Philosophy

Do not cite. Do not publish. Do not reproduce. For discussion purposes only.
Class Notes: PHL 102-LOGIC

Gian Carla D. Agbisit (Instructor)
09064855759/ giancarlaagbisit@gmail.com
Introduction to Philosophy1
Philosophy:
a. Etymological definition: philo/philein (to love); Sophia (wisdom) - Pythagoras
b. Real definition: the science of all things by their ultimate causes and principles as
known by natural reason alone
Philosophical Questions
Man is curious by nature. Children, for example, are confronted with a new world that propels
them to ask a lot of questions. As we grow older, however, we accumulate memories, we gather
answers, and we learn how to see patterns and predict reality. We have also accumulated theories,
natural and scientific laws, formulas and calculations and histories about the world. And while this is
a good thing, precisely because navigating this world was made easier through this more complete
map of reality, unfortunately, the preoccupation in the accumulation of answers has distracted us
from our ability to wonder. Unfortunately, we have forgotten what it feels like to be children,
fascinated with the world. Nestling in the comfort of our answers, we have become callous of the
world, and reality, and what it has yet to offer. As we grow older, we have changed the meaning of
asking questions from the ability to wonder to the inability to know. We have equated the idea of a
curious mind to the idea of insanity and nonsense. We have abhorred grownup people who ask
questions because we think these people are either idle or bored or joking. It was easier to forgive
children for not knowing the prescribed answers of the world than forgiving an adult who has not
learned how to conform yet.
However, there are adults, still, who have retained this special sensitivity to reality. We call
these people philosophers. However, there is a difference between philosophical questions and non-
philosophical questions. For example, the question “what time is it?” is radically different from the
question “what is time?” The first question demands an answer that requires one to know the concept
of hours, minutes, and seconds, that is, to know the concept of man-made measurements. The second
question, however, is a question that demands one to go beyond man-made calibrations. The
philosophical question demands an inquiry into the nature of time. It demands that one takes into
consideration, not only the idea of man-made calibrations, but also the idea of time as historical, time
1
For an accessible introduction to philosophy, read Jostein Gaarder’s Sophie’s World. This is a link to its
movie version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKMG2KyOIPw.
1|P HL 102 N OTES

as cultural, time as natural, time as subjective experience, and so on.2 Therefore, philosophical
questions, to a certain extent, are questions that demand going beyond the boundaries of the territory
of the known. Philosophical questions are questions that demand why something is, how something
is, and if something really is.
Now, because of the nature of philosophical questions, it was only natural that the societies that
have established states and a form of government, etc. are the first societies that have asked the first
philosophical questions. The Chinese asked “What am I?” The Indians asked “Who am I?” The Greeks
asked “Where am I?” We will focus on the history of Western philosophy.
Pre-Socratics: “Where does everything come from?” 3

a. Thales: water
b. Anaximander: indeterminate boundless
c. Anaximenes: air (“just as our soul, being air, holds us together, so do breath and air
encompass the whole world”)
d. Pythagoras: numbers (since everything is measurable and can be numbered, then
everything must have originated from numbers)
e. Heraclitus of Ephesus: fire (everything that passes through fire changes, and since
what is observable in this world is that everything changes, then it must be that there
is fire in everything) “No one can step on the same river twice.”
f. Parmenides of Elea: the world consists of one indivisible thing; this One is motionless
and in perfect sphere. (Change is an illusion)
g. Empedocles: earth, air, fire, water (Being is uncreated and indestructible and that it
simply is. Change and motion are made possible because objects are composed of
many particles, which are in themselves changeless.)
h. Leucippus and Democritus of Abdera: atoms (everything was the product of the
collision of atoms moving in space)
*Pythagoras believed that every human person is incapable of knowing the whole truth.
He believed that each of these philosophers may be correct in their views, however, they
are only capable of explaining a portion of the truth but not the whole truth.
Historical Development of Philosophy

a. Ancient: cosmocentric
2
Note, however, that the difference between philosophical and non-philosophical questions is not the level
of difficulty. The question “What time is it?” is as difficult to answer as the question “What is time?” when one does
not have a timepiece.
3
For supplementary readings on the Pre-Socratics, see:
http://www.actionphilosophers.com/eviltwin_actionphilosophers_preview.pdf
2|P HL 102 N OTES

b. Medieval: theocentric
c. Modern: ideocentric
d. Contemporary: anthropocentric
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
3|P HL 102 N OTES

Socrates
Socrates is one of the most enigmatic among Western philosophers, partly due to the fact that
he did not write any philosophical texts. Some would even go farther as to doubt his existence. There
are, however, accounts of Socrates’ life by Xenophon, Aristophanes, and Plato. Plato also used
Socrates as a mouthpiece for the former’s philosophy. Plato scholars have divided Plato’s dialogues
into three, and they have distinguished the real Socrates from the character Socrates. According to
them, the early dialogues where Socrates talks about moral philosophy contain the real Socrates; and
the Socrates preoccupied with metaphysical notions is the character Plato used.
Despite being the most enigmatic, Socrates, through Plato’s account, is considered to have
made important and lasting contributions to philosophy. But his most important contribution is the
Socratic Method, an art of discourse that aims to draw out an answer through constant questioning.
Socrates compares his method to the midwifery profession. Giving birth is a natural characteristic
inherent to a woman. The midwife merely helps the pregnant woman give birth. The midwife does
not give birth to an idea, but through questioning, the midwife is able to help the “pregnant” mind.
In a way, Socrates was saying that we are all capable of rational thought. But sometimes, we
are like the sluggish horse. We are capable of movement and yet we refuse to do so out of naïve
complacency. Socrates also compares himself to a gadfly that stings the sluggish horse awake.
The Socratic Method, however, is not a mere question-answer repartee. The Socratic Method
aims to direct inquiry. It aims to navigate through the presuppositions, and underlying assumptions
of a certain piece of information or an accepted knowledge. Socrates, therefore, was not merely
pestering Athenians with his questions.4 His questions help his interlocutors refine their positions. In
4
For example, Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro, features Socrates asking Euthyphro about the meaning of piety or
good. See: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
4|P HL 102 N OTES

