or Averroës, was known as a polymath; that is, someone who knows a lot about many subjects. This statue of Averroës is in Cordoba, Andalusia, Spain. Islam also was an important influence on many medieval philosophers, such as Ibn Sina (980–1037) (whose name is often given as Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd, or Averroës (1126–1198). Both of these thinkers reflected the curiosity we have already seen as the chief characteristic of the philosopher: They seemed to be interested in everything. Ibn Sina was particularly interested in questions of logic, physics, astronomy, law, theology, and geology, and as a practicing physician he also made fundamental contributions to medicine. Ibn Rushd was also what is known as a "polymath"—someone who knows a great deal about a great many different subjects. In his case, his interests included logic, natural science, medicine, theology, mathematics, and psychology. As we can see, then, while Christianity was the dominant influence on philosophy in the Europe of the Middle Ages, elsewhere Judaism and Islam played similar roles. In any case, the relationship between religion and philosophy was the central source of philosophical issues, and religion provided various methods to understand those issues. A significant challenge however, was soon to offer an alternative way of thinking about philosophical questions, and would lead to the development of what is known as "modern philosophy." Modern Philosophy A drawing of Copernicus's hypothesis that the earth revolved around the sun. Copernicus's hypothesis that the earth revolved around the sun. The heliocentric hypothesis is an example of how science began to challenge the authority of the Church—one of three changes that mark the development of modern philosophy. The "modern" period of philosophy is usually dated from around 1600 to around 1800. Sometimes philosophers themselves are used to indicate when this period began, either René Descartes (born 1596) or Francis Bacon (born 1561); the death of G.W.F. Hegel in 1831 is often regarded as the end of modern philosophy. But, again, these dates are necessarily a bit arbitrary. Three great events, or changes, mark the development of modern philosophy, and each had a profound effect not just on philosophy but on the culture, politics, and history of Europe. It is not surprising, therefore, that each of these developments was resisted. First, the Reformation challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and led to the development of Protestantism and a distinct conception of the relationship between God and human beings. In addition to causing a variety of religious wars, including the devastating Thirty Years War, the Reformation indicated that one might challenge the authority of the Church. Second, a different kind of challenge to the authority of the Church came with the development of natural science, perhaps most famously Copernicus's heliocentric hypothesis that saw the earth as one of a set of planets revolving around the sun, rather than the geocentric hypothesis that placed the earth at the center of the universe. Other scientists defended this view; Galileo, for doing so, spent the last 10 years of his life under house arrest. But the observations of astronomers not only challenged the authority of the Church on issues of science, it also led to the important intellectual result that Aristotle might, in fact, be in error, indicating that science should look to evidence and reason, rather than to the authority of Aristotle, to discover its truths. Third, at least of great significance for philosophers, was the reintroduction of classical, "Pyrrhonic" skepticism, a radical view that challenged whether any claim could be shown to be true. After its reintroduction in the 16th century, philosophers were always aware of the challenge presented by skepticism and recognized that it must be defeated in order to establish any claim as true. Empiricism The modern period is traditionally regarded as being dominated by two competing philosophical approaches, empiricism and rationalism. Empiricism, particularly prominent in English–speaking countries, insisted that our knowledge ultimately comes from our senses. What we know, then, can be traced back to its sources in how we interact with the world through such ways as seeing it, hearing it, and touching it. This sensory information provides the information that our mind can then take up, combine, and make judgments about. Empiricists regarded the human mind at birth as a "blank slate," and thus rejected the idea that we are born with, or have, "innate ideas." It is important to see that empiricism doesn't suggest we don't need a mind; the human mind plays an indispensable role in how we understand the world. Rather, empiricism insists that the contents of our mind ultimately have their source in the world of experience, which we gain through our senses. The three traditional great empiricists are often thought to be John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. Rationalism In contrast, rationalism puts much greater emphasis on the mind, and on reason, and sees sensory information as being either less important or as actually interfering with our ability to discover fundamental philosophical truths. For instance, one might see that a stick half–submerged in water looks broken, yet our mind knows, or judges, that it is not. Rationalists, then, focused on the mind and what it could do, simply by examining its own content and the results of that examination. This may sound a bit abstract, but we can see mathematics as an excellent example of what can be accomplished by reasoning alone. It is no accident that two of the great rationalist thinkers were brilliant, world–class mathematicians; René Descartes invented analytic geometry, while Gottfried Leibniz (along with Isaac Newton) invented the calculus. The third traditional great rationalist, Benedict Spinoza, worked as a lens grinder, which required substantial mathematical knowledge. Rationalists do not reject the information we gain through the senses; rather, they don't regard it as the chief source of our most important philosophical truths, and insist that such sensory information cannot justify those truths. Rather, our most important and eternal claims—about ourselves, about others, about the world, about God—can only be discovered and justified by reason. While rationalists do not reject the information gained through the senses, they argue that the most important philosophical claims can only be discovered and justified through reason. Some see the modern period as concluding not with G.W.F. Hegel but with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). In many ways, Kant is seen as combining aspects of both empiricism and rationalism, while rejecting what he saw as an overemphasis on either the senses as fundamental, or the mind as fundamental. Kant, instead, saw that human experience needed both, and that the senses and the mind had to work together. Kant insisted that there were certain rules that we must recognize as true, but that such rules were meaningless without working with the content provided by the senses. Kant argued that there were absolutely necessary