a way, Socrates was helping the Athenians do away with arguing and defending certain positions
based on vague rhetoric alone.
Because of this practice, Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth and introducing new
gods to them. The Athenians were bothered by Socrates’ questioning; and they were bothered that
the young people who follow Socrates will also start questioning authority. Socrates was sentenced
to drink the hemlock.
Plato
Like Empedocles and Democritus, Plato, too, believed that while change is constant in this
world, there is something “permanent” at its core. But unlike the Pre-Socratic philosophers before
him, Plato thinks that that which is “permanent” is not tangible. Plato insists that everything around
us erodes and deteriorates, hence, everything that is tangible changes. He concludes that that which
is permanent is something out of this world; and he calls this the ‘forms.’
Plato’s metaphor for the Theory of Forms is his Allegory of the Cave. According to him, like
the people in the cave, we are capable of seeing only the shadows. And unless we free ourselves from
ignorance, we will not be enlightened.
As a result, he considers our knowledge of the empirical world as mere opinions. We know
beauty because we have an “idea” of it. But our judgment that a thing or a person is beautiful is only
an opinion.
Plato also insists that our knowledge of the World of Forms is innate. We arrive at the idea of
a thing’s form, not by creating this idea but by remembering. Plato argues that we have knowledge of
5|P HL 102 N OTES

forms even before our souls combined with our bodies, because our soul is a form, too. Hence, when
we encounter something in the world of objects, despite its imperfection, we are able to identify the
thing because through the encounter, we have a vague recollection of its form. However, through the
use of our reason, we are able to sharpen the blurry edges of this memory.
Our soul, too, is a form. And because it is a form, it could attain perfection. Thus, despite being
chained to the body, Plato argues that we could develop our souls for perfection (virtue.)
The soul is divided into three parts. Plato, in his Phaedrus Dialogue, compares the tripartite
soul to the charioteer, the black horse and the white horse. (Notice the similarity to Freud’s id, ego,
superego.) They each have different domains, but they must cooperate with each other. This must
also be the structure of the society.
Here, one would be able to notice how Plato strikes a balance between the natural
philosophers who are preoccupied with the question of the cosmos, and Socrates who is more
concerned with human institutions and behaviour. Here, Plato connects his ideas of the cosmos, and
metaphysical reality, to human activities.
Plato argues that our knowledge of the “perfect” and “permanent” must be able to help us
restructure politics and the society. (See Plato, Republic)
Body Soul Virtue Social Class
Head Reason Wisdom Ruler
Heart Will Courage Soldier
Stomach Appetite Temperance Merchant/Laborer
= Health =Justice
Plato’s The Republic is probably Plato’s most famous work. Here, he discussed issues on how
to create the ideal society. He proposes radical (for his time) movements such as equality among men
and women, the necessity to abolish family life, eugenics, the community of wife and children, etc.
Later, Plato will write the Laws, a more grounded political philosophy.
6|P HL 102 N OTES

7|P HL 102 N OTES

Aristotle5
While
his teacher Plato
argues that we
have innate
ideas, and that
the realm of
5
For more discussions on Aristotle’s philosophy, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slMpJvt6b0I
8|P HL 102 N OTES

experience is imperfect, Aristotle believes that the forms that Plato deems to exist in the World of
Forms are nothing but ideas—they are mere abstractions of real objects.
While Plato believes that the idea of an object is that which makes possible its existence as
such, for Aristotle, the object existed first. Our “idea” of that object came after the sense experience.
If Plato thinks that knowledge is a matter of remembering and purifying a memory, for
Aristotle, knowledge consists of perception of the object, observation, and distinction of one object
from another.
If Plato insists that the knowledge of “forms” makes it possible for us to identify that three
completely different beds are all beds, Aristotle argues that we are able to conclude this because the
form is inseparable from the object. For example, if in Plato’s theory of forms, it is possible, in thought,
to separate ideas of color and shape, why is it impossible, in reality, to separate the bronze color from
the sphere shape of a ball?
Hence, Aristotle concludes that the idea of matter and form can only be distinguished in
thought, but not in reality. That is because forms are not separate from the matter. Forms are
embedded in the object. Every object, therefore, that has form and matter is called substance.
Now, Aristotle is also known for his Golden Mean, which still echoes his epistemological and
metaphysical theories. According to Aristotle, virtue is a habit, and is the mean of two extremes. The
excesses, of course, are vices. Palmer explains: “[When] it comes to facing danger, one can act with
excess, that is, show too much fear (cowardice). Or one can act deficiently by showing too little fear
(foolhardiness). One can act with moderation, and hence virtuously, by showing the right amount of
fear (courage).”6
6
Palmer, 83.
9|P HL 102 N OTES

St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas

During the Roman Empire, the classical pagan philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were losing
its influence. The church closed up Plato’s Academy and Roman Catholicism was becoming more and
more influential. Greek pagan philosophy was the only available philosophical tradition and it was
incompatible with the doctrines of the Church.
The Church would not allow Aristotle’s philosophy because accepting his ideas would mean
contradiction to the very foundations of the Church.
i. Aristotle: world is not eternal, without beginning or end
Church: the world has a beginning and wold have an end
ii. Aristotle: everything that comes to be has to come from a pre-existing matter,
from which it follows that something cannot come from nothing
Church: God created the world from nothing
iii. Aristotle: Only the rational part of the soul is immortal, with the rest of it
perishing with the body
Church: the undivided soul is eternal
iv. Aristotle: all accidents must inhere in a substance;; they cannot exist
independently
Church: Aristotle’s idea conflicts with the doctrine of the Eucharist, or Mass,
wherein after God transforms the bread and wine of the Mass into the body
and blood of Christ, the accidents of the bread and wine continue to exist
without inhering in any substance or substances
There was a need to tailor the only philosophical tradition available to fit Christianity. The
language of Plato’s and Aristotle’s writings was, to an extent, inaccessible to the Latin West. But there
were Jewish and Arabic interpretations of these philosophies. (The Arab culture is also significant in
the development of science. During the Middle Ages, they dominated mathematics, chemistry,
astronomy and medicine.) In addition, Boethius Tertullian, and Ambrose wrote on Greek philosophy
and discussed these ideas before the knowledge of Greek effectively disappeared in the West.
Now, while some may consider the Medieval Ages as the Dark Ages of “human thought” as it
was usually associated to a form of authoritarian thinking, in a way, the Middle Ages could also be
considered as an important stage in the re-interpretation and revaluation of Greek philosophy, and
to an extent, the rationalization of faith.
Faith and reason are no longer to be pitted against each other. In the Middle Ages, scholars of
the Church were preoccupied with balancing between the extremes of blind acceptance of the
Catholic doctrines and the possibility of absolute scepticism. (Unfortunately, because Aristotle’s
philosophy was more influential in the Middle Ages, the Church also inherited Aristotle’s view of
women.)
10 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
St. Augustine, before becoming a

Christian dabbled into different ideas such as
Manicheanism and Neo-Platonism. He argues
that secular philosophy must not be considered
by the Church as a threat to faith, instead, it
must be employed by the Church to aid in a
better understanding of the doctrines.
“He felt that intellectual inquiry into the
faith was to be understood as faith seeking
understanding (fides quaerens intellectum). To
believe is ‘to think with assent’ (credere est
assensione cogitare). It is an act of the intellect
determined not by the reason, but by the will.
Faith involves a commitment ‘to believe in a God,’ ‘to believe God,’ and ‘to believe in God.’” 7
The Problem of Faith and Reason

“The problem concerned the question of whether to emphasize the claims of divine revelation
or the claims of philosophy in one’s conception of reality.”8
St. Augustine was able to reformulate Plato’s ideas to fit Christianity. St. Thomas, on the other
hand, was able to do the same with Aristotle’s philosophy.
Aquinas adopted Aristotle’s philosophy in all the areas where it did not collide with the
Church’s teachings. These included logic, epistemology, natural philosophy. Aquinas wrote
extensively on metaphysics, epistemology, and theology. Through the use of reason, Aquinas was able
to give five ways of proving the existence of a first cause or God. Of course, this does not mean that
he was able to prove the existence of the God that the Church glorifies. He was merely proving that
there has to be an ultimate cause. Infinite regress, that is, of infinite causes would be irrational.
Aquinas had a systematic mind. He was able to organize different kinds of knowledge to form
a coherent body of knowledge. He took the challenge of reconciling not only Aristotle’s philosophy to
Catholic doctrines but also that of reason with faith, and of the warring sides in the debate over the
status of universals.
Here, Aquinas employed the Aristotelian solution which was Aristotle’s answer to Plato’s
theory of forms. “Universals are neither autonomous forms nor mere mental states. They are
‘embedded’ in particular objects as their essence.”9
Aquinas distinguished between revealed theology (accepted purely on faith) and natural
theology (susceptible of the proof of reason). He showed where philosophy and theology overlap. He
admits that reason cannot establish the entirety of claims of faith. But he insists that there are natural
theological truths that could be proven by reason. One of these natural theological truths is the
7
www.iep.utm.edu
8
Palmer, 131.
9
Palmer, 138.
11 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
existence of God. (In a sense, Aquinas was saying that there are two paths towards God: to believe in
the revelation, and to seek answers via reason.)
Rene Descartes, David Hume, Immanuel Kant