commands in moral philosophy, which he called "categorical imperatives" (Kant, 1998), but also insisted that moral philosophy required a fundamentally different approach to things. Thus, in contrast to both the rationalists and empiricists, Kant did not speak in terms of "knowing" that we should respect others as human beings, or that we can claim to cognize the existence of God. Rather, these were fundamentally moral claims, and required different methods than might be found in knowing, for instance, that 2 + 2 = 4 or that a ball thrown into the air will fall back to the earth in a generally predictable way. Kant produced fundamental achievements in the theory of knowledge, metaphysics, ethics, and the philosophy of art and is frequently regarded, along with Plato and Aristotle, as indispensable to our understanding of what philosophy is and what philosophy can accomplish, as well as the important recognition of what philosophy cannot accomplish. Empiricism and Rationalism Here, Ian Hacking discusses the question of distinguishing empiricism and rationalism, helping explain what each view involves. Question: On what issues do empiricists and rationalists agree? Identify which of the two views is closer to your own, and why. Contemporary Philosophy In a basic sense, "contemporary philosophy" refers to the philosophy that was produced after the death of Hegel in 1831. This sounds a bit peculiar, by saying, for instance, that someone writing in 1850 is "contemporary." At the same time, few thinkers have had more contemporary influence than Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, and Friedrich Nietzsche, all of whom wrote, at least in part, in the 19th century. Again we see that these historical divisions should be regarded as merely useful conventions, and too much emphasis on where they begin and end should not be placed upon them. Contemporary philosophy is marked by the increasing attention paid to language, an increased emphasis on the role of mathematics and science, and the development of new methods for posing and exploring philosophical questions. It is impossible to summarize briefly contemporary philosophy, but we can look at two central approaches that have seemed to many to dominate it: continental and analytic philosophy. Again, these labels are used mostly for convenience, and it is risky to put too much emphasis on them. Continental Philosophy Continental philosophy focused on the human condition. Phenomenology, for instance, emphasized first–person consciousness, while existentialism explored the implications of human existence. Think of Sartre's famous quote: "Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does." Continental philosophy is called that because of its particular importance in Europe, specifically France and Germany, but important analytic philosophers also lived and worked in Europe. Continental philosophy, in general, adopts as its focus the human condition; it tends to use less frequently formal and mathematical logic and is much more likely to express its ideas in literature than other traditions. It is often seen as having a substantial interest in cultural, political, and historical issues and the philosophical assumptions our understanding of those issues involves. It investigates the specific condition of being human in a world that may not be best, or wholly, explained by natural science. Many distinct philosophical traditions are lumped together, perhaps unfairly, as "continental." Chief among them are phenomenology and existentialism, and the most prominent representative of these are Martin Heidegger and his one–time mentor Edmund Husserl. Phenomenology emphasizes the consciousness one has of being in the world, and what first–person, or subjective, reflection tells us about what is given to that consciousness. Connected with, but also distinct from, phenomenology, existentialism insists that human beings provide their own meaning in a world that may well not otherwise have meaning. These philosophers emphasize the importance of the fact that human beings are radically free and must make choices without being very confident about what those choices will lead to. Many existentialists were atheists, but there were also Christian existentialists; perhaps the most famous Christian existentialist was Søren Kierkegaard, who insisted that one who chose God did so on the basis of a "leap of faith." A number of other traditions, such as various versions of Marxism, as well as important developments in feminism, literary theory, and philosophical anthropology, are often regarded as part of this continental conception of philosophy. Analytic Philosophy Analytic philosophy, which tends to be the dominant tradition in England and in the United States and Canada, tends to focus, in contrast, on specific details and utilizes the techniques of formal logic and the results of natural science in order to explore philosophical issues. Analytic philosophy also emphasizes the importance of language for understanding philosophical issues; an analytic philosopher is often just as likely to examine if a seemingly well–posed philosophical question is really meaningful as she is to try to answer that question. Perhaps the most influential thinker for this tradition was Ludwig Wittgenstein, who famously insisted in his Philosophical Investigations (1951) that most "philosophical" questions were really traps presented by language. Wittgenstein argued that if we looked carefully at how we use our language, questions that seem important and difficult may well be revealed not to even be meaningful questions at all. As Wittgenstein observed, philosophy really begins when "language goes on holiday" (1951, § 23); that is, if we paid more attention to the fact that words mean what they do because of how we use them to communicate with each other, most (or maybe all?) philosophical questions would disappear. Wittgenstein might suggest, then, that rather than working very hard to discover the meaning of free will and all of the complicated issues that notion implies, we should see how this term is used in ordinary conversation, and what people mean by the term when they talk with each other. Contemporary philosophy flourishes today, constantly developing new ways of looking at problems, as well as considering the philosophical implications of new technology, new forms of communication, and an increasingly interdependent and globalized planet. Philosophers continue to present their results in books, journals, and conferences, but philosophers have also exploited the resources of the Internet to continue the conversation. It seems that the problems philosophy confronts will be the kinds of permanent concerns it has always dealt with, such as the nature of the human mind, the role of faith and reason, and how we should make moral evaluations of ourselves and others. At the same time, new developments also mean that philosophers will have to be flexible enough to take those developments into account. Whether philosophers include the results of molecular genetics into their discussion of the human soul, or examine the challenges presented to the question of euthanasia by new medical technology, contemporary philosophy will continue to combine traditional inquiry with understanding how these developments can affect that inquiry. 