Rene Descartes10
Together with the scientific revolution, philosophy also underwent a parallel upheaval. From
the criticism against Aristotle’s philosophy sprouted different philosophical positions.
Several of the key figures were philosophers and scientists on their own right, and it is to
some extent a matter of arbitrary classification to place them in one group or the other. Rene
Descartes and Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, in particular, could just as easily have been classified
among the scientists. The two disciplines were not yet clearly separated, and the word ‘scientist’
would not be coined until the early nineteenth century.
Descartes wants to find certainty in the sciences. He thought he could achieve that by
beginning with certainties and following an appropriate procedure.11 Descartes’ preoccupation of
finding the certainty of knowledge led him to proposing the “universal doubt” (sometimes called
“methodic doubt” or “hyperbolic doubt”). In contrast to the Church that started the pursuit of truth
from blind faith, Descartes advocates that we must all begin with doubt.
In the Meditations, Descartes contemplated upon the idea that if you commit one mistake,
such does not guarantee that you will not commit a mistake anymore (as if one person is given only
one opportunity to be wrong.) On the contrary, one mistake is a proof that one is fallible and may
have the tendency to commit another mistake in the future. In the same way, Descartes says: “It is
prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once.”12
This “mistrust” is also applicable to the senses. Sometimes, the senses deceive us. We hear a
car backfiring and we think it’s a gunshot. We see a shadow on the wall and sometimes we think it’s
a stain. In fact, to a certain extent, we are already aware of this distortion, that when we look out the
window and see coats and hats walking, we do not merely conclude that coats and hats are walking
but that people, who wear these coats and hats are the ones walking. Hence, Descartes insists that
we can’t rely on our senses.
Descartes argues that our mind is like a basketful of apples. It would be difficult to get rid of
the rotten ones if we don’t device a system and if we are simply discarding the rotten apples one by
one. Descartes proposes that it would be better to tip the basketful of apples and start from loading
the basket only with good apples, discarding the rotten ones along the way. In the same manner,
Descartes insists that the mind must first doubt everything and accept only the clear and distinct
ideas.
10
For discussions of Descartes’ philosophy, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7B5k413tcI.
11
McGrew, 196.
12
Mark Steel Lectures
12 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
If we are to perform the universal doubt, it would become possible to doubt one’s existence.
Through the senses, we know that we exist; but how if we are merely dreaming? Despite the “clarity”
of the things around us, Descartes also proposes that it is possible that what we are experiencing is
one of those vivid dreams. But if Descartes is to doubt everything, there is one thing he can be sure
of, and that is the fact that he doubts; and the doubting being is him. “I doubt, therefore I exist. I think,
therefore I am,” he writes. This methodic doubt implies that every knowledge must be subjected to
scrutiny. Everything—laws, government, the Bible, etc.—were all open to question.
Descartes also exhibited a new kind of religiosity, by trying to prove via reason that God
exists.13 He says, everything must have been created by something stronger than the thing itself. And
since Descartes could only prove the existence of his mind, he argues that if he has ideas about
perfection or infinity, those ideas must not be of his own imaginings. Someone more (i.e. GOD) perfect
must have given those ideas to an imperfect being like Descartes. (Did god give us ideas of
superheroes, too?)
God is, by definition, perfect. And to exist is more perfect than to not exist. Therefore, God
exists. “And if God exists, then, any ideas we have which are clear and distinct must be a guide to truth
because God wouldn’t allow us to have clear and distinct ideas that are rubbish. Now, I have a clear
and distinct idea that God exists and if God exists, then any clear and distinct ideas that we have must
be a guide to truth… (This never-ending logic is called the Cartesian circle)”14
Descartes was able to help in the progress of biology by doing away with the “hearing
qualities of the ear” rhetoric, “seeing qualities of the eye” rhetoric, remnants of the Aristotelian
philosophy. He was able to work out the idea of a nervous system giving commands to the body.
However, Descartes has already separated the mind (an immaterial thinking being that is
incapable of movement) and the body (a material non-thinking entity that is capable of movement)
that he had a difficulty reconciling how the mind tells the body what to do.
Descartes wanted to do away with conceiving the relation of the mind and the body as a
remote-controlled automaton. So, he had to insist that the connection between the mind and the body
is made possible by an area in the brain called the pineal gland. This gland, according to Descartes,
processes the demands from the mind and turns these into bodily actions.
David Hume
In contrast to Descartes who overemphasized reason as the source of all knowledge, David
Hume insists that the senses are the only “receivers” of information from outside the body. 15 Maybe,
the discrepancy in knowledge is not due to how we gather information but how we process it. Maybe,
our mind jumps to (invalid) conclusions.
13
However, other readings would also argue that Descartes’ “god” was merely inserted in his writings to avoid
complications with the Church.
14
Mark Steel Lectures
15
Note that David Hume was coming from the empiricist tradition where John Locke is also a part of. And
Locke believed that the mind is a “tabula rasa” or a blank slate, and that through sense experience, the mind collects
knowledge.
13 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
Now, according to Hume, we must subject every idea to scrutiny. But unlike Descartes’
universal doubt, Hume argues that we should start from the simple ideas. We must accept only those
things that mirror sense experience.
Hume accepts that there are analytic claims and synthetic claims. However, he argues that
analytic claims are also at the same time a priori knowledge, and synthetic claims are also at the same
time a posteriori knowledge.
Relations of Analytic: A priori knowledge: “All sisters are

Ideas siblings.”
ideas that are self- Knowledge that is
explanatory, the prior to sense
contradiction of experience
which would result to
contradiction
Ex: “A triangle has
three sides.”
Matters of Fact Synthetic: A posteriori: “Kim is Khloe’s

Ideas that include Knowledge claims sister.”
other ideas that are after sense
not necessarily experience
presupposed in the
first idea, hence, not
self-explanatory
Hume insists that analytic-a priori knowledge is “redundant, repetitive, merely verbal truths
that provide no new information about the world, only information about the meaning of words.” 16
Hume writes: “Though there never were a circle or triangle in nature, the truths
demonstrated by Euclid would forever retain their certainty and evidence.”17
Synthetic-a posteriori claims describe reality. All true knowledge of the world must be based
on observation. And even if we have ideas of perfection, God, self, or causality, Hume argues that
these ideas are just combinations our minds made up from simple ideas.
16
Palmer
17
Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
14 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
According to Hume, our mind is just an empty theatre where various mental states (sensation,
perception, memories, etc) pass through.
Hume divided our ideas into two. On one side, there are the simple ideas which are
“recollections” of impressions (sense experience) and on the other side are the complex ideas.
Complex ideas are the different combinations of two or more simple ideas. For example, our idea of
a unicorn is just the combination of simple ideas of “horn” “horse” and “rainbow colors.” Hume
argues, therefore, that we must not think of complex ideas as a priori ideas.
To a certain extent, Hume was creating another path towards questioning the existence of
God. But he was not explicit about this. Hume merely wants man to be critically aware, and to avoid
the habit of the mind of jumping into conclusions. As a result, Hume also denies the idea of the
existence of human nature. We are nothing but bundles of experiences.
Hume also advocates for a suspension of judgment regarding scientific laws. In causality, for
example, Hume argues that just because in every instance, we observe an event following another
event happening does not mean that one is the cause of the other. While Hume, to a certain extent,
does not believe that if he lets go of a stone it will rise, he also insists that the idea of causation is a
complex idea and must not be taken as a description of reality.
Due to Hume’s overemphasis of the role of empirical evidence in knowledge, he was also able
to pose the problem of induction. If everything that we hold as true knowledge should have first been
properly validated by sense experience, then, our scientific laws, or the things that we have declared
as laws of nature cannot be considered as true knowledge because they have not been properly
validated by true knowledge.
The problem with induction is that inductive knowledge is neither based on reason nor based
on sense experience. For example, in all the mornings that [insert name] experienced, the sun rose
up. At some age, [insert name] will learn to take as a fact that the sun rises every morning. This
expectation is not based on sense experience. It was merely based on the sense experience of
yesterday, and the day before that, and so on. But the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow is not based
on sense experience because tomorrow has not happened yet. For Hume, neither is the idea that “the
sun rises every morning” based on reason, because for him, it is unreasonable to think that just
because in the past our future was exactly like the past that in the future, the future will be exactly
like the past. All scientific laws, therefore, are merely habits of the mind. The claims to knowledge
and truth of science, and philosophy are misguided.
Immanuel Kant
The problem of induction posed by Hume is crippling not only to philosophy and science but even
with ethical discussions.18 Now, we have Immanuel Kant who tried to solve the problem.
18
This was probably why Hume’s division of knowledge is called Hume’s Fork and his “is/ought” problem is
called Hume’s Guillotine. Following from Hume’s premises, one cannot avoid admitting that Hume was, to an extent,
right.
15 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
Kant was trained in rationalist philosophy but when he read Hume, he “was awakened from his
dogmatic slumber.”19 He realized that Hume did have a point. We cannot base everything on reason.
But at the same time, Kant could not completely agree with Hume. At Kant’s time, science and
mathematics was progressing and he noticed that philosophy could not seem to move on from the
questions posed in the Middle ages: questions on God, soul, immortality, etc.
Kant realized that the progress natural
science and mathematics were displaying
was due to natural science being informed
by empiricist philosophy and mathematics
being informed by rationalist philosophy.
Kant noticed how both these disciplines
were able to take from these schools of
thought the best points of each. Kant, then,
sought to look for a common ground
between empiricism and rationalism.
Kant argues that Hume was right to say
that “all empirical knowledge arises from
sense impressions, but not all knowledge
are given in these impressions.”20 Kant
agrees with Hume that there are indeed
analytic-a priori truths and there are
synthetic-a posteriori truths. But Kant adds that there are also synthetic-a priori truths. There are
truths that are not self-explanatory and are therefore, not merely wordplay. But at the same time,
these truths could also be a-priori—that is, there are claims that are necessarily true even without
sense verification. For example, the claim that “the cat is on the mat” is a synthetic-a posteriori
knowledge. But when one makes such statement, one has already presupposed another claim that
makes the claim, “the cat is on the mat,” possible. The first statement presupposes that “Objects exist
in space and time.” This is both synthetic and a posteriori.
For Kant, “sense impressions provide the raw material of empirical knowledge, but that the
knowing subject itself is responsible for the structural-relational organization of this raw material.” 21
Kant argues against Hume that our minds are not completely blank. Like Descartes and Plato,
Kant agrees that we do have something innate in us. But unlike Descartes and Plato, that something
which is innate is not an idea. It is not the idea of Forms. Neither is it the idea of the thinking self. For
Kant, we are born with a built-in processor that processes information and filters sense experience.
For Kant, Hume oversimplified the processes of the mind. What Hume might have considered
as a series of things happening simultaneously, Kant saw such things as relations, causation, etc.
Hume was right. Causation can never be found in reality. It is not something one can have a sense
19
See Kant’s Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics.
20
Losee.
21
Losee.
16 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
experience of. But for Kant, causation is necessary in understanding the world. It is not merely an
expectation of the mind.
Noumenon vs. Phenomenon. As a result of this theory of knowledge, Kant had to conclude
that the things that appear may not be exactly like the appearance of things in our minds. We always
see the world through the intervention of the categories of the mind. How do we know that the world
prior to the mind’s intervention is exactly like how we see the world in our heads? We have already
subjected the objects to the categories. For Kant, the human mind can only penetrate the phenomenal
world. Hence, in science and in philosophy, we have to refrain from making scientific and
philosophical claims that are not logically necessary. We cannot claim that God exists because we
have no way of knowing. But neither can we make a claim that God does not exist. This also applies
to reality. Real REALITY might be totally different from the version of reality in our heads.22
Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Friedrich Nietzsche