1.2 What Do Philosophers Think About? Philosophers, ever since Socrates, have been willing to ask questions and seek answers, regardless of how aggravating they may appear and how frustrating the inquiry may be. Socrates and Examination Socrates was, as they say, a little different. He lived in Athens, a society where one was celebrated for being able to talk beautifully and forcefully in public; Socrates chose to speak in a very ordinary, down–to–earth way, and in private. Fame awaited those who achieved political power and prominence; Socrates chose not to participate in political affairs at all. An important aspect of being an excellent Athenian was to be handsome; Socrates was happy to describe himself as rather ugly. Yet 2,500 years later, we continue to read about his life, and continue to read the dialogues where Socrates' views are presented, while the handsome, well–spoken, and politically powerful Athenians are long forgotten. It is worth considering why this occurred. Socrates, as we saw, was put on trial and, after losing the argument, was executed. During his trial, he famously declares that "the unexamined life is not worth living for human beings" (Plato, 1997, 38a). This may be a good indication of why Socrates is such a remarkable character; while on trial for his life, he insists that living correctly is much more important than simply living. His trial, presented by Plato as The Apology—"apology" meaning defense—is really Socrates' defense of the philosophical life. It is a life that refuses to accept easy answers, inquires after what is true, and seeks to determine the right way to live. It is a life devoted to philosophical examination of his own beliefs and those of others. In a very early dialogue of Plato, Socrates confronts a young man named Euthyphro. Euthyphro's father has inadvertently caused the death of one of his workers, and Euthyphro has come to court to bring his father up on legal charges. Treating one's father this way, particularly in Athens, would seem to violate a very important part of Athenian religious practice, and thus would be impious. When Socrates asks Euthyphro about this, Euthyphro insists he is doing the pious thing. Naturally, Socrates then suggests that if Euthyphro is so knowledgeable about what is, and what is not, pious, perhaps he can answer Socrates' simple question: What is piety? This famous painting The Death of Socrates by French artist Jacques–Louis David depicts Socrates before he drinks hemlock, surrounded by his mourning followers. Even while on trial for his life, Socrates declared that living correctly was more important than simply living. Part of Socrates' charm, but also what may make him a bit aggravating, is his tendency to claim that he has no expert knowledge of anything. Indeed, he insists that the only thing he truly knows is that he does not know anything! When reading the dialogues of Plato, it seems Socrates is actually quite brilliant and is able to defeat virtually any argument he encounters. Often Socrates is regarded as being ironic, in that he claims not to know anything, but really does. Of course, his standards for knowing something are extremely high, and, as it turns out, few can satisfy Socrates' standards for knowledge or defend their view against his criticism. But this reveals the genuine gift that Socrates presents to philosophy: the insatiable curiosity and desire to know, the unending inquiry into questions that may never be fully answered, and a willingness to engage in debate over the most important issues in one's life. Socrates, therefore, presents a challenge to all of us. Can we defend our own beliefs? What justifies the things we believe? Should we simply accept what others tell us? If we accept answers on the basis of someone else, what makes that person an authority? Should we examine our lives, our values, and our beliefs? What are the implications if we do not? Do we have the energy, stamina, and courage to submit our most cherished beliefs to critical scrutiny? If we do not, what does that tell us about our beliefs, and our reasons for having them? If we are willing to examine our beliefs, what do we do if we are confronted with a criticism we cannot refute? These are fundamental philosophical questions Socrates suggests we consider. If he is right, only this kind of examined life will be worth living for human beings. Philosophical Questions As we have seen, such philosophers as Ibn Sina and Aristotle were interested, more or less, in everything. There are, in fact, few issues wherein philosophers don't have something to offer, and think they do, and this means that there is an enormous number of philosophical investigations into specific topics. One can find philosophical explorations of engineering, military science, law, information science, mathematics, and history; some schools even offer courses on the philosophy of physical education. However, here we will focus on three traditional areas of philosophy: knowledge, conduct, and religion. The study of human knowledge is called epistemology, which investigates the wide range of issues involved when a person is said to know something. To know something is distinct from believing something, of course; I may believe I am going to win the lottery, but, as we know, that is quite different than knowing I am going to win the lottery. Few questions are more important for human beings than those that arise about how they behave toward each other. Parents spend a great deal of time teaching, or trying to teach, their children to behave in certain, specific ways, and to not behave in other ways. We may not even know what another person believes, but we may be quick to object to what that person does. We also generally think we ourselves should act in accordance with certain rules; the sensation of guilt comes from our recognition that we have failed to do so. The systematic study of these rules for behavior and conduct, for ourselves and for others, is called ethics. Philosophers also might examine the implications of religious belief; for example, how one might read and understand various religious texts. Some of the most profound, enduring, and difficult questions philosophers (and many others) consider are those that arise in the context of discussions of religion. Such questions are seen as sufficiently significant that they have received as much or more attention from philosophers as any other. But the topics they bring up are also sufficiently personal, and sensitive, that many people feel uncomfortable talking about religion with people they don't know very well, let alone arguing about it. The philosophy of religion seeks to investigate these and many other questions that arise within the context of faith and attempts to provide arguments and justifications for various conclusions. It provides a rich opportunity for discussion about topics that are often regarded as the most important a person can consider, but it also confronts believers and nonbelievers alike with challenges that can require substantial frustration as well as profound rewards. Other Disciplines of Philosophy We will focus on