Jean-Paul Sartre23
Existentialism was, in a way, a reaction against the overemphasis of philosophy on reason.
We are becoming "slaves" of ideas. We are upholding the idea that we are "rational beings" at the
expense of being human. But what is being human? Is being human merely about rationality? Are we
still humans if we cannot feel? Existential philosophy questions not only the idea that man's essence
is equated to rationality, but the very idea of "essence." Can we really give a universal definition for
"man"?
Jean-Paul Sartre distinguishes between being-in-itself and being-for-itself. According to him,

objects or unconscious beings (beings-in-itself) have pre-defined purposes and can therefore be
defined. A chair was created to be sat on. It may change in form. It may get old. Its paint may chip off,
etc. But its definition as a chair will not change. A being-in-itself is unaware of itself and lacks the
ability to "redefine" itself.
On the other hand, humans or conscious beings (beings-for-itself) do not have predefined
purposes or meanings. They are aware of themselves, but they are incomplete. Contrary to traditional
philosophy, man does not have a pre-determined essence. His essence comes from his existence.
What man is, his definition, comes from his efforts to make his existence authentic. This is possible
because man is conscious of his own consciousness. Influenced by a Cartesian phenomenologist
named Edmund Husserl, Sartre also insists that we are always pre-reflective. For example, you are
currently reading these words. And you may not necessarily be focused on your ability to step back
and be conscious of the fact that you are reading, but when somebody asks you what you are doing,
you will respond (almost automatically) with “I am reading.” Your ability to instantly respond to the
question means that even if you are not necessarily thinking of what you are doing, you are pre-
reflective of it. This consciousness of our own consciousness, then, is something we cannot simply
22
For more discussions on reality and illusions, waking and dreaming, truth and falsity, see Richard
Linklater’s movie, Waking Life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRHtzx15hSY
23
For further readings, see “Existentialism is a Humanism.”
17 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
switch on and off at will.
In addition, the drive to find meaning in one's existence does not merely come from the fact
that we are conscious of our own consciousness. Sartre also insists that we are changing. Our past
self, our present self and our future self are different.
Moreover, we are also equipped with freedom. Most existential philosophers find an
opposition between the freedom we are equipped with and the spontaneity of reality. Sartre believes
that we feel despair and anguish when we realize this. We try so hard to impose upon our
consciousness a certain structure. But the fact that we have freedom, and that we change makes
following this structure more difficult. Sometimes, the idea of freedom (that is, the ability to do
anything) poses a threat in the structure we have tried to impose upon ourselves. Fear and anguish
are different. According to Sartre, fear is one’s response to an external object. One could be afraid of
death. Anguish, however, is the realization that one might change one’s mind despite the structures
that one tries to impose upon himself. Sartre writes: “I await myself in the future. Anguish is the fear
of not finding myself there, of no longer wishing to be there.” 24 One might be afraid of death, but
anguish is the realization that when one is on the edge of a cliff, there is no one, or nothing that stops
one from jumping.
In addition, Sartre also argues that our existence in this world does not have a clear defined
purpose. We are thrown into this world, without any idea of what to do. We are given "freedom" and
we do not know how to use it. Unlike the beings-in-itself, man does not have a predefined purpose.
His existence, therefore, is absurd. We are pure excesses of this world. And our freedom, our
reflective consciousness enables us to question our place in this world. We are aware of nothingness,
like when we notice that Pierre is not in the café. It is not the presence of other non-Pierre beings that
overwhelms us but the absence of Pierre. But we are also aware of our own nothingness, of the fact
that our existence does not have meaning, and it is this that overwhelms us. “Nothingness pervades
all beings,” Sartre writes. In addition, remember, we change. “I am not who I was. The person I will
be is not who I am.” We are nothingness. “My self is not a stable solid entity that lasts through time…
I must make and remake myself from moment to moment.”25
Sartre also touches the idea of values. Sartre’s atheism is not directed towards whether or not
God exists. What is of more concern to Sartre is the idea that whether or not God actually exists, the
realization that we cannot really access His thoughts, etc., proves that our values do not pre-exist
freedom. Freedom pre-exists values. “My freedom is anguished at being the foundation of values
while being itself without foundation.” We can no longer rely on God or blame God for our fate. 26
Existentialism, at least the atheist brand, emphasizes that we are solely responsible for everything,
even if we did not ask for it. We are also responsible in creating values. This does not mean however
that we can rearrange reality at will. There are things that we cannot change, the facticities of life. But
Sartre differentiates this from situations. A situation is one’s interpretation of facticity.
24
Being and Nothingness, p. 73.
25
Palmer
26
This is what Sartre meant by being thrown into this world.
18 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
We may use our freedom in good faith or in bad faith. To actively create our world, our values,
is to use our freedom in good faith. Here, we recognize our freedom and our role in the creation of
our destiny. We are affirming our responsibility. In bad faith, however, we are denying our freedom
by making excuses and by blaming circumstances, facticities, the past, etc. In his book, Sartre gives
examples of the practice of bad faith.
Also, Sartre takes into consideration the freedom of others. According to him, we are aware
that the other has a consciousness, and has freedom. As a result, the presence of the other pushes us
to see/confront ourselves the way we think the other will see/confront us. The presence of the other
is, to a certain extent, a threat to our freedom because the presence and the look of the other forces
us to conform to the values we think the other person upholds. That is how shame works. 27 We feel
shame, not because we are judging ourselves but because we see the possibility of the other judging
us. Sartre writes: “Hell is other people.” And with this, we become objects. And the way we evade this
is to return this objectification--to objectify the other with our look.
While some critics read Sartre's philosophy as pessimistic, Sartre insists that it is not so. Our
existence does not have meaning. But we can create its meaning, using our freedom. There may be
things we cannot change along the way, but we can choose how to interpret these facticities. In the
end, Sartre makes a hero of us all. Like Sisyphus28, despite the nothingness of being, the absurdity of
our existence and the futility of everything (as we would all die anyway), without excuses and
complaints, we still try hard to push our boulders up the hill.
Simone de Beauvoir29
Simone de Beauvoir's feminist philosophy is also existential in nature. She was influenced by
Sartre's philosophy inasmuch as Sartre's ideas are also influenced by her. She treats the feminine
condition via looking at the history of women as a series of lived experiences.
De Beauvoir writes: "One is not born, but becomes a woman." Here, she recognizes the
materiality of women history. A girl grows up to become who she is--a passive, weak, subordinate
creature--not because she was born a girl but because the society has formed her to be one. She was
groomed from birth to become a wife and a mother. Play is a training for when she is old enough to
actually do the work. She has a mini stove and a mini pan, and a baby doll. She grows up and is treated
differently from the males. She is expected to be innocent and pure. She is to appear pretty and young,
gentle and delicate. The values that the society expect her to uphold are all contributory to the idea
of a "woman."
According to de Beauvoir, the society's definition of a woman has always been relative to our
definition of a man. Man has always been the standard. And in The Second Sex, de Beauvoir tries to
argue for sexual equality without having to disregard the difference between the sexes. According to
27
Or in other cases, pride.
28
Albert Camus, “The Myth of Sisyphus;” http://dbanach.com/sisyphus.htm
29
For further readings: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/index.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm.
See also Pourquoi Je Suis Feministe, 1975 Questionnaire Interview with Simone de Beauvoir by Jean-Louis Servan-
Schreiber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmEAB3ekkvU.
19 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
her, if we argue for the idea of sexual equality, we must not insist on subjecting the woman to male
standards. We have to recognize the unique condition of a woman, and we have to recognize that
differences between the sexes are not differences in degrees (it is not about a higher being and a
lower being, for example.) Sexual difference is difference in kind. There are males and there are
females who differ physiologically and psychologically. But this difference is not a reason for creating
new forms of oppression or subordination.
De Beauvoir also discusses the society's image of a woman as an "eternal feminine," as a

"mother" denies the woman of her individuality. She also argues that a woman's character, her
passivity, subordination, weakness, etc. is a result of her situation, her position in the society. De
Beauvoir also argues that some women wallow in their "subordination" through denying themselves
of their freedom. They reinforce this subordination by basking in narcissism, in ideas of love or
religion, and so on. De Beauvoir is also aware of the economic dimensions of a woman's
subordination. To gain independence, she must be able to work. And for this to be possible, the
society must also give the woman equal opportunities as the man.
While male domination and female subordination is the fight women must take part in, men
are also greatly affected by this. The society has defined the spaces where both men and women are
supposed to stay. And while these definitions favor men in general, as they get a bigger share in social
benefits, work and educational opportunities, and so on, the fact that they are also "oppressed" by
the society's definitions to conform in a particular way means that men must also take part in
changing these standards. This does not mean, however, that feminism is no longer relevant in
societies that have recognized gender equality in the institutional level. There is still a need to
recognize gender equality beyond the institutional level.
Friedrich Nietzsche30
Friedrich Nietzsche was one of the most controversial philosophers because of his
declaration “God is dead.” Nietzsche became a word one associates with radical atheism. But contrary
to common reading, Nietzsche’s declaration of the death of God is not an atheistic rant. Rather, it is a
loaded statement against modernity, culture, and man’s reification of signs.
With the arrival of modernization and industrialization comes the questioning of values. Our
world is changing and our “ideas,” “metaphysical assumptions,” myths and necessary fictions are
becoming less and less grounded. Imagine Plato telling his reader to ask the people to believe in a
noble lie for the sake of social order. Now imagine Plato actually believing the lie he was telling other
people.
Nietzsche’s death of God is something like that. Nietzsche argues that his concern is not really
on the existence or non-existence of a metaphysical God. His concern is that our idea of God no longer
serves its purpose. If we equate religion to the necessary fictions we all have, religion does not inspire
us anymore. Religion is no longer symbolic or creative. Religion has become limited to a rigid
interpretation of a thick book. And this rigid interpretation is made only when someone wants to
quote something to appeal to the authority.
30
For further readings, see Nietzsche’s “Prologue” in Thus Spake Zarathustra. Also, see
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm#link2H_4_0004. See also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4baePsCT_E.
20 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
In the “Prologue” of Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche’s character, Zarathustra, on his way
down from the mountains after years of meditation, encountered an ascetic old man. Their short
conversation revealed that the old man has decided to resign to the forest, and away from mankind.
Here, Nietzsche proclaims the death of God. The ascetic old man represents the nihilistic character of
certain beliefs like Christianity, Western metaphysics, etc. It is this subscription to values that are
actually empty, resulting to the hatred of the body, of material reality. The death of God is Nietzsche’s
declaration of the death of an authoritative guarantor. The fiction man has created can no longer
function. Nietzsche writes:
The world of pure fiction is vastly inferior to the world of dreams insofar as the latter mirrors
reality, whereas the former falsifies, devalues, and negates reality. Once the concept of nature
had been invented as the opposite of God, nature, had to become synonym of reprehensible:
this world of fiction is rooted in the hatred of the natural (of reality!); it is the expression of a
profound vexation at the sight of reality.31
Despite this “emptying” of metaphysics, religion, God, some people (like the ascetic in the
forest) would rather delude themselves into thinking that these “fictions” are still true. To a certain
extent, they become slaves to these fictions.
There are also other people, who believe that if the idea of God has become empty, then they
must simply cease believing in God. The crowd that Zarathustra encountered represent this. People
believe that abandoning religion is enough to defeat nihilism. However, Nietzsche reminds man that
“God is dead; but given the way people are, there may still for millennia be caves in which they show
his shadow.—And we—we must still defeat his shadow as well!”32 While the death of God might