the three topics here mentioned—epistemology, ethics, and religion—nevertheless, there are large areas of philosophy we will not examine, or examine directly. This does not mean that these other areas are without interest! Rather, it is that they are themselves sufficiently rich and sufficiently interesting that they require separate study. Many find, after studying some traditional topics of philosophy, that even more fascinating material lies in these other sub–disciplines of philosophy. Metaphysics is one of the most celebrated parts of philosophy, but also one of the most difficult to define. One way of describing it is to see metaphysics as dealing with the ultimate questions about existence, the nature of human beings, and the world. In the 17th century, a useful distinction was introduced between General Metaphysics and Special Metaphysics. General Metaphysics was, on this view, ontology, or the study of being; that is, General Metaphysics sought to answer a remarkably simple–looking question: What is there? Special Metaphysics took as its area of study three specific topics: God, Freedom, and Immortality. Although Special Metaphysics examined these topics separately, it is clear that each has significant importance for other areas of philosophy. Metaphysics continues to be an active subject of philosophical investigation but, as is perhaps obvious, can lead to extremely difficult and puzzling philosophical results. Logicians study how we think. Using deductive reasoning to solve a Sudoku puzzle is a simple, concrete example of using logic. Logic is the study of reasoning, and how we think; logicians offer various accounts of what rules human reason must follow to think coherently. Symbolic logic, in particular, uses symbols instead of words in order to focus on the structural elements of reason. In so doing, close connections between symbolic logic and mathematics have developed; indeed, one frequently encounters the term "mathematical logic" to refer to the rigorous and highly technical study of logic. In contrast, informal logic, or critical reasoning, is a less technical exploration of how humans reason and usually includes an account of the many mistakes humans make in doing so. These mistakes are known as fallacies; studying them provides a valuable way to understand how we can avoid these mistakes and improve our reasoning abilities. Political philosophy is the rigorous and systematic examination of various ways societies and communities are structured (or could be structured). Political philosophers look at what makes a society just, or unjust, and what the advantages and disadvantages of various systems may be. Thus, on one political view, private property and individual rights may be fundamental, but from another perspective they may be criticized as contributing to an insufficiently robust sense of community. Similarly, a political theory may eliminate private property and be criticized as being oppressive of a human being's natural right to liberty. Aesthetics, or the philosophy of art, looks at beauty and its representation in order to identify—if possible—criteria for what "good" art is. The relationship between art and pleasure is also examined, and numerous questions arise about how criteria for one kind of artistic achievement, say music, might be different from another kind, such as cinema or sculpture. Philosophers of art also explore what makes something art at all, and what role "taste" plays in making evaluations about art and about beauty. The philosophy of mind examines the nature of the mind and its abilities; on some perspectives, this may also include an examination of the human soul, and what the relationship is, if any, between the mind and the soul. With the development of such disciplines as evolutionary biology, cognitive science, computer science, and evolutionary psychology, the philosophy of mind is one of the most active fields in contemporary philosophical research. The philosophy of language investigates the role language plays in human understanding and behavior. It explores how people are able to communicate with each other, what assumptions must be made to understand adequately that communication, and why there are fundamental difficulties, on occasion, in our understanding each other. At its most abstract, philosophy of language seeks to show how our understanding of the world is fundamentally connected to the language we use to describe and explain that world, in order to clarify philosophical claims and philosophical puzzles. As is probably clear, there is a great deal of overlap between and among the various sub–disciplines of philosophy. One working in metaphysics may offer an account of human freedom that has important consequences for ethics—after all, our notion of responsibility is radically altered if one isn't free—as well as religion. Ethics will have significant consequences for political philosophy; if treating another human being as property is morally wrong, a just political system must be structured so it is prohibited. If my mind or brain perceives certain colors as pleasing, and others as disagreeable, that may indicate why I prefer one kind of painting to another when making an aesthetic evaluation. Thus, in order to study philosophy we often focus on one specific sub–discipline or another, the results in one area can have significant and substantial repercussions in one or more of the other related sub–disciplines. The Never–Ending Search for Answers Philosophy may involve a search for answers, but it can also be a discipline of never–ending questions. Philosophy, more than most disciplines, spends a great deal of time thinking, discussing, and arguing about what exactly philosophy is and what it can accomplish. Few accounting courses spend very much time talking about what the nature of accounting is; very little time is spent in a chemistry classroom arguing about what precisely is meant by the term "chemistry." But this kind of self–reflection is common in philosophy. Philosophers sometimes even joke about it: The well–known philosopher Jerry Fodor has described his discipline as a "the cure for which there is no adequate disease" (Dworkin, 2009), while another, David Hills, describes philosophy as "the ungainly attempt to tackle questions that come naturally to children, using methods that come naturally to lawyers" (Dworkin, 2009). This can lead to very frustrating attempts: The questions, even when answered, simply lead to still more questions. Furthermore, philosophers are rarely satisfied with the answers provided; sometimes they aren't even satisfied by their own answers! We seem left with a situation where we examine and inquire, only to generate more and more questions, more and more disputed answers, and more and more argument, without any genuine sense that these things will be resolved. That frustration is natural, but, at the same time, it is worth considering the topics involved. Here are just a few standard philosophical questions: 1. Do I have a soul? 2. Is there a God? 3. Is there an afterlife? 4. Why do good people suffer? 5. Why do wicked people prosper? Some might get frustrated with difficult questions and insist that they know all they need to know or that they don't need to hear other perspectives. It is worth considering just how difficult these questions are and how much is involved in trying to provide a satisfactory response. There are different ways of reacting to such questions, of course. For instance, one might simply insist that whatever one thinks is correct, and ignore any other views or any criticism. This is a view known as dogmatism, and it brings with it certain risks. The dogmatist must be correct, know that he is correct, and thus know that any other, conflicting views must be wrong. That is quite a claim to be able to make for a finite human being, given our familiarity with human error. The dogmatic unwillingness to investigate one's beliefs seems less a mark of wisdom than it seems the height of intellectual arrogance. A related response does not insist that its views are correct, but merely that a person lacks the time, energy, or intellectual curiosity to examine her own beliefs. Rather than arrogance, this seems to be intellectual cowardice; what does it tell us about a person's beliefs if that person can't suggest any particularly good reasons for holding them and is unwilling to examine if they are actually worth believing? Yet another response is to suggest that nothing can ever be known, a position adopted by a specific kind of radical skeptic. To adopt such an attitude at the outset of studying philosophy is to give up a bit too easily, however; it is also to risk running into this problem: How can I know that I cannot know anything? Philosophical skepticism, on the other hand, is usually the result of a great deal of effort and is a position seen as requiring some sort of defense or justification. Philosophers resist these positions for they want to understand themselves, others, and the world in which they find themselves. This may be a view worth ridiculing, as philosophers are often ridiculed, concerning themselves with unanswerable questions and discussing topics that are obscure, confusing, and mysterious. Philosophers are more than willing to admit that the issues they explore are difficult; yes, as can be seen from the questions listed above, they are very important issues, and deserve to be thought about and examined. While recognizing that the search for answers brings with it a certain degree of frustration, the philosopher accepts that as part of the package. At the same time, the discussion, argument, and debate over such topics can help make clear, or clearer, what our own beliefs are and to what extent we can defend those beliefs. Philosophy may be a search for answers to questions that will always endure, but achieving greater clarity and understanding of ourselves can itself be a remarkably satisfying accomplishment. 1.3 Why Study Philosophy? People have philosophical views on a wide range of issues, from abortion to the environment. Philosophy offers us the opportunity to explore our views critically, as well as provides us tools to better defend our beliefs. Intellectual Self–Defense Soldiers and police officers are frequently placed in harm's way; they are well aware of the hazards that they are likely to confront and have to be prepared for the worst. They spend a great deal of time preparing for such situations; ideally, that danger never occurs, but if it does, they will be ready to handle it, deal with it, and overcome it. This kind of preparation—this self–defense—probably seems so obvious that we would question someone in such a dangerous job who did not take such precautions. Philosophy doesn't present these kinds of problems; someone who fails to defend his or her views is unlikely to suffer any actual physical injuries. But philosophers do like to insist that philosophy offers a certain kind of protection, and offers one analogous weapons against one's opponent. Seen from this perspective, then, philosophy offers what might be called intellectual self–defense. Engaging in philosophy can be seen as practicing intellectual self–defense or mental exercise. Specific philosophical tools, such as logic, as well as more general information, or evidence, allowing one to back up one's claims are indispensable to justifying one's beliefs. Again, assuming one's beliefs deserve not just to be examined but to be defended, philosophy offers substantial advantages to one who has learned its methods. Another way philosophers suggest looking at the practice of philosophy is to compare it to exercise. Most of us know that various kinds of physical activity—biking, running, playing basketball or soccer, swimming, and the like—are good for us. Many of us take part in such things because they keep us healthier, more alert, and more physically fit. Presumably, our minds are at least as important to take care of as our bodies; doesn't it make sense to offer a workout for the mind, just as we would our body? Challenging our beliefs, looking at issues from new and different perspectives, and engaging in philosophical discussions might, then, be considered "low–impact aerobics" for the mind. Philosophy offers the kind of mental activity that improves the mind and keeps it in shape, just as physical exercise does so for the body. We may not always win the argument, but being prepared for such arguments about issues that concern us deeply is very valuable. Philosophy, done well, provides that preparation, exercises the mind, and helps one's skills at intellectual self–defense. Beliefs Worth Defending It is often said that a belief worth having is a belief worth defending. Imagine leaving church and asking the minister if he really believed what he had said in his sermon; should he be willing to defend those ideas? Should a teacher be expected not just to believe the information she provides in the classroom but be able to say why? Would we expect a general leading troops into battle be able to justify the reasons for doing so and to provide a defense of why such a mission was worth undertaking? Philosophy can help you spot the cracks in your own argument as well as those of others. Assuming we all have philosophical beliefs—about the human being, about how children should be taught morals, about religion, about science—then we seem to be in a similar situation. If a mother teaches her children not to lie, she should, it seems, be able to explain to them why they should not lie. If a person believes that if one lives in accord with one's faith that he will be rewarded with eternal life, should he be able to say why? If a biologist argues that evolution offers the most compelling account of the variety of species on earth, is it also part of that biologist's responsibility to defend that claim, and offer the strongest arguments one can to justify it? Philosophers, in general, regard it as intellectually irresponsible not to defend one's beliefs, or at least not to be prepared to do so if challenged. This is not to say that one's defenses are always successful. For instance, Socrates may have been able to demonstrate that many of those with whom he talked could not defend their views. That does not mean the views, themselves, are incorrect; it means that one must work harder to make that defense stronger. We can abandon all such attempts—after all, they can be very difficult and exhausting—and simply ignore any such insistence that we have a responsibility to be able to defend our views. But this returns us to this fundamental philosophical question: What does it tell us about the person who holds a certain belief that he or she is unwilling to defend it? Is it not worth defending? Is it too much work to defend it? And if someone holds a view to which we object, but tells us that they are unwilling to show why that view is correct, are we not more likely to be suspicious about why this person has this view? This may sound as if it is an abstract intellectual exercise, but when one acts on a belief, and those actions are morally objectionable, then the unwillingness to defend that belief casts doubt on the merits of both the belief and what is done on the basis of that belief. Thus, shedding one's obligations to say why one believes what one does can lead to dangerous results and, therefore, is an attitude viewed by philosophers as both very suspicious and very risky. The Role of Philosophers Hilary Putnam addresses here a very simple question: Do philosophers really have much use in contemporary society? Question: Imagine yourself talking to a 13–year old–boy, who knows just a little bit about philosophy, and just enough to think that there is no real use for philosophy. How would you respond to him? How would Putnam respond? In what ways does your response agree with Putnam's? Skills Philosophy Can Develop If we accept the obligation that we should be able to articulate our beliefs, and do the best we can to defend those beliefs, philosophy offers specific skills that can be very helpful in doing this. One of the most powerful tools philosophy provides is logic, the rules for reasoning and for constructing arguments. Those who study logic have at least two advantages: They can understand and critique their own arguments, and recognize if they are "good" arguments, and they can also use these tools to critique the arguments of those with whom one is debating. Formal logic offers a way to show that the structure of a given argument is flawed; for instance, if the structure of your opponent's argument is invalid, this is a devastating critique of that argument. Similarly, to identify that your opponent is committed to an inconsistent set of premises, or reasons, is to show that all the premises cannot be simultaneously true, and that the argument fails. But, in line with the idea of intellectual self–defense, we can always appeal to such logical rules in order to examine our own arguments, and prevent ourselves from making any obvious logical mistakes. Thus, our arguments become stronger, and our skills at criticism are enhanced. While symbolic logic looks at the structures of arguments and ignores the actual content or meanings of the specific sentences in a given argument, informal logic focuses much more on those meanings and the content of what is being said. Informal logic can therefore allow us to identify when someone is trying to win an argument by introducing subtle changes of meaning, by assuming the conclusion of the argument instead of showing that it follows from the premises, or by adopting other illegitimate reasoning strategies. Again, being familiar with these kinds of mistakes not only allows us to spot them in the arguments of our opponent but can also prevent us from making the same mistakes. A philosophical argument is not a hostile encounter, but a conversation designed to facilitate understanding. Philosophers also insist that discussions of various views and beliefs should take place within the context of criticism. That is, one simply cannot assert one's views, but must be willing to entertain objections to them. Often, these objections can be deflected, or shown how they are not relevant to a particular position one holds; but at other times, a strong critique can help us clarify our beliefs and our reasons for holding them. This critical context, however, does not have to be hostile or unpleasant (although some arguments can lead to that result, of course). Rather, in a genuine and sincere philosophical dispute, both parties should recognize that criticism is a valuable tool to help everyone reach the desired goal of the conversation. Similarly, arguments themselves need not be the kinds of arguments one may be familiar with in talking with parents, children, and friends, among others. Philosophers use the word argument to indicate that a conclusion is put forth, and that reasons are offered to support that conclusion. There need be no yelling, or tears, or fighting in a philosophical argument. Instead, the goal is to find the truth, or to get closer to the truth, about a given claim. Rather than a hostile situation, a good philosophical argument will resemble a conversation, designed to achieve increased clarity and understanding. As can be seen from these points, philosophical disputes seek to increase our understanding, both of our own views and those of others. Ideally, this will involve a conversation between two partners with a common goal and will minimize emotion and passion and focus on reasons, evidence, and arguments. This does not mean that philosophers want to eliminate passion from such topics; after all, if we don't really care about something, it isn't clear why we would argue about it. It means, instead, that emotion should not drive the argument, and the emphasis should be on how well the reasons offered support the conclusion. Passion, and emotions such as anger and defensiveness, can therefore interfere with reaching the goal, and philosophy helps remind us that a philosophical dispute involves both mutual respect and a mutual desire to seek greater understanding and, ideally, the truth. Practical Applications The most common complaint heard about philosophy is that its topics are of little relevance for everyday life, and therefore its issues may be interesting but have little practical application. In some cases, this may well be true; an abstract philosophical discussion about the nature of time may not prevent us from being late. Philosophers have been known to debate which came first, thought or language; it is difficult, after all, to think without language, but also difficult to see how language developed without thought. In any case, we may not be able to pinpoint any obvious practical applications that emerge from this topic! Even disciplines that seem to have no practical applications have some value. Yet, to insist that a discipline is only of value if it produces immediate and obvious practical results not only may eliminate a good deal of art, but would also potentially eliminate some of the theoretical components of some disciplines that have unquestioned practical applications. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology, among other disciplines, all include abstract aspects, the practical relevance of which is not clear. Is space–time "really" Euclidean, reflecting the kind of geometry most of us learned in high school? Or is it non–Euclidean, where odd and counterintuitive results can emerge? Similar confusing results can also be found in theoretical physics, in such fields as quantum dynamics. But rarely does one hear the complaint that mathematics and physics are of little relevance for everyday life. Indeed, in both the history of philosophy and the history of science, claims that at first sounded very strange and "weird" turned out quite likely to be true. So, we might want to hesitate in embracing only those things whose immediate practical value can be demonstrated. Furthermore, there are areas in which philosophy has had practical applications and provided results that, in retrospect, appear to be quite valuable. For centuries, the very distinction we make today between natural science and philosophy did not exist. Isaac Newton, as great a physicist and mathematician as the world has ever seen, called his most famous book Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Only in the last 200 years or so has the distinction even been drawn between natural science and philosophy, and certainly scientists are both attracted to, and draw on, philosophical discussions of space, time, causality, and other topics fundamental to natural science. Today, it continues to be difficult to see where the speculative use of the scientific imagination ends and philosophy begins. The field of ethics is arguably philosophy's greatest contribution to daily life. These days, environmental ethics—how our behavior affects the environment—has become an increasingly larger part of mainstream thought. It is probably most obvious that philosophy's biggest contribution to everyday life has been in ethics, whether in consideration of how individuals should act toward each other, of what rules society should adopt, and of what the relationship is between human beings and their surroundings. Fundamental to our self–conception, and to human behavior in general, is the notion of good and bad (and good and evil); few topics have more relevance for our lives, and no topic has been more extensively debated by philosophers. Respect, tolerance, charity, generosity, and any number of other notions that inform our everyday life are fundamentally philosophical concepts; ignoring the contribution philosophy has made to our understanding of these issues would leave these ideas without much content. The growing and important field of environmental ethics clearly depends on the philosophical explorations of the relationship between human beings and their planet. Is earth, as some argue, simply here for us to exploit and use as we see fit? Or, rather, are we the "stewards" of the earth, with an obligation to respect it, care for it, and preserve it? Few policy decisions we make in this area lack a philosophical component, and few decisions have more relevance for human beings and their descendants. In the same way, philosophy has made, and continues to make, essential contributions to discussions of our relationship to other animals, and our understanding of how they should be treated. The discussion does not have to proceed for very long before we discover we are, in fact, doing philosophy. Often, when you express your opinion, you're engaging in some form of philosophy. If ethical questions are clearly relevant for our everyday life, so, too, are political questions. Whether we are discussing human rights in our country, or another country, or discussing the doctrine of when it is just to go to war, these questions have an essential philosophical component. It is, then, difficult to be able to have a productive conversation about a nation's treatment of its own citizens, and its relationship to other nations, without drawing explicitly on what philosophers have had to say about these issues. In the same way, philosophers have contributed fundamentally to our understanding of religion; if one's religion plays a central role in one's life, then our conception of that role, and what it implies, will, again, be drawing fundamentally on what philosophers have had to say. Philosophers find themselves on the defensive, sometimes, feeling it necessary to justify their discipline. But, two things make this a bit easier. First, as we have seen, philosophy has much to contribute to our understanding of how we think, how we act, and how we conceive of ourselves and our future. Second, virtually everyone already thinks philosophically, even if they may not realize it or describe it that way. If one has an opinion about whether abortion should be legal, or the death penalty abolished, or how wealth should be taxed, or whether one's country should go to war, and any of a vast number of other issues, one is thinking philosophically. As we shall see, philosophy can help us take those opinions and, by providing arguments, reason, and evidence, make them more rigorous and more informed, and by doing so, provide us with a deeper understanding of our own beliefs. Self–Examination Socrates insisted that we must, above all, examine ourselves. Why do you think Socrates thought this was so important? One central claim, articulated by Socrates and Plato, drives the philosophical enterprise. Philosophy begins in wonder: Human beings are naturally curious about the world and their place in that world. This is what motivates philosophers and others; they have this basic desire to understand their world and their place within that world. As Socrates insisted, however, this requires that we examine, before all else, ourselves. For only if we submit our own views, opinions, and beliefs to rigorous critical scrutiny can we expect to make progress elsewhere; for this reason, as we have seen, Socrates proclaims that the "unexamined life is not worth living for human beings." By now, of course, we have seen that a good philosopher, being told this, will immediately ask, "Why?" What is so important about this kind of self–examination? Can't we get along without the exhausting, and sometimes painful, inquiry Socrates demands? After all, isn't there an old saying, "ignorance is bliss"? Socrates, naturally, has a response; in fact, one might say his entire life was his response to those who wish to avoid self–examination. Socrates held others to a high standard, after all: Those who claimed to be experts in their field were subjected to intense, and sometimes humiliating, inquiry at the hands of Socrates. But, as he and Plato's readers discover, their reputation as possessing expertise was, generally, undeserved. But it should always be remembered that Socrates held himself up to the highest standard of all: It was Socrates who recognized his ignorance, it was Socrates who sought wisdom from those who had the reputation for possessing it, and it was Socrates who, therefore, examined his own life with the most rigorous and harshest scrutiny. Perhaps a more rigorous philosophical examination might have prevented or sooner ended some of the atrocities committed in the past. Socrates might generalize these results as indicating that one who fails to examine his or her life fails to do justice to one's potential. Not to investigate one's beliefs, and to criticize them, is to suggest that one either is already perfectly wise—a claim made much more often than it is demonstrated!—or that one is happy to rely solely on the authority of others, and simply to do what one is told, without questioning whether it is right. People often complain that philosophers think too much. This may or may not be right, but when one reflects on the evils that human beings have committed, one might wonder whether they were done because those committing them thought about what they were doing too much, or too little. There may be some harm that comes from overanalyzing a situation, but genocide, holocausts, slavery, and the systematic oppression of large groups of people seems to result in much greater harm. Should the people responsible for such things have stopped to ask if they were doing the right thing? We may not be successful at determining what all of our beliefs are, let alone providing sufficient justification for those beliefs. But, as is often the case in philosophy, it may be that it is the journey that counts, more than the destination. The benefits of self–examination at least help us get clearer on what we believe and why we believe it. Think of it as a very long drive, late at night. We may not reach our destination, ultimately, but won't we have better luck if at least our headlights work? Philosophy may not be able to get us to our final goal, but it can provide the light that will at least be necessary for the attempt to do so. What is the Meaning of Life? Several prominent philosophers explore the relationship between human beings and the divine, and how people discover, or generate, meaning in their own lives. Question: Atheists and agnostics generally insist that they have rich and flourishing lives. How might they justify that claim without requiring a spiritual commitment to God? Humans and the World Around Them The study of philosophy encompasses examining the world around us as well as ourselves. The philosopher Immanuel Kant famously wrote, "Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me" (Kant, 1956, p. 166). This is a beautiful, succinct account of what one can take away from the study of philosophy, and its appeal: trying to understand better the world around us and our place within that world. Of course, part of that world also includes other people; as noted earlier, it seems to be people (including, if not especially, themselves) that human beings find the most fascinating. But Kant also recognizes here that part of this wonder is found within us: our soul, our self–conception, and our willingness and desire to act morally. Thus, we have these two fundamental aspects of philosophical inquiry combined here: the subjective consideration of ourselves and the consideration of all those objects, including other people that make up that world within which we find ourselves. In recent times, philosophers have come to use, more and more often, the term "conversation" to characterize philosophical inquiry. This word, interestingly enough, comes originally from the Latin for "to live with or among," and "to keep company with," and indicates a somewhat different conception than philosophy has traditionally had of itself. Rather than writing long, complicated texts that present one's views and awaiting responses—although, of course, this still takes place—a philosophical conversation is seen as fundamentally interactive. That is, the parties participating in a philosophical conversation seek to learn from each other. This requires respect, tolerance, empathy, and honesty, but also the willingness to engage in a constructively critical enterprise. In short, those participating must be willing to listen to each other. Philosophical inquiry often requires cooperation and respect. Philosophers are not so naïve to think this is a particularly easy thing to do. As long as people have engaged in debate and discussion, there has also been the dogmatic refusal to listen to one's opponents and to offer genuinely constructive criticism. It is not especially difficult to encounter intolerance for others' views, and frequently those views are rejected without being heard or even taken seriously. Some views, naturally, don't deserve to be taken seriously, although it is not always easy to determine whether a given claim does or does not. But philosophers who emphasize the conversational approach to philosophy recommend our operating assumption is to listen and try to understand others before challenging or rejecting those views with which we disagree. While this approach may seem novel, in contrast to the practice of philosophy for much of its history, it seems, in fact, to return us to Socrates. On this view, then, philosophy is a cooperative search for truth, requiring patience and a willingness to listen to others, within which we all have much to learn from each other. In short, the philosophical pursuit seeks to help people examine their lives and their behavior, as well as the lives and behavior of those who surround them and the natural world within which this all takes place. Critical self–scrutiny, honest and constructive debate, and a cooperative and shared effort to seek the truth while learning from each other marks the philosophical enterprise and provides a unique opportunity for us to learn about ourselves, each other, and the world we share. Ch 1 What We Have Learned Philosophers, as we have seen, love to argue, and love to ask questions. While some find philosophy frustrating because there never seem to be final answers, it is worth considering whether the kinds of questions philosophers examine are the sort for which we should expect such final answers. One way of thinking about it may be to see that philosophy is often quite a bit more interested in how we get to our destination rather than the destination itself. But it also offers systematic and rigorous ways of developing arguments, looking at evidence, and providing reasons for us to navigate our way toward that destination. * Western philosophy has explored the fundamental questions that confront human beings. * Some of these questions concern what we can know (epistemology), what we should do (ethics), and what we believe (philosophy of religion). * Understanding these issues may not solve our questions but will offer us many advantages in supporting our own views, and provide important results in defending our own beliefs. Some Final Questions 1. What kinds of things have you wondered about that philosophers have also spent some time thinking about? 2. What distinguishes the answers philosophers provide from the kinds of answers an accountant or a chemist might offer? 3. Why is it important for a person to be able defend his or her beliefs? Web Links History of Philosophy Timeline A very helpful website that provides a timeline as well as a handy glossary, can be found here: http://www.radicalacademy.com/diahistphil.htm Ancient Greek Philosophy This website offers more detailed discussions of classical philosophy, including those philosophers after Aristotle known as "Hellenstic" philosophers: http://www.philosophy.gr/ Empiricists and Rationalists A quick summary of the different views held by empiricists and rationalists can be found here: http://www.mesacc.edu/~yount/text/empm–v–ratm.html Introduction to the Five Branches of Philosophy A nice overview of the basic components of philosophical inquiry can be seen here, with links to more detailed discussions of each: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/FiveBranchesMain.html