present itself as a kind of emancipation from this psychological/epistemological bondage, this
medieval nihilism is replaced with another form of nihilism in the modern age. The divine values
were merely replaced by scientific and institutionalized values. God was merely usurped by reason.
According to Nietzsche, we have to be “active” in making our own values. We must stop
merely echoing the sentiments of the crowd, or of the ruling ideology. He distinguishes between slave
and master morality. The master has full control over what will happen and the things he will do. The
slave, however, is always in relation to others. One might interpret this as an excuse to oppress other
people. But contrary to how Nietzsche’s philosophy was used in Nazism, Gilles Deleuze interprets
Nietzsche’s idea of master and slave moralities as two opposing ideas of will to power. Power is
something that is innate in every person. One need not to clamor for power, but merely to use it, to
will it. Now, when one wills affirmatively, that is, when one wills his abilities, and affirms life and
chance, then he is a master. However, when one wills negatively, that is, when one denies life and
chance, and seeks acceptance and sees power as a status symbol, then he is a slave. While the master
is actively creating values, the slave is reactive, forever looking up at the master, waiting for a chance
to take over. “The beginning of the slave’s revolt in morality occurs when ressentiment itself turns
creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of those beings who denied the proper response
of action, compensate for it only with imaginary revenge.”33
Now Nietzsche introduces his idea of the ubermensch. The overman is meant to be the
solution to nihilism, the meaning we should give to our lives. The German word Ubermensch is often
translated as "superman," but Kaufmann's choice of "overman" is more accurate, as it brings out the
way that this word evokes "overcoming" and "going under." The overman faces a world without God,
31
Anti-Christ, 15.
32
Gay Science, 108.
33
Genealogy of Morals, I, 10.
21 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S
and rather than finding it meaningless, gives it his own meaning. Zarathustra suggests that humans
are great only as a bridge between animal and overman. Humans are not the be all and end all of
existence, as the "last men" would see themselves. While the tightrope walker could have been the
overman, his anxiety in crossing the rope is due to his being scared of death. The fact that he attempts
to cross the rope bridge nervously means that his attitude towards life is still nihilistic. As opposed
to this, the jester crosses the rope bridge very lightly, and with humor.
Branches of Philosophy:
a. Logic: on correct inferential thinking and its principles
b. Epistemology: on certain and true knowledge and its principles
c. Metaphysics/Ontology: on beings in general, on the different reasons and principles
of the reality of things
d. Rational Psychology/Philosophical Anthropology: on living beings and the principle of
life, on the nature of the vital operations and of the vital powers, and their
classification
e. Cosmology/Philosophy of Nature: on the material world, and the ultimate constituent
principles of material beings
f. Aesthetics: on beauty and harmony, on value judgments about art and beauty in
general
g. Theodicy/Special Metaphysics: on the First Cause of contingent beings and of
emergent reality
h. Ethics: on human acts and their morality
i. Social/Political Philosophy: on the sociality of man, on the nature of human society
and its principles
22 | P H L 1 0 2 N O T E S

Philosophy

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Philosophy

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Do not cite. Do not publish. Do not reproduce. For discussion purposes only.

Class Notes: PHL 102-LOGIC

1|P HL 102 N OTES

Pre-Socratics: “Where does everything come from?” 3

Historical Development of Philosophy

2|P HL 102 N OTES

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle

3|P HL 102 N OTES

4|P HL 102 N OTES

5|P HL 102 N OTES

Body Soul Virtue Social Class

Head Reason Wisdom Ruler

Heart Will Courage Soldier

Stomach Appetite Temperance Merchant/Laborer

6|P HL 102 N OTES

7|P HL 102 N OTES

8|P HL 102 N OTES

9|P HL 102 N OTES

St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas

St. Augustine, before becoming a

The Problem of Faith and Reason

Rene Descartes, David Hume, Immanuel Kant

Relations of Analytic: A priori knowledge: “All sisters are

Matters of Fact Synthetic: A posteriori: “Kim is Khloe’s

Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Friedrich Nietzsche

Jean-Paul Sartre distinguishes between being-in-itself and being-for-itself. According to him,

switch on and off at will.

De Beauvoir also discusses the society's image of a woman as an "eternal feminine," as a

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi