Thursday 15 May 2014
Western Philosophy
WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
THE PRE–SOCRATIC PERIOD
The Pre–Socratics (early Greek thinkers before Socrates) observed that there is motion (kinesis or change) in nature – i.e. birth, growth, death and decay.
Their main concern therefore was to find out what explains the power of change in things i.e. if things change, what is the immutable root (basis) from which all things come?
The poets (like Homer and Hesiod) proceeded by speculation and imagination, by narrating and supplying a theological explanation of things e.g. Homer gave an anthropomorphic description of the gods and how they interfered with or intruded into human affairs, by showing that there is a rigorous order in nature to which everyone and everything must be subordinated;
Hesiod emphasized that there is an impersonal moral force, which is neither capricious nor calculated, that controls the structure of the universe and regulates the process of change.
But the pre–Socratic thinkers proceeded by Reason. They were independent thinkers who confronted nature with a rational and theoretical inquiry on what nature really is, by interrogating on the why’s and how’s of things.
As such, one of the main contributions of the early Pre–Socratic thinkers is that they gradually transformed the cosmogonic myths into rational cosmologies.
Their genuine and free quest for the essence (cause, nature or substance) of things, as well as their spirit of wonder (curiosity), broadmindedness and adequate solution (theories) to issues raised, are elements to show the extent to which they contributed to the birth and development of Western thought.
The dominant inquiry of the early Greek thinkers was the essence which explains phenomena or change in nature – the basic or primary stuff.
The earliest Pre–Socratic thinkers were the Milesians, also known as the Ionians, who came from the seaport town of Miletus, on the Western shores of Ionia in Asia Minor, such as Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes.
They are called monists because they explained things from: one principle.
THE IONIANS
THALES (640–556B.C.)
To Thales, the fundamental principle or the basic stuff from which everything is made of and which lies at the foundation of all physical phenomena, is water.
Water is the cause of all things and can take different forms (i.e. the three states of nature – liquid, solid and gaseous), by the process of condensation and evaporation. As he says, “The principle of all things is water; all comes from water, and to water all returns”.
There is a basic similarity between things despite the change in things, and the many are related to each other by the one.
ANAXIMANDER (611–547B.C.)
To Anaximander, the single basic stuff out of which everything comes, is not a specific or determinate element like that of Thales – it is more primary and elementary, known as the Indeterminate Boundless or the Apeiron.
The following are characteristics of Anaximander’s basic stuff (the Apeiron).
Specific, unoriginated, having eternal motion, independent and superior to individual changes, indestructible, infinite and dynamic.
Things come to be by the process of separation from the original substance. First warmth and cold were separated off, and from these two came moist, and subsequently earth and fire.
There is a cyclical process in nature, which is a rigorous necessity, as the conflict of forces in nature causes an injustice, which requires their ultimate destruction by the apeiron.
That which makes the natural law to be realized, such that all things return to reality is Time.
ANAXIMENES (585–528B.C.)
Anaximenes combined Thales’ notion of a definite substance and Anaximander’s concept of the boundless in continuous motion, to supply a concrete indication of what the makes up the primary stuff, which is Air.
As the boundless, air is spread everywhere, but unlike the boundless, it can be identified as a specific and tangible substance.
Things are formed from the basic stuff through the specific process of rarefaction (loosening) and condensation (contraction). Rarefied air is fire; when air is condensed, it becomes clouds, water, land and rocks, depending on the degree of density.
Anaximenes considers that things are created from air and return to air when they decay. His hypothesis is peculiar in that it introduces the new idea that differences in quality are caused by differences in quantity.
The view that the Pre–Socratics are “primitive scientists” means:
They were the first to engage in a scientific questioning of reality i.e. by observing, questioning and debating, making hypothesis and providing theories to aspects about nature.
Their scientific concerns were limited since their hypothesis seem dogmatic and lacked agreement of minds, experiments are not procured to test the hypothesis; their treatment of reality is partial – it is limited only to cosmological realities.
The Pre–Socratics are considered cosmologists because they:
Explained the origin and nature of the universe.
HERACLITUS (576–480B.C.)
The following are the Heraclitean views:
There is constant or perpetual change in nature (everything is made up of contraries, opposites and strives, occasioned by ceaseless but orderly movements – All things are in flux, and “one cannot cross the same water twice”.
The essence of Being is becoming – Being is nothing and becoming is everything.
The Heraclitean scientific view considers all bodies as transformation (change) of a basic element, fire – hence the reconciliation of Being and non–Being.
Things change but they always remain the same. A basic unity remains in a thing despite the many forms it may take – a single continuous element between the many and the One, hence a unity in diversity.
THE ELEATICS
PARMENDIES (544–450B.C)
His chief philosophical contribution is the appearance of Metaphysics and Ontology and the denial of the doctrine of change.
Parmenides rejects the idea of change mainly because: change is illusory and absurd. It is the confusion between appearance and reality.
The statement: “Being is, Non–Being is not” was stated by: Parmenides. This means: Being is static and eternal.
To Parmenides, Nature is uncreated and imperishable, for Being is.
No change is possible from Being to Being; or from Non–being to Being, since it will assume that Non–Being is something – which is a contradiction, since something has being. If there is motion, then it must be from being to being; hence there is no movement.
Being is not plural – it is one. hence, plurality of Being as well as becoming is not only an illusion but is absurd.
The characteristics of Parmenides notion of being are the following:
Changeless, indestructible, uncreated, continuous, eternal, spherical, evenly distributed, immovable, motionless, infinite, total and imperishable.
Parmenides rejects the common sense view of change, by making a distinction between appearance and reality – change is only the confusion of appearance with reality, and is therefore an illusion.
Appearance produces only opinion but reality is the basis of truth. Reason, which can discern the truth about things, tells us that all is made of a single unchanging substance; the flux of things comes from the opinion we have from sensation.
Parmenides’ view was initially challenged by some of his contemporaries such as the Pythagoreans, who believed in the plurality of being and that motion is real.
ZENO (490–430B.C.)
A pupil of Parmenides, Zeno argued against his mater’s opponents that Being is motionless and motion is illusory.
One should not only look at the world, but should think about it so as to understand it.
The senses cannot give any clue to reliable knowledge, but only opinion; the senses are therefore deceptive.
Zeno used the four paradoxes (The Racecourse, Achilles and the Tortoise, the Relativity of Motion and the Flying Arrow) to show the impossibility of motion in a world composed of divisible reality. For example, in the Paradox of The Racecourse, he concluded that it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of points (in a distance) in a finite time.
Hence, he asserted that, the assumption of a pluralistic world lands one into insoluble absurdities and paradoxes. Everything must be one and not many.
THE SOPHISTS
The encyclopedic knowledge of different cultures, made the Sophists to be skeptical about the possibility of attaining any absolute truth.
They are known to have set a new stage for a more deliberate and careful consideration of human nature, as well the principles of knowledge and human conduct.
They were skeptical about truth and knowledge; and displayed the relativity of moral values. This made them questionable.
Known for their mercantilist attitude, whereby they charged fees for their teaching, Plato disparaged them as “shopkeepers of spiritual wares”.
They were however, popular teachers of Rhetoric, grammar, poetry and the art and skills in discourse (eristic).
Some major Sophists are: Protagoras, Gorgias and Thrasymachus.
PROTAGORAS (490–420B.C.)
One of the most influential Sophists, Protagoras is known for his dictum: “man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not”. This means that man’s knowledge is limited or relative to his capacities or experience.
To him, there is no objective truth because: a thing has many characteristics as there are people perceiving it. Consequently, all opinions are equally worthy of consideration – “About any one thing, two contradictory statements may be made”.
Knowledge is relative to each person, since “appearance” and “reality” cannot be distinguished.
In the domain of Ethics, Protagoras maintained that there is relativity of moral judgements, and that there is no universal law of nature to be ascribed to human behavior.
To him, laws are social conventions operating in the society (each society makes its own laws). Laws therefore, are not natural.
Despite his skepticism and relativism, Protagoras held the conservative view that youths should be trained to accept and support the tradition and social codes, which can be ameliorated and transformed in a gradual and correct way by the wise men.
GORGIAS (480–390 B.C.)
Gorgias used dialectical arguments to prove the absurdity of the Eleatic view.
He was a radical skeptic who denied the possibility of knowledge.
He proceeded with a hair–splitting keenness to make the extraordinary assertion that: “Nothing exists; if anything exists, it is incomprehensible; and even if a thing is comprehensible, it cannot be communicated”.
SOCRATES (470-399 B.C.)
Due to his relentless analysis of any and every subject in argumentation as well as in dialectic, Socrates had been mistaken by many Athenians as a Sophist.
He was committed to the pursuit of truth, and sought to seek for the basis of certain and stable knowledge, as well as discover the foundation for the good life; unlike the Sophists who considered knowledge and moral principles as relative.
Whereas to the Sophists, moral principles are conventional and relative, to Socrates, they are respectively Natural and universal.
The most important mission of Socrates was that of Education. He educated others to discover the knowledge they had implanted in them.
To him, the edifice of knowledge is built not in the facts of the world outside man, but within man himself- the interior of man is the seat of the activity of knowing, and leads to the practical activity of doing.
The Soul, which ;s the capacity/or intelligence and character, has the activity to know and influence or even govern one's daily life.
The greatest concern of man should be the proper care of his soul, so as "to make the soul as good as possible".
Socrates was known as the gad-fly of the Athenian society, because he exposed the sham wisdom of political leaders and the ills of the society.
Ideas are considered as innate and inborn, and can be brought to clear consciousness by the process of Introspection, hence the famous injunction: "Man, know thyself" It is an aspect of self-knowledge, by which one comes to know that the goods of the soul are of greater worth than the goods of the body.
Knowing oneself indicates: (i) knowing the nature and value of oneself so as to cultivate virtues; (ii) knowing one's merit or defect in attaining the goods in life; (111) knowing one's will.
Socrates feigned ignorance (pretended not to know) in order to help others to get the knowledge imbedded in them - this is called the Socratic Irony (as noted in one of his famous dictum: "The only thing I (now, is that I know nothing"),
Socrates proceeded by a method of delivering knowledge in one by questioning called: The Maïeutics.
But knowledge could also be got by the process of rational conversation known as the Dialectics; or by guiding one carefully to attain knowledge by a sort of intellectual midwifery, called: The Midwifery Method.
Socrates was concerned with the need for a rigorous process of Definition i.e. clear and fixed concepts or the essential nature of a thing that never varies but remains the same.
Through definition, one does not only distinguish between the particular and the universal, but also discover the intelligible order of everything.
To Socrates, true knowledge is the power of the mind to discover in Facts (by introspection), the abiding elements that remain after the facts disappear.
He is known to have introduced into Philosophy, the teleological conception of things i.e. the view that things have a function or purpose to fulfill.
To Socrates, knowledge and action are related, hence to know the good is to do it, hence the expression: "Knowledge is virtue; Ignorance is vice".
No one does evil voluntarily (knowingly) - wrongdoing is always involuntarily.
Man's inescapable penchant is the well-being of the soul or happiness, and so man chooses only acts that really bring happiness and not those which seem to bring happiness.
Socratic Ethics is considered as eudemonistic, meaning that human action is aimed at fulfilling its function of attaining virtue".
THE POST-SOCRATIC PERIOD
PLATO (420 - 340 B.C.)
To Plato, the human mind can achieve knowledge, depending on how it can attain it and the type of knowledge.
Plato's representation of the Allegory of the Cave illustrates that true knowledge begins with Conversion, whereby one moves from blurred and inadequate knowledge to one which is certain.
The process by which the prisoner comes out of the cave to attain indubitable knowledge is called: The Ascending Dialectics.
The process whereby the liberated prisoner returns to the cave to educate the other prisoners is known as: The Descending Dialectics.
To Plato, the two worlds in the Metaphor of the Divided Line are the: Visible and the Intelligible worlds.
In Plato's Metaphor of the Divided Line, the mode of thought which relates to:
Images Imagining.
Things Belief.
Mathematical Objects Thinking.
The Forms Perfect Intelligence.
The Modes of Thought can be clearly illustrated as follows:-
Imagining is the most superficial mode of thought where the mind confronts images, which have the least amount of reality. Here, the sense-experience of appearances is taken as true reality, just as shadows can be considered as something real. Such knowledge is therefore deceptive and illusory and is inadequate.
Belief is the state of the mind induced by seeing actual objects, but such knowledge is limited to particular circumstances, since its certainty can be very well shaken as the circumstances also alter.
Thinking is the act of abstraction whereby the mind draws out of the visible objects what that thing symbolizes i.e. it brings out the property which is the same in all objects of that class. There is reasoning from a self-sufficient truth but which depends on some higher truth – the search for principles or hypothesis. Here, the mind moves from the realm of opinion to the world of science.
Perfect Intelligence is when the mind gets the fuller explanation of things and gets a synoptic view of reality - the mind grasps the relation of everything to everything, so as to get the unity of the whole of reality. It represents the mind fully released from sensible objects. As such, the mind deals with the Forms.
Plato's Epistemology:
The human mind cannot only attain knowledge, but can attain indubitable knowledge which is infallible.
Education is necessary to lead men out of the cave of darkness into the world of light the Platonic Allegory. It illustrates clearly how one can come out of ignorance and obscurantism to achieve certainty.
There are four stages in the process of discovering true knowledge: from a lower degree of reality or truth in the visible world, to a higher level of knowledge in the intelligible world the metaphor of the Divided Line.
It indicates that to each object of thought corresponds a mode of thought: Images to Imagining; Things to Belief; Mathematical Objects to Thinking; The Good to Perfect Intelligence.
The Theory of Forms (in which the essential archetypes of things is apprehended by the mind and not the senses), permits the mind to have a synoptic view of reality, thereby implying the unity of knowledge, where there is certainty and reliability of knowledge.
Through the doctrine of Forms, Plato asserts that human mind is capable of reminiscence or recollection of previous knowledge, as well as dialectic, which permits us to see the universal in things.
Plato's Epistemology is intricately linked to his Ethics (morality) - to know the good is to do it i.e. only knowledge can produce virtue, hence one's intellectual accent parallels his moral development. True knowledge is knowledge of the true
The Forms:
The main characteristics of the Forms: Immaterial, eternal and unchangeable.
The Forms are the essential archetypes of things, apprehended but the mind and not the senses.
The Forms have an independent existence, and they persist even though particular things perish.
They existed prior to their embodiment in things, and were used by the Demiurge to fashion particular things.
He considers the Forms as the agency through which the principle of reason operates in the universe.
To Plato, the three ways by which the Forms can be known are: dialectic; Recollection; Desire.
The Forms can be related to things in three ways: They are the Cause if the essence of things; a thing may participate in the Forms; a thing nay be said to Copy the Forms.
One of the criticisms of Plato's world of Forms is that it is: Idealistic.
Plato's concept of the Soul:
The Soul, which is the principle of life and movement, has a tripartite mature: Reason, Spirit and the Appetite. The awareness of a goal or value is called: Reason. When Reason remains undisturbed by the onrush of appetites, it attains the Virtue of wisdom.
The drive toward action is called: Spirit. When the energy of the will is kept within limit and avoids rash or headlong action, it attains the virtue of Courage.
The desire for things of the body is called: Appetite When there is moderation in pleasure and desires, and the appetites are kept within limits and in their measure, thereby avoiding excesses, it attains the Virtue of Temperance.
The peculiar function of the soul is to seek the true goal of human life, by evaluating things according to their true nature.
The two parts of the Soul each have a different origin: the rational part created by the Demiurge out of the same receptacle as the world soul; the irrational part created by the celestial gods who form the body.
When the Soul leaves the realm of the Forms to the body, it moves from the realm of the One to the realm of the Many.
The body is considered as a sluggish encumbrance to the Soul – by exposing the Soul to stimuli, the body disturbs its harmony.
Plato's Moral Philosophy:
To Plato, the good life is one of inner harmony, of well-being and happiness; by this, each part of the soul is performing its distinctive unction i.e. the appetites and spirit are subjected to reason. As such virtue is attained.
The passion, which seeks the goal of pleasure, must be controlled by reason, which is a goal-seeking and measuring faculty, capable of producing true happiness and pleasure.
Unhappiness, which is the general disorder of the human soul, is the results of man's confusing reality with appearance i.e. when the passions override reason, such that the irrational part of the soul controls the rational part.
Evil occurs when the passions influence reason to think that, what appears to bring happiness will do so, though it cannot.
The cause of evil therefore, is discovered in the very nature of the soul
When its rational part is adversely affected by the body (which stimulates the irrational part of the soul).
To Plato, morality consists in the recovery of man’s lost inner harmony, such that reason controls the appetites and spirit.
ARISTOTLE (384–322B.C.)
To Aristotle, “All men by nature desire to know”, not only for pragmatic motives but also simply for the sake of knowing.
Metaphysics, which is the Science of first Philosophy, goes beyond the subject matter of the specific sciences.
Metaphysics deals with knowledge that goes beyond sense experience by thinking about the causes of the objects of experience.
It is knowledge at the highest level of abstraction, dealing with the universal (the “why” of things) and not the particular (“that” of things).
To Aristotle, Metaphysics is: “the Science of any existent as existent”; the study of Being (what it means to be) and its principles and causes.
“To be”, is to be a particular kind of substance, which is a product of a dynamic process.
To Aristotle, the central concern of Metaphysics is Substance, which is considered as the primary essence of things, which he asserted as: “that which is not asserted of a subject, but of which everything else is asserted”.
That which makes a Substance to be substance, and by which the substance is related to the particular thing are: Matter and Form.
To Aristotle, what something is made of is the Matter, and what a thing is made into is the Form.
There can be no matter without form or form without matter – everything is a unity of form and matter.
A thing which has a certain form can be transformed into another desired form by the process of: change.
There are Four Causes (explanations) of change:
Formal cause - it determines what a thing is.
Material cause - it states that out of which a thing is made.
Efficient cause - it is what the author of a thing is.
Final cause - it is the purpose or reason for which a thing is made.
Aristotle summarized the four causes as follows: "All things that come to be, come to be by some agency and from something, and come to be something".
Aristotle noted that, all things are involved in the process of change.
The dynamic power of a thing striving toward its end, which is the self-contained act of a thing, is known as: the Entelechy.
Aristotle distinguished between potentiality and actuality. The power which a thing has to become something in the process of change is called: Potentiality. What a thing is at any time is: Actuality.
To Aristotle, the Unmoved Mover is the ultimate cause of all changes in the universe, which is pure actuality, without potentiality, and is the cause of motion.
The Unmoved Mover, observed Aristotle, is not an Efficient cause, creator or God. Rather, it is the Final cause or the "reason for" or the "principle of" motion.
Aristotle's moral theory is called Teleological - it centers on the view that everything in nature, has a distinctive "end" lo achieve, or a function to fulfill.
Acts done for their own sake are called: Intrinsic ends
Acts which are done as means to other ends are called Instrumental ends.
Man's action is aimed at some good, which can be discovered in the structure of human nature it is "the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue".
Man’s function therefore, is the proper functioning of the soul, which is the ultimate end.
This ultimate end, which is Happiness, must be self–sufficient, final and attainable.
Aristotle considers Happiness as “the working of the soul in the way of excellence or virtue”, whereby the rational part of the soul controls the irrational parts.
The appetitive part of the soul is influenced by two external factors: the concupiscent passion (Love – it leads one to desire things and persons) and the irascible passion (Hate – it leads one to avoid or destroy things or persons).
To determine what to desire, how much, on which occasion, towards whom and as we should, is considered by Aristotle as The Golden Mean, which is the midway between excess and defect.
To Aristotle, the origin of morality is Choice, which implies human responsibility.
SCHOLASTICISM
Scholasticism refers to the intellectual activities carried out by the Medieval Cathedral schools and the dominant system of thought developed by the doctors in the schools - that of putting together fusing Christian Theology and the philosophies of Plato and especially Aristotle.
The main tenet of Scholasticism is that: Theology and Philosophy are complementary.
The main scholastic thinkers include: St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Anselm, Albert Magnus, St. Ambrose, John Scotus Erigena, Bonaventura, Roscellinus.
ST. AUGUSTINE (354-430)
To answer the question on how evil can be possible in a world created by a perfectly good God, St. Augustine moved respectively from; Manichaeism, Skepticism to Neo-Platonism.
The Manichean dualism asserted that the principle of light (goodness) and the principle of darkness (evil) are in perpetual conflict with each other, (revealed in human life in the conflict between the body and the soul). But it did not explain why the conflicting principles exist. Skepticism maintained a materialistic view of things, but doubted the existence of immaterial substances and the immortality of the soul.
Nico–Platonism asserted the separation between the immaterial and material worlds, and the belief that man possesses a spiritual sense which permits him to know god and the immaterial world. Evil then is seen as privation or absence of good, and a positive reality.
To Augustine, true Philosophy is inconceivable without the confluence of faith and reason. Reason without revelation is possible but incomplete.
One cannot properly philosophize until he is transformed, for clear thinking is possible only under the influence of God's grace.
St. Augustine asserted that the mind (which is imperfect) can make judgements on eternal and necessary truths (which are mutable and finite elements) if it has: Divine Illumination i.e. if it is bathed in the light of God.
To St. Augustine, God is within man since He is Truth; but God transcends man, since he is eternal.
He transposed the Scriptural name for God given by Moses: "I am that am", to mean that God is Being itself i.e. the highest and most perfect being, meaning God is self-existent, immutable and eternal.
To Augustine, when things are considered as the finite reflections of God's eternal thought, they are called: Exemplars.
The invisible and potential power or germs of things to become what they are not yet at the present time is called the: Rationes Seminales.
The implication of Augustine's doctrine of Rationes Seminales is that: God created all things at once (for the rationes seminales are the 3earers of things that are to be but have not yet 'flowered'). To Augustine, morality consists in seeking happiness which requires that man goes beyond the natural to the supernatural, since human nature is made such that "it cannot itself be the good by which it is node happy".
Finding happiness in God is not an accident but a necessity, for man was made to find happiness only in Him.
Man, due to his incompleteness, inevitably loves. But the moral problem consists not so much in loving or in the object of loving physical objects, other persons, oneself), but in the manner and the expectations of one's love.
According to St. Augustine, Disordered Love is when: Man attempts to let ultimate happiness from finite things (i.e. when one directs his object of love to physical objects, other persons or to himself, rather than to God).
St. Augustine's conceives Evil as the wrong use of '.he will i.e. when man uses his free will wrongly. God's grace is required to make the right choice.
The expression: Creatio ex nihilo means: Created out of nothing.
St. Augustine's thought was greatly influenced by the Platonic Philosophy.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS(1228 - 1274)
Augustine showed that Philosophy and Theology played complementary roles in man's quest for Truth, Universals and Knowledge of God.
However, he showed the boundary that distinguishes faith and reason, by indicating what Philosophy and Theology could or could not contribute to the human mind, as follows:
Philosophy proceeds from principles discovered by human reason; while Theology is the relational ordering of principles received from revelation and held as a matter of faith.
Philosophy begins with immediate objects of sense experience and reasons upwards to the first causes of being, ending in the conception of God; while Theology begins with a faith in God and interprets all things as creatures of God.
In method, while Philosophy draws its conclusions from the rational description of the essences of things; Theology bases the demonstration of its conclusions on the authority of revealed knowledge.
St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God's existence are basically: Cosmological (a logical argument that proves the existence of God from empirical information about the universe), and relies on the Principle of Causality (the view that everything which happens must have a cause).
Aquinas’ Quinque Viae or the Five Proofs of God’s existence are:
The Proof from Motion – Things are always in motion and must have been moved by something which is actually in motion but which is not moved; hence, the First mover which causes things to be in motion in the series of motion, is God.
The Proof from Efficient Cause – there are different kinds of effects which must have a cause, caused by a prior cause. The series of causes cannot go back to infinite regress, so the first efficient cause which made all the other causes to be actual causes, is God.
The Proof from a Necessary Being – The view that possible beings do not have existence in themselves, but from something already existing, and is God.
The Proof from Perfection – The assertion that there is something which is truest, noblest and best in its maximum, which is God.
The Proof from Order in the Universe – the orderliness and intelligence in the universe requires a being that is most intelligent, and that being is God.
To know God’s nature by the Via Negativa is to know what God is not, such as being: unchangeable (unmoved), timeless, immaterial.
The three ways by which God can be related to human beings:
Univocal relationship: that some words used about God and man would mean the same thing, and imply that God and man are alike in nature.
Equivocal relationship: that some words used about God and man would mean totally different things, implying that God and man are totally unlike.
Analogical – that God and man are neither totally alike nor totally unlike.
RATIONALISM
The most appropriate tenet of Rationalism is that: Only reason can give us certitude independent of sense-experience.
To the rationalists, all certain knowledge comes from a priori and evident principles.
The main proponents of Rationalism are: Rene Descartes, Benedict Spinoza and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
RENE DESCARTES (1596 - 1650)
To Descartes, the "mental powers" by which one can arrive at the knowledge of things without "fear of illusion" are called Intuition and Deduction,
Dissatisfied with scholars who sought for knowledge aimlessly, Descartes insisted on the need for a systematic and orderly thinking, which requires harnessing the powers of the mind with a set of special rules.
In order that these powers should be orderly guided such that they do not go astray, Rene Descartes' provided some precepts in order to attain the truth known as the Rules of Method.
The Rules of Method
The Rules of Method which provide a clear procedure for the mind to attain truth, consists of four precepts:
First Rule of Method- Never take anything as true if it is distinct and clear, so as to prevent precipitation and pro conceived ideas in judgement; (Clarity and Distinctness.)
Second Rule of Method - Divide each difficulty to be examined into as many simple parts as possible, so as to better solve them. (Analysis)
Third Rule of Method – Direct one’s thought orderly such that one starts from the simplest and easiest objects, and proceed upwards step by step to the most complex. (synthesis).
Fourth Rule of Method – Make a complete and general enumeration, so that nothing is omitted. (Numbering).
The Rules of Method provide the groundwork for the Cogito (methodic doubt), which permits one to reject everything as false if it has the least element of doubt. Truth is found in the very act of doubting – by doubting, the first certitude comes to light.
The Rules consists in an exhaustive questioning of everything, where nothing is taken for granted. It is a tabula rasa of non–investigated views.
The Rules of Method as equivalent to the success of Mathematics and Geometry, whose certainty cannot be shaken, for it reveals that one can discover the unknown by progressing in an orderly manner from the known.
By relying on the rational power, Descartes was assured that he could create a tabula rasa of all knowledge, and make a new foundation for Philosophy.
The Cartesian/Methodic Doubt
In order to find an entirely starting point for building up knowledge, he used the method of doubt.
The Cartesian Doubt is considered radical because it attacks all sources of knowledge which can lead us into error; it is hyperbolic since it is a rejection of all knowledge which is not absolutely indubitable.
The Methodic Doubt is the first effort of the mind to seek for certain truth = skeptical doubt:
Taking nothing for granted – suspension of judgement.
Rejecting all former opinions in order to seek for certitude and indubitable truth i.e. radical doubt.
Exhaustive questioning of everything i.e. hyperbolic doubt or the complete rejection of what is not absolutely indubitable.
The Cogito:
The conclusion, Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) is the first and most certain knowledge for the thinking subject, by which he affirms his existence and his subjectivity.
The most plausible implication of the “Cogito, ergo sum” is that certain knowledge is subjective.
EMPIRICISM
Empiricism holds that all or most of knowledge is based on experience, and is ultimately derived from the senses.
Knowledge is considered as limited to, and by our experience; as such, it is opposed to Rationalism.
The main empiricists are: John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.
JOHN LOCKE (1632–1704)
Locke’s intention was “to enquire into the origin, certainty and extent of human knowledge”.
To him, the origin of ideas is Experience. The human mind is considered by him as a blank sheet of paper upon which experience (which is the raw material out of which knowledge is made) is written.
Experience can take two forms: Sensation (whereby objects external to us are experienced) and Reflection (whereby ideas internal to us are produced).
The ideas of sensation and reflection can be considered as either: Simple Ideas (ideas are received through the senses passively) or Complex Ideas (putting together of simple ideas by the mind).
Objects have two qualities: Primary quality (which really exist in the object themselves) and Secondary quality (which do not belong to the object per se).
To John Locke, that in which the qualities subsist is called Substance. Even though he observed that substance can contain a power that gives consistency and regularity to our ideas, it could not be precisely described.
Substance is considered as that which holds things together in motion, which Locke called: “Something we know not what”.
To Locke, there are three modes of perception, which leads to different degrees of knowledge in relation to reality, namely:
Intuitive knowledge: It is immediate knowledge, which permits to know what exists and gives us certainty of our existence.
Demonstrative knowledge: It discovers the agreement or disagreement of our ideas by appealing to other ideas, such as mathematical knowledge. It permits us to prove God’s existence.
Sensitive knowledge: it does not give us certainty but only some degree of knowledge. It gives assurance of other selves and things as they are experienced.
Since ideas are dependent on the material world of senses, Locke denies the Doctrine of Innate Ideas because:
It can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of those who can misuse it, by making people to accept principles blindly without examining them.
The truth and certainty of the Laws of Thought is not due to the doctrine of innateness, as was universally accepted.
The doctrine is not a justification for the universal consent of the Laws of Thought, since children and idiots are not aware of them.
The doctrine could not account for Locke’s empirical explanation for the origin of ideas, and so is superfluous.
GERMAN IDEALISM
Immanuel KANT (1724 - 1804)
Immanuel Kant's Philosophy is considered as a reflexive method because it: Distinguishes what reason can do and what it is incapable of doing (by questioning on the possibility of reason).
Kant engaged in a critical examination of pure reason, so as to find in reason the rules and limits of its activities.
The skeptical Fmpiricism of Hume woke him up from his dogmatic lumber, and persuaded him to abandon the "old worm-eaten dogmatic” Metaphysics.
He then questioned nature in conformity with the requirements of reason - "Reason perceives only what it produces according to its plans".
By asserting that the knowledge of objects depends on the knowing subject as well as the known object, Kant hence initiated the famous Copernican Revolution'. By this, the idealist hypothesis is substituted to a realist hypothesis.
In Kant's Theory of Knowledge, the element which depends on the object itself is called Matter (it is a posteriori); and the element which depends on the subject is known as Form (it is a priori - universal and necessary
Kant distinguished between two judgements:
Analytical when a concept is explained without referring to any new element (the predicate is implicit in the subject) - it is as such a priori (its truth r known before experience).
Synthetic: the predicate has an idea not implicit in the subject, but is added to the subject - it is as such o posteriori (for its truth is asserted only after experience).
Kant's greatest discovery is the synthetic a priori judgements, which are not only universal and necessary (as a priori judgements), but can extend our knowledge. It is by it that Mathematics and Physics attain their certitude, and succeeded where Metaphysics failed.
It is by the o priori form of the mind that the world can be understood. They are made up of:
the a priori forms of Sensibility (pure intuition) i.e. Space and Time (by it things are experienced);
The a priori forms of understanding (pure concepts) i.e. The Categories (by it the human mind conceives things).
To know therefore, is to link the sensible diversity (intuition) to concepts. This is Kant's compromising position in contrast to the dogmatism of the rationalists and the skepticism of the empiricists
By this, it means that to know is to know something, hence the Kantian dictum: "Thought without content is empty; intuition without concept is blind", implying that Knowledge is a product of both sense and understanding.
However, Reason can attempt to understand the absolute, and when it does so, the outcome of this are Ideas. Ideas are only regulative concepts and cannot extend beyond experience; it not, it leads to contradictions (dialectics),
Kantian Philosophy is termed Transcendental because, it is an effort of the mind to discover the constitutive elements of experience, so that the real can be arranged and understood. By this experience is preceded so as to render experimental knowledge possible.
Transcendental Idealism is therefore a doctrine which asserts that all objects of knowledge can be determined a priori by the very nature of our faculty of knowing - it is as such gnoseological It does not deny the existence of things outside us.
Kant makes a distinction between Phenomena i.e. things as we know them (they can be known); and Noumena, i.e. things-in-themselves, as they are, independent of the knowledge that we have of them (they cannot be known themselves).
Kan’s theory of the possibility and limits of human knowledge is proposed in the Transcendental Dialetic; his doctrine of categories in the Transcendental Analytics; and his theory of sense–perception in the Transcendental Aesthetics.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrick HEGEL (1770–1831)
To Hegel, the function of Philosophy is to understand the laws by which reason operates – Reason is the guide to reality, and every object of knowledge is the product of the mind. (“The rational is real, and the real is rational”).
The whole of Hegel’s Philosophy is based on the Dialetic – it is a triadic movement (from thesis, to antithesis and then to synthesis). Reason is in a moving dynamic process which causes contradictions, oppositions and negations Contradiction is the root of life and movement, and everything tends to its opposite until the idea is attained.
Contradiction therefore is not a halt, but a positive moving force in human reasoning – as such, one though necessarily follows from another, provokes a contradictory thought, from which a new thought is created.
Hegelian Dialetic, which is a logical unfolding of thought, is self–initiated and is identical with the world–process, where there is the reproduction of the immanent in things.
The totality of Hegel’s Logic, as seen in his basic triad, from: Being, to Nothing (Non–Being) and then to Becoming, is also employed in his vast and intricate system, as a movement from the initial concept of Being to the notion of Idea; the Idea is in a dynamic process of continous self–development towards self–perfection.
Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature is the self–objectification of the Absolute or universal reason; it progresses in a dialectical process from: Nature, Space to Spirit.
Nature is the idea in external form, the Idea “outside itself”, and provides the plastic material for the self expression of the idea. It is the objective embodiment of the Absolute Idea.
By the unity of the Idea and Nature, the synthesis of Spirit (Geist) is realized.
Nature is in the realm of Necessity, while spirit (the Idea) is in the realm of Freedom.
His Philosophy of Spirit or the Mind illustrates how reason overcomes objective nature, returns to itself or evolves into self–consciousness, in a triadic dialetic process respectively from the: Subjective, Objective to the Absolute Spirit.
The Subjective Spirit is the inner workings of the human mind;
The Objective Spirit represents the mind in its external embodiment in the social and political institutions – seen not creations of man, but as product of the dialectical movement of History or the objective manifestation of rational reality.
The Absolute Spirit is the synthesis of the subjective and objective spirits in the dialetic process – a moment of self–consciousness of the spirit.
The consciousness of the Absolute is achieved progressively as the mind moves through the three stages from: Art, to Religion and then to Philosophy.
Hegel considers the State as the “idea of spirit” (Reason) in external form, as well as the “embodiment of rational freedom” in the world. It “is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth”.
To him, the highest form of the State is the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. Being the synthesis of the family and the individual, it seeks to develop the idea of freedom to its maximum by preserving the liberty that an individual possesses as member of the civil society.
The sovereign therefore, acts in the name of the universal will and reason, and not arbitrarily.
To Hegel, History is the unfolding of Reason in the world; the History of the world is the History of the Ideas of nations.
The dynamic unfolding of History is the progress in the consciousness of rational freedom. “Reason dominates the world and…World History is thus a rational process.
The idea of freedom is immanent in the entire historical process, and constitutes the very stuff of reality. The State as such, is a bearer of reason.
To Hegel, History is compared with human growth, with History moving towards freedom by a dialectic process. The three moments in the development of freedom in World History are:
The Childhood period: the Orientals knew nothing of freedom – One is free (the monarch);
The Adolescent period: the Greeks and Romans knew the concept of freedom (some were free);
The manhood period: the Germans developed the idea that man as such is free (All are free).
MARXISM
KARL MARX (1818–1883)
Karl Marx to a certain extent was deeply impressed by Hegel’s Philosophy.
The elements of Hegelian Philosophy which influenced Marx’s Philosophy are that:
Reality is one and can be seen as the embodiment of rationality in the world
History is dialectical process of development from less to more perfect forms.
Human thoughts and behavior constitute the Spirit of a particular epoch.
He sees Hegel’s dialectic as a powerful logical method that explains social development, where struggle is seen as the driving force of social change.
Feuerbach’s Philosophy had a decisive impact on Marx’s Philosophy from the following perspectives:
The negation of religion, which alienated man (by leading him astray from his real possibility and true essence).
The basic reality is material: the sensible world is the key to philosophical and religious thought, and not the reverse.
Man is the basic reality (not God), who struggles to overcome his self–alienation.
The Marxist expression: “Religion is the opium of the people” means:
Religion serves as a soporific (opium) which prevents the oppressed to make any effort to better their lot, such that they cannot resist their exploiters.
Religion preaches to men to accept their temporal predicament by making appeal to a future blissful celestial life, by accepting the miseries of the present life.
Religion is a subtle alienation of man from his existential situation, hence preventing him from struggling for emancipation.
Religion, in the hands of the exploiters (bourgeoisies) can prevent the people from engaging in a rebellious and revendicating life; it is reactionary, and serves to maintain the status quo of the exploiters, as well as being an instrument of pauperization and resignation of the exploited.
Religion drowses (puts to slumber) any revolutionary intentions and actions by the exploited class.
The Marxist’ view that “Religion is the opium of the people”, clearly signifies that: Religion prevents the oppressed from resisting the exploiters.
The basis of Marx’s Philosophical Materialism is that the world is material, hence the different aspects of the world are just the different aspects of matter in motion.
Philosophical Materialism resolves the basic philosophical problem of the relation between thought and being It asserts the primacy of nature on thought.
To Marx therefore, reality is considered as a concrete human activity.
In contrast to Hegel’s idealism dialectic, Marx supplied a materialistic basis for his dialectic. The main characteristics of the Dialectical Materialism are:
Nature is regarded as a coherent whole, rather than being isolated and independent
Nature is in constant and ceaseless change of incessant renewal and development stable
The processes of development are regarded as a progress from insignificant and latent quantitative changes to apparent and radical qualitative changes.
Nature is necessarily dialectical, where one opposite (thesis) clashes with another (antithesis), resulting in a resolution (synthesis) which preserves the opposites: Nature is a unity of contradictory opposites.
The implications of Marx’s Materialism are that:
It is equated to science, whereby results are determined with precision and certainty.
There is the radical rejection of Religion, for it can prevent the oppressed from resisting their exploiters.
It calls for a new and far–reaching revolution, where there is need for destruction of servitude and inequality.
Marx considers History as a process of change from one epoch to another in accordance with the rigorous and inexorable laws of motion.
It is therefore, a movement caused by conflicts in the material order, wherein quantitative change of an epoch results in a qualitatively new epoch. The new epoch is as such the negation of the former epoch – hence, class conflict is decisive in the progress of each society.
World History has been distinguished by five dialectical phases: the primitive communal epoch, the slave epoch, the feudal epoch, the capitalist epoch and the communist epoch (which is a prediction of the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariats).
The view that the whole history of mankind is one of an irreparable and unavoidable class struggle between the exploiting class (bourgeoisie) and the exploited class (proletariats) is considered as Historical Materialism.
With the destruction of the vertical structure of society, characterized by exploitation and social inequality of the bourgeoisie class over the proletariat class (capitalism), a horizontal structure of society is established (communism), where there is equality, freedom and respect of human dignity.
To Karl Marx, the end result of the proletarian revolution is: The collapse of capitalism and the erection of a communist state.
The social revolution which brings about the abolition of all classes and the existence of a classless society is considered as the dictatorship of the proletariats.
With the proletarian revolution, the State (considered by Marx as an apparatus for exploitation, coercion and repression by the dominant class) will “wither away”.
The Marxist theory that the mode of production at any given time, explains its political and even its total cultural condition at that time, is known as: Economic Determinism. By this it means that, changes in the system of production can explain the corresponding changes that occur in its politics and culture i.e. the evolution of economic production in a society can determine its institutional and ideological superstructure.
The difference between labour and wage is considered by Karl Marx as the surplus value.
The existence of the Surplus Value creates the material condition for the overthrow of capitalism, whreby the proletariats develop a collective self–consciousness of class domination, oppression, dehumanization and wretched condition.
PRAGMATISM
The major tenet of Pragmatism is that there is a close connection between thinking and doing (hence, modes of thinking which do not have a practical impact on daily life are of little value).
Pragmatism is a bridge to the conflict between the empiricist and rationalist traditions:–
It mediates the tendency dealing with thought (that the mind has enormous powers) i.e. the Rationalism of Descartes, Kant’s Critical Idealism, Hegel’s Absolute Idealism, and the tendency dealing with doing (the concrete world and man are parts of a mechanical or biological process) i.e. Empiricism, Utilitarianism and evolutionism of Darwin.
It asserts that any thinking which has no impact on daily life is valueless; and any behavior or action not founded on thought lacks an important value.
It provides a ground for theoretical thinking, by asserting that thought terminates in a certain action of some sort.
It is a doctrine which unites the realms of facts and values, thereby making possible the realms of Philosophy and Science, which could be used in a coherent and creative manner.
Some main proponents of Pragmatism are Charles Sanders Peirce, John Dewey and William James
Charles Sanders PEIRCE (1839–1914)
To Peirce, meanings are derived from experience – words derive their meaning from actions of some sort.
Meanings are considered as social and public, rather than individual and private.
Belief, to Peirce, is seen as the mid–way point between: Thought and Action.
Belief is important because it guides our desires and shapes our actions. Thought can fix our beliefs and be a guide for action.
To do a thing, we must have belief, and belief requires action.
Therefore four ways by which though can fix beliefs:
Method of Tenacity – clinging to beliefs and refusing to accept any doubt or change of view.
Method of Authority – the requirement of accepting an idea of true, on pain of punishment.
Method of the Metaphysics – fixing belief by asking whether it is “agreeable to reason”.
Method of science – building assumptions that there are actually real things, independent of opinions about them.
To Peirce, the best method of fixing belief is the Method of Science because thought is tested by the criteria of experience and experiment.
The method of science is objective and universal, because it states not only the truth it believes in, but demonstrates how the truth has been arrived at.
It should therefore have the following characteristics:
Be public in character;
Be highly critical (because subjected to many tests);
Must have a high degree of cooperation between all the members of the scientific community.
The method of empirical inquiry is the basis for any cooperative approach to belief, for any idea must have a practical consequence – “The final upshot of thinking is the exercise of volition”, stated Peirce.
For men to provide the surest basis for belief, thought must be tested by the criteria of experience and experiment. It is only by this that the habit of action can be established.
*Brief summary of the views of some other Pragmatists
View of John Dewey
Thinking arises in a “problem situation” and hence thinking and doing are intimately linked; thinking is instrumental in solving problems (instrumentalism); facts are related to values.
View of William James
Words must have a practical cash value; the meaning of all theories is to be found in their capacity to solve problems – does a theory work?; truth must be the cash value of an idea; a true belief must work.
EXISTENTIALISM
The most common view of Existentialism, is its concern about human existence, the quality of life of the existing individual.
The salient themes of Existentialism are:
Man’s existence is his essence;
Freedom and contingency is the basis of man’s existence;
Man is a project;
The subjective state of existence makes up a person’s essence;
There is no basic human essence (man makes himself and is responsible for his choice);
Truth is a paradox and is subjective
Some major proponents of Existentialism include: Sören Kierkegaard, Jean–Paul Sartre, Frederick Nietzsche, Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Gabriel Marcel, Albert Camus, Karl Jaspers, Maurice Merleau–Ponty, Simone de Beauvoir, Martin Buber, Nicolai Berdyaev, Jean Ortegay Gasset, and Miguel Unamono.
Some existentialists are theistic while others are atheistic.
Sören KIERKEGAARD (1813–1855)
Considered as a theistic existentialist, Kierkegaard asserts that to exist means an individual who strives, considers alternatives, chooses, decides and above all, commits himself.
He considers the individual as an actor and not a spectator involved in existence – the individual is considered as a person who not only thinks, but who is i.e. engaged in a conscious activity of will and choice.
Existence therefore, is man’s conscious participation in an act.
His concern is with the concrete individual involved in decisions and commitments.
That which makes up a person’s unique existence is Subjectivity, for existence is primarily inwardness and introspection into an individual’s being.
According to Kierkegaard, Truth is subjectivity – it is individual and inward intensity of feeling of faith Passive, objective or abstract.
To Kierkegaard, man’s existential condition is his present condition, consequent of his alienation from God, and which makes him to be in despair and guilt.
Man can be free from despair and anxiety by actualizing his essential self in God (by transforming the self from potentiality to actuality).
Kierkegaard’s Dialectical Ethics is the progressive actualization of the individual by an act of personal commitment and choice.
The three stages of existence progresses dialectically, by an act of choice, by a series of either/or, as follows:
The Aesthetic stage: the individual pursues pleasure and physical satisfaction, by behaving according to his impulses and emotions, void of any moral standard. He cannot decide whether this sensuous life is an authentic existence or not, and is faced with an either–or. Should he maintain the sensuous life or choose a spiritual life? Only commitment can permit him to take a decision.
The Ethical stage: the individual recognizes moral rules formulated by reason – he considers moral evil as a product of the will or a weakness of the will. But he soon realizes his finitude to fulfill the moral law, and becomes aware of his estrangement from God. By a leap of faith, the individual moves to the next stage.
The Religious stage: the individual finds self–fulfillment in God, and discovers the inadequacy of his existence at the preceding stages through despair and guilt. Man’s relation with God is possible only by an act of faith; hence any rational or objective knowledge of God is not possible, and is considered as an approximation–process. By faith, the existing individual by a subjective experience, realizes his true self when he overcomes guilt, anxiety, fear, sin and despair.
To Kierkegaard, authentic existence is a continuous process of commitment and choice by the existing individual, in the presence of varieties of either–or.
Jean Paul SARTRE (1905–1980)
Basing his Existentialism on atheism, Sartre denies the existence of God, for man has no given human nature in advance – man creates himself.
His major tenets include the following:
Existence precedes essence.
There is no human nature or a purpose for man to fulfill.
The essence of man is subjectivity.
Man is responsible for his actions personally, which he carries out freely and by choice.
Human reality is Being–for–itself and being–in–itself.
Sartre considers Existentialism as a Humanism because:
It is a doctrine which makes human life possible.
Every truth and every action imply a human setting and human subjectivity.
Only the individual is considered as existing – the picture of God is eliminated.
Man is in a distressful situation of forlornness, anguish and abandonment, and shoulders responsibilities alone.
The Sartrean classical dictum: “Existence precedes essence” signifies that:
There is priority of existence over essence (there is no essence prior to existence in man’s existence).
Human nature is a product of a person’s existence (man cannot be defined in advance) – man first of all exists, confronts himself, emerges in the world and defines himself afterwards.
Man creates himself, and what he is, he made himself by act of will. There is no essence prior to or independent to man’s existence i.e. there is the denial of abstract human nature – man’s nature is that which he develops himself by his will or initiative.
Man is responsible for what he is, because of the awareness of what he is.
Man is indefinable, for he is first nothing and only becomes something by himself. By an act of the will, man makes himself what he is.
Man is responsible for what he is, for he is conscious of his actions, choices, and commitment, as well as the values he creates. To abandon or evade one’s responsibility is considered as self–deception or bad faith.
To argue that one is a victim of fate, deep passion or heredity, is considered by Sartre as: Bad Faith or in–authenticity.
Sartre considers subjectivity as the essence of man because:
The basic world of man is his inner subjective experience.
Subjectivity is what man possesses, and which gives him dignity by making himself the being he wants to be, by a conscious act.
Man is a conscious being who is at the start of a plan, is aware of himself and becomes what he plans.
In creating what he wants to be, man also creates an image of man as he ought to be, by his choice.
From the individual, one knows not only himself, but also others.
Subjectivity is an ethics of strict accountability based on individual choice and responsibility.
Inter–subjectivity is Sartre’s Philosophy is illustrated as follows:
The other is the indispensable mediator between me and myself; he is not only that whom I see, but that which sees me. In other words, it is he who is not in me and whom I am not.
Man’s choice and action affect everyone – man not only makes himself but also the world.
Man is responsible not only for his own individuality, but for all men – “in choosing myself, I choose man”, and “nothing can be good for us without being good for all”.
To Sartre, man’s existence is freedom, for man has no determined or built–in essence.
Human freedom requires action (“There is reality only in action”). Freedom is not static, capricious or arbitrary.
Man is condemned to be free – condemned because he finds himself thrown into the world; free because the moment he becomes conscious of himself, he must choose i.e. to invent, to do or not to do, for he has no pre–established guidelines.
By virtue of one’s freedom, man creates and invents values which he defines and establishes by virtue of his freedom – “value is nothing else but the meaning you choose”. There is therefore, rejection of pre–established values.
Life has meaning only when it is fashioned by a person – it is man who creates values and not God. As Sartre stated: “Life has no meaning a priori. Before you come to alive, life is nothing; it is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing else but the meaning you choose”.
Action is always intentional–it consists in engagement (involvement) and the fulfillment of a choice and, in order to modify the world in its materiality.
One cannot escape from choosing – Choice is an imperative by which man makes himself. Choice is an activity of consciousness by which man deliberates and makes decisions freely. Man is “an existence which chooses its essence”.
To Sartre, choice is determined in one’s existence:
As conscious act, it shifts a person from simply being there (being–in–itself) to being–for–itself, where there is the distinction between the objects of the world and the conscious self as subject.
By choice, one converts his essential self to his existential self.
What man becomes will depend on the choices he makes of things and situations. By an act of choice man chooses not only for himself, but for all men – in choosing, one involves all of mankind.
Choice is a denial of human contingency – man makes himself, and by his choices gives meaning and value to his world it is a denial of determinism in existence.
Choice implies strict accountability and responsibility it is an assertion of freedom.
In choosing, man is always in a situation i.e. in relation to others, which requires him not to be capricious, but to take full responsibility for all his acts. Situation is a position which requires one making a judgement on the world and at the same time engaging in action.
Man’s is free only in situation. His actions are not capricious, and he takes full responsibility for his actions.
By this, man enters his human condition i.e. the conscious act by which he discovers the self by discovering the condition of all men.
To Sartre, there are two modes of Being:
Being–in–itself (être–en–soi), which is the non–conscious phenomenon that confronts man in nature. These are external phenomenon or objects such as stones, without meaning, and are considered as being there.
Being–for–itself (être–pour–soi), which is consciousness without essence, but with a desire for being. It is the human being or the existent person.
What distinguishes Being–for–itself from Being–in–itself is consciousness, which constitutes the meaning of things in the world since it possesses existence. But there can be no consciousness if there is no existence of an object – all consciousness is consciousness of something.
Consciousness shifts a person from simply being there as being–in–itself to being–for–itself. By this, the objects of the world are separated from the conscious self as subject.
When consciousness is confronted with Being–in–itself, it is reduced to nothingness, which is man.
A synthesis of Being–in–itself and Being–for–itself is responsible for the disturbed and agitated existence (anguish). The negation of Being is the only reality which Being–in–itself possesses.
To Sartre, existence is not necessity but contingency (things happening by chance). Because of contingency, existence is meaningless, for the meaning of a thing is not a priori, but will depend upon what use a person chooses it for.
The For–itself, by virtue of the freedom it possesses, cannot be affected by consciousness mechanically – rather by his series of choices and decisions, he converts his existence into the essence of his final self.
AFRICAN PHILOSOPHY
Definitions of African Philosophy
African Philosophy can be defined as:
A systematic reflection of the African’s condition.
A rational interrogation of the whys of the existence of the African, from the ontological, axiological and teleological perspectives.
A profound and personal reflection on the African society, its beliefs, God and man, as enshrined in works of arts, myths, language, religion, conduct and other forms of cultural expressions.
Chukwudum B. Okolo “A critical and systematic reflection on African experience, the African self, his prospects and mode–of–being in the world” (African Social and Political Philosophy)
Existence and non–existence of African Philosophy
Proponents of the view that there is universality of rationality are:
Rene Descartes – the innateness and universality of rationality in all men, can testify the rationality ipso facto of the Africans.
Karl Jaspers – all men have an ontic and epistemic examination of their existence, and as such, the Africans do have such experiences. Rationality is a common denominator of all human beings, whatever the race.
Argument for the negation of African Philosophy:
African Philosophy is not well documented.
Lack of formal education.
Lack of rationality.
Lack of universality.
Some views of the Negations of rationality of the Africans are:
Hegel – the African man is barbaric, dominated by his passions, and hence does not have the capacity to reason.
Levy–Bruhl – the Africans have a pre–logical mind i.e. a primitive mentality which ignores the principle of contradiction.
Authur de Gobineau – the sensual and impulsive attitude of the African, which reveals a “character of animality”, illustrates his inferiority.
Guernier – the African world is one of instinctivity and not of intellectuality.
Heidegger – maintained the view that Philosophy is basically Greek and Western.
Ethno–Philosophy
A view that the culture of a people, (seen in the myths, proverbs, folklores, poems, traditions, customs and rites – are basically oral, and can be transmitted from one generation to another), constitute a Philosophy.
Proponents of Ethno–Philosophy are:
Rev. Placid Tempels – African Philosophy is made up of folktales and songs, and all the cultural heritage of the Africans, which constitute their thought pattern. As he stated, “Negro Philosophy must be transmitted across the ages as an inheritance to receive, defend and incarnate so as to attain authentic existence”.
Basile–Juléat Fouda – The African thought, as seen in songs, proverbs, anecdotes, etc., must be transmitted across the ages as a heritage to be received, defended and incarnated in order to attain authentic experience. These experiences can be rationally inquired so as to explain, understand and organize them.
Thiamalinga Ntumba – the fragments and hymns, poems, maxims rites, etc., constitute the thought pattern of the Africans.
Other proponents: Alexis Kagame; Nkombé Oleko.
Critics of the Ethno–Philosophical views are:
Paulin Hountondji – Philosophy is not particular to a people and is not an ethnological discourse there is no European, African or American Philosophy, and worse still, a White or Negro Philosophy. Philosophy is a personal thought, a discussion and a debate, and not an exhumation of a literary past to be preserved.
Kwasi Weridu – The unargued and uncritical collection of the views of the ethno–philosophers are not only pseudo–philosophical but also anti–philosophical.
E. A. Ruch – The body of community thoughts which cannot be traced to any set of identifiable individual thinking, is nothing but mere slogans and ideologies of some modern Africans agitating for socio–cultural liberation, and is not Philosophy.
Marcien Towa – “Ethno–Philosophy is neither Philosophy nor Ethnology”, and as such betrays the two disciplines. No fact, however venerable it may be, can be accepted as philosophical, unless it goes through critical thought.
Njoh Mouelle Ebenezer – Philosophy has a critical and dialectical character, which is completely lacking in Ethno–Philosophy.
The Apologetic conception of African Philosophy means that it has a method peculiar to every Philosophy; that it is defensive – a justification for the existence of African Philosophy; that Philosophy is spatio–temporarily determined.
African Metaphysics
African Metaphysics basically asserts: the relation of Force–Being in the universe.
According to Tempels, Being cannot be conceived without the element of: Force
The Laws of African Metaphysics are:
Man’s vital force can be influenced by an inferior being.
One being directly increases or decreases another’s vital force.
A rational being can influence another rational being through the intermediary of an inferior force.
Forces in the hierarchy obey a definite law.
African Cosmology
African Cosmology – it is the study of the African’s conception of origin, structure and nature of the universe. It also consists of the cosmogony of the Africans (explanatory myths and legends on the origin of the Africans).
Causation is the view that all effects are traceable to cause (cause–effect relationship). It is an assertion of the Principle of Causality, and is related to African cosmology.
The Principle of Causality is the basis of African Cosmology as it asserts that:
The origin and nature of the universe have cosmogonic explanations – nothing does come from nothing e.g. the Dogon myth on the origin of the universe.
The cause–effect principle as the basis of the practice of witchcraft.
Manifestations in African traditional medicine are not haphazard
Each medicine is used in a specific manner and have specific effect on the patient
The Force–Being (beings affecting the vital forces of another) explanations are cause–effect related – reference to the 4 laws of Metaphysics.
The different Orders in the universe (visible, moral, ontological, mystical, religious) are aspects of the cause–effect relationship.
Divine explanations (God, the ancestors) of the human predicaments, are cause–effect related.
There are the following orders in African Cosmology:
The Visible Order – the physical or visible domain. It is governed by the laws of nature and include both plants and animals.
The Moral Order – the laws governing the society for peaceful co–existence. Dealing with rational beings, this realm determines the moral values in society.
The Ontological Order – the hierarchy of beings in the universe. It conceives the structure of the universe with visible and invisible vertical or hierarchical beings.
The Mystical Order – the relation of forces in the universe. It constitutes the metaphysical realm, with the causal laws that governs the universe.
The Religious Order – the belief – pattern and practices in supernatural deities and the ultimate submission to them. It constitutes the acceptance of an all–pervading spiritual Force (God, ancestors, spirits) which checks and bring order and solace to men, and to whom rituals, libations, prayers and offerings are offered with total revereance.
The Hierarchy of Forces in the African conception of the universe, in a descending order is: God, Deities, the Ancestors, the Living Spirits, Man, Animals, Plants, Objects.
Witchcraft
Definition of witchcraft. Man’s ability to tap and use the forces of nature (physical and mystical) and employ them for whatever motives (good or evil).
Manifestations of witchcraft:
Transformation of natural and human potentials for a definite goal
The display of invisible mystical forces which could be inborn or acquired.
The belief in supernatural powers used to influence others negatively or positively.
The Truths revealed by Witchcraft are:
Man has mystical powers which can be used.
Nature has powers which can be harnessed.
The universe is orderly linked.
There is a telepathic bond in society
Science is limited in its approach.
There are hidden truths which are not empirical.
It brings out the African Logic.
Arguments that Witchcraft is a reality:
It is a cultural and a religious phenomena, found in almost all cultures in a more less subtle form.
The presence of witches/wizards who perform stupendous and diabolical acts It is not only the empirical which is real.
Evil, which is a manifestation of witchcraft, is in constant and all–invading presence in the society, even if it lacks empirical demonstration.
It is used positively in protection and preservation of some personal and family values in societies.
Arguments that Witchcraft is a myth
It is a figment of the imagination, based on mere belief basically subjective in scope.
It is anti–scientific, since it cannot be demonstrated objectively. It even defies the Laws of Thought.
It is apparently a violation of the laws of nature, due to its esoteric nature.
It is an aspect of the Fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
Consciencism
Consciencism is Kwame Nkrumah’s philosophical doctrine which is aimed at intellectual revolution, decolonization process, revival of the cultural and traditional values, and an appeal to social cohesion of the Africans.
Philosophical Consciencism is the intellectual disposition of forces that will permit the African society to “digest” other values (Western, Islamic and Euro–Christian) in Africa, so as to adapt them to fit into the humanist principles which are at the basis of the traditional African society or personality (conscience).
Characteristics of Consciencism:
An intellectual revolution in which thinking and Philosophy are directed towards the redemption of the African society.
A radical change (revolution) aimed at transforming Africa from the primitive traditional communal life to a social way of life peculiar to a people in time and place.
A doctrine which considers matter as the basic substratum which is dynamic in nature, hence its attachment to the Dialectical Materialism of Karl Marx.
It does not assert the sole reality of matter, but the primary reality of matter. There is a necessary connection between mind and body – the spiritual and the material. As Nkrumah stated “Practice without thought is blind; thought without practice is empty”. The need to reawaken the self–consciousness required for the rights and freedom of the African people.
A condemnation of the ills that beset Africa such as colonialism, imperialism, material and human exploitation, class distinction, disunity and lack of development – considered as negative action; all of this militate against the realization of social justice, based on the idea of true equality.
The requirement for education of the masses, so as to increase the degree of consciousness, self–awareness and self image – this can result in positive action of the people, considered as “the reality of national greatness”.
The need to make sure that positive action (which is revolutionary) outweighs negative action (which is reactionary). By this, there is dialectical change, and the achievement of authentic liberation.
From the Ethical viewpoint, it asserts the cardinal view that: “treat each man as end in itself and not merely as a means”. By this, ethics is founded on the nature of man, and calls for egalitarianism and solidarity.
It asserts that the emancipation of the African continent is the emancipation of man for two reasons: putting back in place the egalitarianism of human society; the management and organization of all the necessary resources so as to attain the original values of society.
The following views appear as shortcomings in the realization of Consciencism:
It is considered more of utopia and chimera – it is apathetical to the original vertical structure of most African communities.
The apprehension of communist ideologies, characterized by sublime and apparent dictatorship of the leaders.
The call for the subjection of an individual to a political system, as well as all the African states under one umbrella appeared suspicious.
The revolutionary appeal of Nkrumah seemed to have an undercurrent which was more reactionary than revolutionary – the radical change it advocated appears to be a threat to interdependence and globalization.
The appeal to unity is illusory – the diversity of the Africans (tribes, ethnic groups, races, hegemonistic attitudes) and its accompanying negative impact, rendered the Pan–African effort more of a dream.
The subtle influence of western powers to thwart the Pan–African interest of Nkrumah and other African spear–headers is all the more overwhelming and evident.
Negritude
Negritude was a literary and cultural movement developed by black intellectuals in the mid to late thirties, in response to a situation that alienated them and their cultural values. It originated from an alienated consciousness of Africans.
Early proponents of Negritude are: Aimé Césaire, Léon Damas, Franz Fanon
Characteristics of Negritude
Ontologically, it is the affirmation and an identity of being black
It is an awareness (consciousness) of having a distinct black history and culture, and the pride of being so.
A return to the roots – an appeal to the original and authentic African values.
A response to the alienated consciousness of the Negroes. A valorization of the African personality, his pride, strength and ultimate liberation of the African.
Some arguments which assert Negritude as a Theory are:
A mere literary movement;
A call for awareness;
Songs and poetry of the African past
Some arguments which assert Negritude as a Praxis are:
A dynamic and not an inert effort and value to contribute to the world
A dynamic means to restore and assert the black man’s value and past glories.
A gateway to a new life: a movement of a leap forward and towards authentic being;
A fight to regain humanity
A revolt against colonialism and racism
A contribution to the enhancement and even subsequent support to the attainment of freedm and independence.
Limitations of Negritude
It is more of a valorization of the past, instead the need to look forward. It was more of a nostalgic feeling and expression for the past without any concrete orientation.
It was too elitist – it did not exercise popular appeal. Their call did not have the adequate medium for the masses – it was limited only in books (written in languages alien to the masses) and so inaccessible to the majority of the African people.
It was fatal to Pan–Africanism – Sekou Toure What about the non–Negroes (the Arabs and the whites)?
It is a mere literary affectation and style which picks up words and images with occasional references to Africa it is apologetic and non–dynamic.
The ideas of Negritude lacked a concrete program for social action. The worthwhile ideas evoked by Negritude offered no plan of action on the method and attitude to adopt for its realization.
It was itself its own very negation – by affirming the blackness of the African, it implicitly negated the white culture.
Negritude is a philosophical movement in that it: Aims to attain the authentic being of the Africans.
Leopold Sedar Senghor asserted that: “Reason is Hellenistic and emotion is Negro”.
Colonialism
Colonialism is the political, economic and social appression and exploitation of one country by another, the domination of the weak by the strong; the poor by the rich, the developing by the developed.
Positive aspects of Colonialism
Redynamisation of the Africans to concretely search for total political, social and economic independence.
Search for a new personality (through formal education), which calls for a conquest of the self, the building up of a new image and the establishing of a self–determined, self–directed and self–controlled society.
Gain in infrastructure realizations (roads, hospitals, industries) which improve on the standard of living.
Renders the post–independent African to be conscious of his predicament, and forge ahead for authentic freedom for himself and others.
Negative aspects of Colonialism
Depersonalisation of the Africans i.e. negation of the authentic self of the Africans.
Denial of self–assertion and self–determination – destruction of any effort at authentic and complete independence (whereby man is made dependent).
Objectification and marginalization of the Africans – the African is seen more as an object rather than a subject of his own history and destiny.
Negation of the liberty and dignity of man – renders man subservient so as to oppress and suppress him.
Verticalisation of the African society, resulting in a master–slave relationship.
Destruction of the self–pride and identity of the Africans – the assimilation policies.
Weakness of colonialism on the African personality is that: it marginalizes the African.
To say that colonialism is the “up–rootedness of being” means that: it devalorises the human nature.
African Personality
What is African Personality?
The reconquest of self, the building of a new image, a re–establishment of the self in a self–determined, self–directed and self–controlled continent.
The assertion of being (self) – one’s authenticity, pride, power, identity and self–pride, and especially one’s self–contribution to one’s destiny.
The freedom and independence of man in the social, political, religious and ontological dimensions, thus making him master of the world.
The valorization of man, whereby he is the subject and not the object of his destiny.
A dynamic and practical mode of being–in–the–world; the cultural and expression common to the African people – Alex.
Pan–Africanism
Pan–Africanism is the ideology which entails a unitary vision of a people, their place and prospects in the universe.
Proponents of the first Pan–African movement are: Dubois and Nkrumah; later proponents: Julius Nyerere and Mohamar Khadaffi.
Pan–Africanism is a dialectical movement of a “Yes” (Positive thrust) to collective unity, solidarity, liberation, dignity, freedom, independence, self–reliance, glory, pride, self–awareness.
Pan–Africanism is a dialectical movement of “No” (negative thrust) to: injustice, indignity, imperialism, racism, slavery, colonialism, alienation, discrimination, exploitation, oppression, and all sorts of degradation.
Strengths of Pan–Africanism
Promotes the spirit of collective consciousness so as to encourage unity and growth of the African continent.
It is a total dynamic action to fight against human degradation a dialectical movement of a “No”.
It is an assertion of the African personality in the world affirmation of dignity, self–reliance, glory, pride, self–awareness of Africans.
It is a gateway to the authentic development of the African continent, by and for the Africans, and its specific contribution to globalization.
Limitations of Pan–Africanism
The excessive spirit of nationalism of some member states.
Characterized by the self–interests, mutual suspicions and power–monger attitudes of some African leaders.
The discarding of alien views (like the Western parameters) appeared revolutionary and iconoclastic, thereby, revealing lack of interactive dialogue and diplomacy.
The lack of a workable theoretical framework makes it to appear not only idealistic but also utopic and unrealistic.
The subtle impact of Western countries which downplayed and thwarted many efforts at authentic unit.
Tribalism
Tribalism can be defined as a bias for one’s own or against other people’s values on the basis of cultural or tribal character.
Characteristics of Tribalism:
Cultural adherence, common language, sense of obligation to one’s tribe; a common ancestry.
Positive arguments for Tribalism (seen as a bias for one’ own tribe):
It leads to the sustenance of a culture;
It provides a root to the individual;
It provides a social obligation on the person;
It can encourage the development of a tribe;
It can act as a defence against the eroding influence of other cultures
Negative arguments for Tribalism (seen as a bias for against other tribe or people)
It could act against collective social development, the common good and national interests;
It can be seen as intolerance to other cultural values
It could prevent the building of a state;
It can give rise to job discrimination, ethnic antagonism, denial of individual or collective rights, xenophobia, racism;
It can be a threat to peace and stability
Observations on Tribalism
There is need to avoid the idolization of tribalism at the expense of the common good or national interests.
There is the requirement for education in order to detribalize overzealous and bigoted tribalism.
There is the necessity to think and act beyond the tribal universe when it is a question of collective and national interest.
Each society or community should consider it important to count most especially on what unites them rather than what divides them
Communalism
A view which advocates the spirit of togetherness of people in a particular community.
Some major characteristics of Communalism are:
It encourages love for one another and equality amongst people
Each person is another’s keeper, and has a sense of sharing and belonging to one another.
It encourages genealogy (lineage system) – it promotes the extended family system, thereby strengthening social cohesion and as such limiting societal conflicts.
It is an aspect of social dynamics. Through the spirit of fraternity and togetherness, there is self–obligation of all towards common objectives, for the good of the society. This can permit dialogue which is necessary for any true unity.
Shortcomings of Communalism
It can encourage mediocrity, laziness and dependency.
It lacks a theoretical framework – it lacks a set of rules on how to go along with the cherished ideas, necessary to bring a life of communion void of chaos, injustice and inequality.
It can hinder personal initiative and the competitive spirit, which are necessary for any true progress – the individual is subordinated to the dictates of the collectivity.
It can bring about the segmentation of the larger society.
Ujama’a
Ujama’a was a social communalism advocated by the Tanzanian leader, Julius Nyerere, who considered it as a world–view or gateway to the true African familyhood. It appealed to the communalism spirit of the Africans.
Characteristics of Ujama’a Socialism:
Pursuit of progress and development from the roots of the African indigenous (and not foreign) culture.
The individual is seen and treated as an end in itself and not solely as a means to an end.
Land is held in common by all the members of the community.
It is built on the humanistic principles of equality, freedom and solidarity, as well as the upholding of human dignity
All members of the community are workers, and there is no exploitation of one by another.
Purpose of Ujama’a Socialism:
A development based on the familyhood system.
To develop the freely accepted collectivization of family spirit for communal development in the Tanzanian society
To develop a self–reliant spirit among the Tanzanians
A means to correct the weaknesses observed in the western system of education, by blending informal and formal education, thus reforming primary and secondary education.
To aim at the good of the individual and the society at large, thus enlarging the individual’s freedom as well as maximizing human dignity and wellbeing.
Ways proposed by Nyerere in order to realize Ujama’a Socialism (familyhood system) is to:
Develop a self–reliant spirit
Implement free and compulsory education for all
The need to reform the primary and secondary educational system of the Tazanians. It consisted in blending the western system of education with the informal education practices of the Africans.
Engage in the villagization of production – developing a system of land tenure so as to improve on the agricultural know–how of the African community.
Render equality in the social, economic, and political domains.
Weaknesses of Ujama’a
It lacked an adequate theoretical framework – there was no plan of action for its realization of Nyerere’s project of ownership of property and collective production.
The project was not holistic in scope, but limited most especially to the agricultural sector. Other sectors of activities seemed to have been neglected, whereas development should be an integrated process.
The farming method was rudimentary and primitive. Tools used were crude and inadequate for high yields – mechanized farming, which would have reduced excessive toiling and misery, was lacking.
PLATO: THE REPUBLIC
Cephalus defined as “telling the truth and returning what we have borrowed”.
Cephalus considers that the importance of wealth, is to be able to pay one’s debt both to the gods and to men.
The statement of Cephalus that “as age blunts one’s enjoyment of physical pleasures, one’s desire for rational conversation and one’s enjoyment of it increase correspondingly”, illustrates the Platonic Virtue of: Temperance and Wisdom.
Polemarchus’ borrowed definition of justice from Simonides the poet is to “give every man his due”, which he interpretes as to benefit one’s friends and harm one’s enemies”.
Thrasymachus defines justice as “the interest of the stronger party” i.e. the strong coerce the weak, since those who rule make laws for their interest and not necessarily for the good of others.
To Socrates, injustice cannot be any match for justice because:
It is a source of disunity, while justice is unity;
It is ignorance, while justice is knowledge;
It is a defect, while justice is excellence;
It is a source of weakness, while justice is strength.
One reason stated by Socrates to show that injustice cannot be a source of strength is that: It results in dissension.
If Socrates considers justice as “goodness and knowledge” then injustice can be considered respectively as: Vice and Ignorance.
Glaucon observed that:
The origin of justice is compromise i.e. by “mutual agreement”.
Justice is practiced with reluctance or when forced – “no man is just of his own free will”; “men practice it against their will and only because they are unable to do wrong”.
The reason which leads both the just and the unjust men to act is “self–interest”.
The significance of the “Ring of Gyges” in The Republic is that: Just and unjust men all pursue their self–interests.
Adeimantus supports the view that if justice is done, it is not for the sake of justice but because:
It brings good reputation to the practitioner – “pastors and masters of all kinds urge their charges to be just not because they value justice for itself, but for the good reputation it brings”.
It permits one to have gains and rewards from “family connections” and the gods.
It prevents one from being punished by the gods.
According to Socrates, society originates because the individual has needs which he cannot satisfy alone; hence, the individual is not self–sufficient.
The impact of men coming together to satisfy their needs, each according to his natural aptitudes is Division of Labour and Specialisation.
The statement that “the gods can even be swayed…”, was made by: Adeimantus
Plato compares the guardian to a well–bred watch–dog in that:
He must have keen sight, speed and strength.
He must be able to compromise two contrasting characters – “behave with the utmost gentleness to those it is used to and knows, but be savage to strangers”. This power of means that he must have knowledge.
To Plato, the qualities required in a well–trained guardian are: High spirit, speed, strength and philosophic disposition.
The education to be given to the young guardian consists in “the physical training we give to the body and the education we give to the mind and character.”
The education of the mind should consist in telling stories which must be censored because their minds are young and tender. They should be “aimed at encouraging the highest excellence of character”.
Any impression made on them can leave a live–long mark opinions formed at that age are usually difficult to eradicate or change”.
Elements of censorship should consist in:
Avoiding the misrepresentation of the nature of the gods and heroes.
Deny to recount that a son of the gods mercilessly punished the father who committed a hideous crime.
Asserting that quarrelsomeness is one of the greatest evil
Representing God as he really is.
To Socrates, the qualities to be ascribed to the gods, when telling stories to the youths are that:
The gods are good, and are the cause of good and not of evil or suffering; they are not capable of evil.
They are not capable of changing forms for they are perfect – “Every god is perfect in beauty and goodness, and remains in his own form without variation forever”.
They cannot disguise themselves and have a “variety of shapes”; they are incapable of deception.
They do not tell lies – they detest falsehood.
The gods are real and not fictitious
The philosophical Significance of Book One of The Republic
It asserts that justice is not business morality
It states the “Might is right” principle.
Introduces the concept of function and virtue.
It brings forth the view that justice requires knowledge
It raises the major question of justice.
The Philosophical Significance of Book Two of The Republic:
It is an introduction of the earliest statements of the “Social Contract Theory” of the state.
It asserts the origin of society or the state.
It illustrates the need for education and discipline.
It points out the nature and qualities of the gods.
Why does Plato use the Dialogue–Form in The Republic?
To give a lively and natural tone to the conversation.
To keep the argument moving at all times, so that the discussion never becomes predictable, for unforeseen objection may be raised (use of dramatic suspense).
To bring abstract theories down to earth.
To provide realism in the discussion (like when Socrates backtracks from time to time).
To give the impression that there is a single reality, thereby permitting the reader not to lose sight of the major outlines.
To make use of imagery in order to provide vividness.
To engage in an analysis of the pros and cons of arguments made by the different protagonists.
ROUSSEAU: THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
To Rousseau, the basis of political authority is not founded on paternal authority, on slavery, on force, on nature or a pact of submission, rather, it is founded on convention.
The family which is the only natural society, can be maintained only by convention.
The Social Pact
To Rousseau, the Social Contract is the true basis for the legitimate foundation of political authority. Political authority is not natural.
The social contract is not the choice of government but the act by which a people constitutes itself as a people.
The social pact is when each person alienates himself and all his rights to the whole community. This alienation is total and reciprocal, each person is free and participates in the General Will.
By the social contract, a united political body is attained, whereby there is “total alienation of each associate with all his rights to the community”.
Consequences of the social pact
The sovereign is the people
The pact of association produces a moral and collective body who is the sovereign, and whose power is absolute.
To Rousseau, the ultimate basis of the social contract is liberty. As such, it also guarantees equality, legality and security (protection) of life and property.
The uniqueness of the contract of Roussea is that it is a contract between the people among themselves, and not with any third party. As such he differed from Hobbes who asserted a contract between the people and the king, or with Locke who stated a contract between the people and the government.
That which constitutes the characteristics of the contract is that:
It is hypothetical – the clauses have never been formally stated.
It is determined and leaves the chance for the initiative of the contracting parties.
It is contingent (instantaneous).
By the contract, man evolves from the state of nature to the civil state: consequences of this evolution is that:
Man becomes a moral being.
It transforms man from a stupid and narrow–minded animal, to a being who is intelligent and free.
The effect of the social pact on wealth is that it does no more become a simple possession but properties which are legally guaranteed.
Sovereignty
To Roussea sovereignty is the exercise of the General Will.
While sovereignty is the political body when it is active, the state is the political body when it is passive. The sovereign is the author of the laws – he holds the legislative power, and is the will of the political body; the government deals with the execution of the laws – it holds the executive power, and is the force of the political power.
That which gives birth to sovereignty is the social pact – “this act of association produces a moral and collective body composed of as many members as the assembly has voices, and by this very act, receives its unity, its collective self, its life and its will”.
Before the contract or social pact (which is the act by which the people become a people), there is no sovereignty.
To J. J. Rousseau, the social contract is an agreement between the people among themselves.
The source of sovereignty is in the people, but it is also the people who exercise sovereignty. The people cannot get rid of its sovereignty, for it designates the exercise of the General Will, which is the will of the people as a body; and even if “power can be transmitted, the will cannot be.
To Rousseau, sovereignty is considered as inalienable and indivisible. Sovereignty cannot be exercised by the prince, for authority comes from the people and not directly from the prince.
The existence of sovereignty resides in the union of all the members of the society, and as such cannot be transmitted to a third party without being destroyed de facto.
The General Will
Rousseau distinguishes between the General Will which “is only concerned with the common interest”, aimed at the common good and the good functioning of the state; and the will of all which is “only the sum of the particular wills” and a private interest, aimed at the interest of the greatest number.
The General Will is general (meant for the common good or interest) and is rational (corresponding to common sense).
The Laws
The general will manifests itself by the Laws. If the social pact has given birth to the general will, it is exclusively through the laws that it expresses itself. “When all the people decree on behalf of all the people”, it is called the law – it the decision of the sovereign people which concerns them as subject.
The laws are the sole motive of the political body, and can only be active and have substance by it; without laws, the state remains a body without a soul, it exists without being able to act.
The author and the receiver of the law are the people. “The laws are actually but the conditions of civil association. The people who are submitted to the laws must be the author; it belongs only to those who associate to regulate the terms of the society”.
The private will cannot make the law (as in despotism and absolute monarchy), for private interest are protected by the laws.
Laws should be distinguished from decrees – while laws are pronounced by the General Will and directed to a general object, decrees are pronounced by the government and directed to a particular object.
The law is characterized by:
Its generality, if not it is not a law. For it always aims at the interest of the whole community.
Its goodness, and is applied to all without distinction of rank or fortune. As a product of the general will, everyone takes part in its elaboration, and as such is just.
Its revocability. Since the laws is an obligation which the people have made on themselves, it follows that it can revoke (cancel) it if it finds it unacceptable – “the people are masters, and may change even the best laws”. But only the general will can decide to change a law; an individual cannot decided unilaterally that a law is invalid and refuses to obey it.
The law is the condition of liberty. By obeying the laws, one obeys only what he himself has made, thereby obeying himself and no other person. As such obeying the laws does not destroy one’s freedom.
By the force of laws, men deserve justice, equality and natural order.
When the individual participates in sovereignty and the making of laws, he is called a citizen.
When he obeys or submits himself to the laws, he is called a subject.
To Rousseau, there exist four types of laws:
Political laws, which define the form of government;
Civil laws, which regulate the relationship between citizens;
Criminal laws, which define the sanctions in case of disobedience;
Customs, which are non–written laws that serve as the basis of right
The Legislator
To Rousseau the role of the legislator is to guide the general will and tell it which decisions to take. For, if “the general will is always right, (…) the judgement that guides it is not always enlightened.
By proposing the laws to the citizens, the legislator acts as a pedagogue or educator of the people, who trains citizens, and by doing so, trains men.
In drafting the laws, the legislator should take the following considerations:
He must adapt the laws according to the maturity of the people.
He should take into consideration the size of the country.
He must equally examine the natural resources of the country.
Not being able to resort to human authority, the legislator makes appeal to divine authority, that is religion, so as to let his legislation be accepted by the people.
Government
To Rousseau, the Government is the executive power and is considered as an intermediary body, which mediates between the sovereign and subjects. In The Social Contract he states that government is “An intermediate body established between the subjects and the sovereign, for their mutual correspondence, charged with the execution of the laws, and the maintenance of both civil and political liberty”.
The government is not considered as part of sovereignty, but a body of magistrates which is subordinated to the sovereign, who can dismiss it as it pleases. It is the executive force at the service of the free and sovereign will, whose task is that of applying the laws to particular cases.
To Rousseau, when the numbers of active citizens vary, the form of government must likewise vary – no unique and absolute arrangement of government should be considered as appropriate to every state.
All legitimate governments are Republican i.e. a state governed by laws and where the public interest and affairs of the people are duly regarded, whatever form of administration it may be.
The different forms of Government depend on the number of magistrates of which they are composed: in Democracy, government is confined to all the people or at least to the greatest number of people; in Aristocracy, it is in the hands of a few; which in Monarchy, there is only one magistrate who is the king.
To Rousseau, not all forms of government are appropriate to all countries. Determining and choosing the best form of government should depend on: the situation of the country, the number of population, the climate and the fertility of the soil.
Each of these governments has their advantages and inconveniences.
In Monarchy, there is more force and authority, but it has a greater tendency to degenerate, since the king can confound his private will with that of the general will.
In a Democracy, the will of the government is closer to that of the general will. Democracy is always considered as direct, where the people actually govern, thereby requiring that the state should be small. But it can result in dissension and disorder, hence his assertion: “if there were a nation of gods they might be governed by a democracy; so perfect a government will not agree with men”.
Contrary to what many people hold, Rousseau rejected Democracy as possible with men or as the best form of government, for it can result in dissension and disorder. As he says, “If there were a nation of gods, they might be governed by a democracy; so perfect a government will not agree with men”.
The best regime could be an Elective Aristocracy for the “the wisest should govern the multitude” for the welfare of all.
There is degeneration or the decline of government once the sovereign authority (which is the principle of political life) is usurped i.e. when government substitutes the private will to the general will.
When the sovereignty of the people is usurped, it results in the abuse of government:
The abuse of government in general is called Anarchy
The abuse of a Monarchical form of government is called Tyranny.
The abuse of an Aristocratic form of government is called Oligarchy.
The abuse of a democratic form of government is called Ochlocracy.
The usurpation of power by the government can be prevented when:
The people always join together (regular assemblies)
The people exercise sovereignty directly without the intermediary of representatives.
Rousseau considers the legislative power as the heart of the state; the executive power is the brain which gives motion to all the parts.
The Citizen
The citizen is one who participates in the sovereign authority, and is considered as the identification between the particular will and the general will.
The citizen depends basically on the general will rather than on himself, and poses as a fusion of unity and individual consciences – he follows the voice of reason and not his passions – “impulse to mere appetites is slavery.”
Citizenship is the condition of becoming a man – coming out from a natural condition where one is a stupid and narrow–minded animal to a situation where one is an intelligent and moral being.
In becoming a citizen, one attains “moral liberty, which alone makes him master of himself” – he acquires civil liberty and equality.
Liberty
Liberty is conceived by Rousseau as an inalienable right because it is a natural right. Even with the pact, man cannot give up his freedom: “such abandonment is incompatible with the nature of man”. To Rousseau the liberty of the individual is attained by submitting “obedience to the laws which we prescribe ourselves is freedom”.
The submission of individuals is total, and that is the condition for total freedom. By this, the will of the sovereign coincides with that of right and justice, which is the condition of freedom of individuals.
By the social contract, man loses his natural liberty, (unlimited right to all) but he gains civil liberty, wherein he subjects himself to a law which he himself has chosen.
With civil liberty, one’s limit is the general will (gained through the social pact), whereas with natural liberty, the limits are the powers of the individual. Civil liberty makes men as free as they were in the state of nature.
The concept of liberty defended by Rousseau is that it is autonomy, where one is author of the law to which he is subjected.
Freedom is not licentiousness, which is excessive liberty or liberty without rules nor is liberty independence, which is the absence of external constraints.
All should exchange their natural freedom for civil liberty, for, stated Rousseau: “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to it by the whole body: which only means that he shall be forced to be free”.
The State of Nature
To Rousseau, the state of nature is considered as the condition of man obstracted from social life. Just like Grotius and Thomas Hobbes, it is the hypothetical state of man before the existence of any social organization; or more clearly, it is a mythical expression of how the society would have been if men (as they are now) were neither educated nor regulated by rules and government. The state of nature is not representation of a historical moment, but an abstract idea or a sort of genetic hypothesis. It is a state which “does not exist, which perhaps never existed, and which probably shall never exist”
The Social Contract of Rousseau as a revolutionary work:
It offers a norm to criticize established status quo and societies which are obnoxious to human well–being.
It establishes the idea of the General Will (which puts an end to factionalism and calls for the public good); the sovereignty of the people; the subordination of the executive to the legislative (the obligation of government to the people); contributes to bring about far–reaching positive changes in the society, necessary for any legitimate institutions.
It joins justice to utility, and shows that the people’s interest and duty are the same – hence, social change is not a matter of self–interest but a moral obligation which is binding to all.
The difference between Rousseau’s State of Nature and that of Hobbes can be illustrated as follows:
Rousseau’s State of Nature Hobbes’s State of Nature
A hypothetical condition of man, which had never existed i.e. it is not a historic moment.
Man lives in happiness and total freedom (natural liberty).
It is a logical construction.
There is equality among men. It is a historical moment of man before the advent of society
Man lives in a chaotic condition (the life of man is solitary, nasty, brutish and short).
It is a chronological construction
There is inequality among men.
SYSTEMATIC PHILOSOPHY
MAN AND NATURE
Some major Theories of Knowledge:
Dogmatism – the view which asserts that the human mind can attain truth which cannot be questioned.
Skepticism – the doctrine which denies the possibility of attaining certain knowledge; that true knowledge is impossible.
Rationalism – the doctrine according to which all certain knowledge comes only from reason, the mind or a priori principles.
Empirism – the view that all knowledge comes from experience.
Pragmatism – the doctrine which asserts that truth is a relation between thinking and doing; that thought should end in an action of some sort.
Fideism – the view that religious knowledge depends on faith and revelation; hence reason cannot permit us to know the true nature (absolute truth) of things.
Idealism – the doctrine which ascribes the primacy of ideas, thought or mind, rather than to matter.
Materialism – the doctrine which asserts the primacy of matter rather than thought.
Agnosticism – the view that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.
The sources of Knowledge are:
Evidence – that whose truth cannot be doubted;
History – the study of past events of a time or people, or the life or development of a people.
Reason – system of a priori principles which can be formulated logically, and whose truth does not depend on experience, the power of the mind to think clearly and coherently.
Myth – traditional stories which attempt to explain the origin of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior, by relating it to supernatural beings and heroes.
Ideas – the representation of a thing in the mind
Matter – the material substance of the universe
Intuition – the direct and immediate knowledge of an object of thought
The Scientific Method
Characteristics of the Scientific Method: Demonstrative, Universal, Impersonal, Experimental, Causal, Objective, open to verification, and scientific truth is not absolute but rectificative.
The Procedures of the Scientific Method
The formulation of the Hypothesis (tentative explanation to phenomena);
Observation (collection and classification of data);
Experimentation (testing the plausibility of the hypothesis);
Theorization (confirmation of the hypothesis).
The Limitations of the Scientific Method are:
It can be based on assumptions.
It can engage in a partial search of reality.
It can be spatio–temporally determined.
The Philosophical Method is characterized by Analysis, Conceptualization, Criticism, Speculation, Prescription and Value judgement.
Art and Aesthetics
Art
Art is generally defined as: All productions of beauty by the works of a conscious mind. It is therefore not an imitation of nature, not a reflection of reality, but a transposition of reality. In fact, it is not art which imitates nature, but nature which imitates art i.e. it is the human mind which projects beauty in nature.
Art is a production of human activity and an artistic work is a work of the mind. It is a creative activity which is marked by its uniqueness and originality.
Art aims at beauty, which constitutes one of the three fundamental values of the activities of the mind, like the truth and the good.
Kant’s asserted that: “Art is not the representation of a beautiful thing, but the beautiful representation of a thing”.
Beauty
Beauty as defined by Kant is: “that which pleases universally without concept”. It is not based on demonstration, argumentation or conceptual analysis, but is imposed on all. It is represented as an object of universal satisfaction without concept i.e. devoid of all interest.
To Hegel, beauty is the sensible manifestation of the idea, meaning that beauty is one of the forms in which the mind is manifested and realized in the world.
Also, Hegel considers Art, just like Religion and Philosophy, as constituting the three great moments of culture by which the mind has self–consciousness and attains the truth. Art is the first stage of the ascension of the mind to the Absolute.
Freud considers beauty as the sublimation of internalized (repressed) desires or a refuge of the artist in the imaginary in face of existential difficulties.
Beauty should be distinguished from that which is simply agreeable i.e. a particular pleasure that arouses a sensation of interest and desire in the subject.
Aesthetic Judgement
The judgement on beauty is one which is universal and should not be considered as agreeable – one does not judge only for himself but also for others.
Beauty results from esthetic judgement, which is judgement on the object or the representation of an object.
The Characteristics of an Aesthetic Judgement are that they should be: Disinterested, Subjective, Universal, necessary, goalless (not for a purpose).
Aesthetic Creation (Work of Art)
Aesthetic creation (work of art) is not an ex nihilo creation but is influenced by nature. Since beauty is necessarily expressed in the sensible element, there is therefore a close dialectic of matter and the mind – it is the materialization of the mind.
In the work of art, it is the genius of the artist that is at work – his personality, the events of his childhood, personal and historical context, the social environment and the different situations of human conditions, provokes in him different reactions which he integrates in his imaginary.
The integration of the artist’s imaginary into reality constitutes a work of art – the artist’s personal experience and the society provide the matter of his inspiration whereby he expresses what others see but can’t say.
Culture
Culture can be defined as: the transformation of nature (the given raw data which is innate, fixed and static) by human activity; or that which man adds into nature by h is action i.e. that which he creates, a “second nature”.
What distinguishes man from nature is his capacity to produce culture. An animal is a product of nature, but man is both a product of culture and a producer of culture.
Culture is a conquest of man on both the internal and external forces of nature. It is not a natural fact but a social fact. Culture designates that which is acquired, that which has movement and evolution.
Culture signifies man’s cutting off from animality to the advent of social order. It is man’s mode of organization in relation to himself, to others and to nature.
Culture can be acquired by education, learning, and initiation to norms which regularize the life of all human society – to distinguish that which are permitted from that which are forbidden.
Culture can be manifested or characterized by productions in the material and spiritual domains:
Material Culture (techniques and productions): Dressing, Architecture, Sculpture, Artifacts, Dances, etc.
Spiritual Culture: Art, Language, Religion and beliefs, ideologies, music and songs, Philosophy, social institutions, etc.
Considered as the way in which each social group regulates its relationship with nature and its members, one can say that each culture can be singularized by its modes of life and culture; hence cultures are as diversified and varied as there are societies.
The diversity of cultures is a self–imposed reality. The idea of a universal culture which is applicable to all people is a myth or an ideological deception.
Factors that can determine and explain human cultures and their diversities include: the physical environment, the geographical context, the historical pasts, the popular traditions, the religions and contacts with other peoples.
These factors account for what is called cultural identity – the specific spiritual and material traits which can be ascribed to a group of people in a given environment, and by which they can be distinguished.
But it can lead to cultural or biological ethnocentrism – when a social group over estimates its culture by disqualifying other groups as inferior.
All cultures are manifestations of human creativity, resulting from intelligence and having the faculty of adaptation. Man, unlike animals, cannot be contented with only what nature gives him – he is not determined a priori; rather he is a structure of possibilities who is realized in a given context.
By Education, man proceeds to a state of spiritual and material perfection, to transform nature in order to survive and improve his well–being.
However, the wanton and uncontrolled transformation of nature as seen in certain advanced cultures (civilization), can result in technocratic, imperialist and totalitarian excesses and ravages, in the name of progress (increase in the capacity of production of goods and riches)
ETHICS
Theories of the Origin of Man:
Evolutionism: The theory that there is gradual and continous development of forms of life from a lower to a higher stage of living matter.
Creationism: The theory that man and the universe originated from the handiwork of a supernatural creator (God).
Big Bang Theory: A theory that the universe originated from the explosion of a single dense mass of matter and evolved consequently into diverse forms.
A human act must be: conative (Willed); Cognitive (known); Responsible (accountable).
The Principle of Ethics are:
The Principle of Double – Effect: It is morally permissible to perform an act that has a bad effect under the following conditions:
The act to be done must be good in itself.
The intended must not be obtained by means of the evil effect.
The evil effect must not be intended for itself, but only permitted.
There must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect.
The Principle of Higher Good: emphasizes that between two acts, it is permissible to do acts which are for the higher interest of the society.
The Sanctity of Life Principle: asserts that human is so precious, priceless and sacred for anyone to disrespect it.
The Principle of Personalism: it stresses on the outstanding dignity of the human person, and holds that life if irreplaceable, independent and unique.
The Principle of Utility (Utilitarian Ethics): it considers that an act is morally acceptable if it serves to increase the amount of happiness and decrease the amount of misery or suffering.
The Divine Rights Principle: it asserts that God is the owner of life, and only Him and not man (who is only the possessor), can dispose of it.
Other arguments which could be applied to ethical issues include:
The Moral/Human Rights Arguments: it asserts that a person’s choice (especially if the action from it is the best interest of everyone) should be respected if it does not harm others.
The Hippocratic Oath Argument – a deontological argument binding on medics to protect life and relieve suffering, and avoid harm on the patient.
Voluntary acts or acts of which man is master is called: Human acts.
Involuntary acts or acts of which man is not master are called: Acts of a Man.
An act that is willed whether as an end or as a means to an end is: Voluntary in itself or Directly Voluntary.
An act that is unintended but is the unforeseen consequence of something else that is voluntary in itself, is called: Voluntary in cause or Indirect Voluntary.
When someone forms the habit of smoking or taking narcotics, the forming of the habit is specifically considered as: Voluntary in cause.
When someone acquires the habit of pick–pocketing; the forming of the habit is: Voluntary in itself.
Responsibility
The Modifiers of Responsibility (acts which mitigate or lesson voluntariness, thereby making a person less responsible) are:
Ignorance: it is the privation of knowledge where it ought to be present. It can be Vincible (one which can be overcome by acquiring the required knowledge) – it does not destroy responsibility but lessons it; Invincible (when it cannot be overcome since the required knowledge cannot be acquired) – it destroys responsibility.
Passion: it is the strong motion of the sensitive appetites. It can be Antecedent (it is spontaneous and against one’s will) – it can destroy responsibility; consequent (it is deliberately aroused for it comes after a choice) – it increases responsibility.
Fear: it is the apprehension of an impending evil. It is relative to the person and the circumstances. When one acts from fear (when fear becomes a motive for acting), responsibility increases; but when one acts with fear (as an accompaniment of the act), responsibility is lessened.
Force: the external physical power which makes one to do something against his will. Acts done under force are involuntary, if the victim does not consent. If one consents reluctantly, responsibility is reduced; but if one only pretends to resist, then there is full responsibility.
Habit: it is the constant way of acting obtained by repetition of the same act. A habit may be deliberately acquired which can become voluntary in itself (performed with the intention to acquire the habit) or voluntary in cause (there is foreseen consequence of the act but is unintended). One is not responsible for an unintentionally acquired habit.
The following are all acts for which man cannot be fully responsible: Acting from fear; acts which are voluntary in cause; Antecedent passions, Acts of a man, invincible ignorance, determined acts, unintentionally acquired habits.
The following are all acts for which man can be fully responsible: Human acts; Acts of the will; acts of virtual intention; acts of actual intentions; acts which are voluntary in itself; vincible ignorance; consequent passion; acting with fear; occasion of evil.
Rights
The components of Rights are:
The subject: the bearer or holder of the right.
The Term: the one who has the moral obligation to respect another person’s right.
The matter: that to which one has a right (claims sought by the subject).
The Title: the justification why the subject has the right to the matter.
Euthanasia is defined the painless taking away of life of someone suffering from an incurable and chronic disease.
Euthanasia is considered active when there is killing of the patient; it is passive when the patient is left to die (indirectly voluntary)
Violence
Violence is defined as the unlawful and arbitrary use of force against persons or property by individuals or organizations; or the coercive action by people for political, economic, social, religious, moral or pscychological purposes.
It is the intention to apply the reason of force rather than the force of reason.
It can be physical or psychological, as seen in war, murder, coup d’états, rape, burglary, torture and terrorism, and can be caused by marginalization, poverty, drugs, unemployment, abuse of rights, self–defence and even greed.
Violence can take forms such as: Accidental, Defensive, Predatory, or Psycho ogical.
Accidental Violence is an unlawful act of force which can cause harm, but is not intended to do so. It can sometimes be the result of an unconscious motive.
Defensive Violence (Sometimes called vengeful violence) is an unlawful act of force by a person or a group of persons on another person or group, intended to remove or destroy a threat of violence or to repair a wrong.
Predatory Violence is the arbitrary use of force to capture, subdue or kill others, for the purpose of using them for one’s end or desire, by living on their sweat and intelligence e.g. robbery, extortion, seizure of property. The main motivation is greed (covetousness).
Psychological Violence is the arbitrary use of force on persons or groups by people suffering from psychological disorders (insanity, psychosis, depression, mania and sadism) which make them to behave abnormally at times with harmful effects.
Moral Arguments against Violence
It results in incalculable loss from the social, economic, political and psychological perspectives human beings are killed or disabled; infrastructure such as schools, roads and hospitals are destroyed, hence resulting in opportunity costs; destruction of vital economic property such as airports, bridges and telecommunication networks; permanent social instability and insecurity.
It results in loss of autonomy, independence and sovereignty of a people.
Violence and terrorism can be likened to bestiality, where a majority can even be exploited, abused and even reduced to servitude on account of their tribe, beliefs, colour gender, values and social status.
It can beget a cycle of violence, as in vengeful violence. Self–defense requires recourse to violence, and might continue to escalate endlessly, resulting in more and more casualties.
It can have hideous and far–reaching psychological and traumatic impact on an individual or persons.
Moral Arguments for Violence
It can be an instrument for the state to maintain peace, security and stability.
It can be carried out for self–defence, estimated to ward off further violence. It can be a reaction to attacks on man’s vital interest.
It can be used to check–off illegitimate and tyrannical systems and social injustice, and such can permit a people to maintain their sovereignty and liberty.
It can be justified from the Principle of Double–Effect.
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
THE LAW
The Law is defined by Aquinas as “nothing else than an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by him who has care for the community”
The qualities of a good law are:
It must be an ordinance (command);
It must be rational (not arbitrary);
It should be for the common good (the welfare of the community);
It should be promulgated (known by whom it binds);
It must come from a legislator (one with authority)
Justice
Theories of Justice
The Social Contract Theory: equality of all men in society.
The Positive Law Theory: everybody is equal before the law.
The Social Good Theory: do what is useful for the social good.
The Natural Right Theory: the ultimate basis of justice is natural right.
Types of Justice
Commutative justice: commands that exchange of goods and services take place according to strict equality of values (contracts).
Distributive justice: regulates the relations of the community with its members.
Contributive justice: obliges members of a community to comply with the demands of the common good.
Social justice: demands a proportionate and equitable distribution of wealth of nation to the different groups of the society.
The State
The state can be defined as
A human grouping constituting of a permanent population, living in a determined territory, and having a political organization and is self–dependent.
Necessity of the State:
The State is a control–valve of uncontrolled actions and passions of individuals in the society. (Hobbes, Spinoza, Montesquieu)
The State defines the human framework, which permits the full well–being of man. With its laws and moral principles, the state is the specific historic form in which freedom attains its objective reality (Hegel).
The state is instituted not for domination, but to avoid mutual conflict and promote social homeostasis. True liberty is incompatible with license and anarchy (Rousseau).
The state creates the condition of freedom which assures and guarantees peace, justice, order and security, hence avoiding the arbitrary situation where “man is a wolf to man” (Hobbes).
The state guarantees the thriving of individual liberty. It serves as the condition for the exercise of freedom, and a safeguard against the natural barbarity of man (Rousseau).
The institution of the state is for security and to liberate man from fear, and to live according to the dictate of reason and not passion (Spinoza, Hobbes).
The force of a state should come from its people – this force is more protective than aggressive.
The Negative Role of the State
The state can destroy the autonomy of the individual.
The state, and its repressive laws, can be a violence against the individual. (Althusser).
The state is disguised form of class domination, characterized by the exploitation of one class by another (Karl Marx).
The coercive nature of the state – the state seen as the subjugation and chaining of the individual, where the will is inclined to obedience and unconditional subordination. (view of the anarchists such as Max Stirner, Proudhon).
The state as an organized violence destined to crush a certain class in the society – when the State exists, there is no liberty. (Lenine).
The state considered as a “cold monster” (Nietzsche) and a destructive abstraction which thrives on the sacrifice of natural freedom (Bakounine).
The state is an ambiguous reality, having a double face – instituted to protect individuals, it progressively turns against them by seizing the moral riches and original customs of the people. It is a “barbarity with a human face” Nietzsche.
“If the state is strong, it crushes us; if it is weak, we perish” Paul Valéry.
A strong state is one which expresses its will rather than the will of the people (dictatorship, tyranny, absolutism) – the State becomes an executioner and the citizen is suppressed and treated as object;
A weak State is one which is incapable of imposing itself in face of adversity – it is passive, indolent and inoffensive, and hence open to all internal attacks (civil war, insurrection, claims) and external attacks (annexation, war). It is a powerless state where the people can lose not only their liberty and security, but even their dignity and reason to live. To Ihering, “the absence of material power is the mortal sin of the State”, to Machiavelli, the Prince must be strong, and must be at the time “a lion and a fox”)
Government
Government is defined as the power to make and enforce laws by a group of people, w hich can be one, few or many. In other words, it can be considered as a political organization comprising the individuals and institutions authorized to formulate public policies and conduct the affairs of state.
Governments are empowered to establish and regulate the interrelationships of the people within their territorial confines, the relations of the people with the community as a whole, and the dealings of the community with other political entities.
There are basically three forms of government, namely Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy.
Monarchy: A form of government where one man rules according to his will. As such, one prson has the hereditary right to rule as head of a State, which can be absolute or limited.
Aristocracy: A form of government where a few rule. As such, sovereign power is vested unto a small number of citizens who theoretically are the best qualified (by birth, wealth or intellect) to rule, and carried on for the welfare of the many.
Democracy: A form of government where all rule. As such, power is invested in the people as a whole, who make decisions for their welfare. Supreme authority is exercised for the most part by representatives elected by universal suffrage.
Advantage of Democracy as a form of Government
Sovereignty belongs to the people – the power to make laws belongs to the people (the citizens) ref. Rousseau.
It defends and protects the liberty and equality of men in society. (Freedom of speech, press, and movement) ref. Rousseau, Marx.
It calls for universal suffrage (free and fair elections), separation of powers, multipartism, and the neutrality of the tools of the State (magistrates, police, military, etc).
It furnishes the basic condition to ensure human dignity: health, education, leisure, etc;, hence engaging in the distribution of wealth to all social justice.
It fights against tyranny and totalitarianism, as well as the absolutism or excesses of the State.
It calls for a system of checks and balances – thereby calling for the accountability and responsibility of the rulers towards the ruled.
Shortcomings of Democracy as a form of Government
It can result in the dictatorship of the majority – anarchy (Ref. Plato)
It can bring about the paradoxical conflict of the majority/minority issue.
It can result in excessive freedom of thought and the press.
It can be a threat to peace, security and political stability in the society.
Incompetent people can be voted into posts of responsibility due to popularity, wherein the people’s judgement of their leaders is not usually based on meritocracy.
There can be slowness in decision–making as compared to the monarchical form of government.
Totalitarianism is considered as: A system of centralized government in which a single party without opposition rules over the political, economic, social and cultural life of a people.
THE ABSOLUTE
Religion is defined as man’s absolute dependence on a supernatural and superior entity. It is man’s expression and aspiration of the Absolute (God), in whom he discovers the ideals of justice, peace, happiness, the domination of the world, etc.
Each community recognizes the existence of such a Supreme Being, and accepts rites and practices of adoration which manifests their attachment to such a Being.
Philosophical Significance of Religion:
Man’s affirmation of the sentiment of the recognition of transcendence;
Admission of the fact that he is a finite and limited being who aims towards perfection and the infinite.
Acceptance of absolute submission to an infinite deity.
The study of Religion and the relation of man to God, is called Theology.
The effort of the mind to study God and solve the problem of evil in the world is called Theodicy.
Theories of God’s Existence
Theism – the view that God exists
Deism: the view that God exists but is far removed from the world.
Agnosticism: acknowledges God as the creator but argues that He is unknowable by the human mind.
Pantheism: holds that everything resides in God and that God and nature are one (Deus sive natura as Spinoza stated).
Traditionalism: a view which holds that true and certain knowledge of God comes to man by reception of tradition handed down by revelation, and not reasoning or intutition.
Monotheism: the view that there is only one God.
Animism: the view that there are supernatural forces which animates and organizes the universe; or that things in nature have souls consciousness.
Arguments for God’s Existence:
Cosmological Argument: tracing certain phenomena in the universe to a cause outside the universe, identified as God. It is strongly connected to the Principle of Causality the Quinque Viae of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Ontological Argument: proving God’s existence by analyzing the very idea of God, and concluding that such a being must necessarily exist. It is an argument which asserts that a perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist St. Anselm’s view – “God is Being than which none greater can be conceived”.
Teleological Argument: the view that there must be an intelligent being outside the universe who is responsible for the orderliness, harmony, beauty and purposefulness in the universe, who is identified as God Thomistic Argument.
Moral argument: an argument based on man’s moral obligation, which asserts that there is a transcendent being who in the long run will reward goodness and punish evil so as to ensure justice Immanuel Kant; Hastings Rashdall).
Arguments Against God’s Existence
God is mere imagination – a projection of the best qualities or perfect form of ourselves (Feuerbach’s view); a forming of a “father image” in a desperate search for protection and security in front of odds in life (the Freudian perspective).
The Existentialist view – man’s liberty and subjectivity is antithetic to God’s existence; the contradictory view of God as an “Ens Causa Sui” (the Being that is the cause of his own being) the Sartrean view.
The Nihilistic Argument: the view that “God is dead” – the meaninglessness and purposelessness of human existence, coupled with the apparent abandonment of man, is a negation of God; or the view that God is an obstacle to human progress – the need to transform the ‘slave morality’ to the ‘master morality’ where man’s liberation develops him into a ‘superman’.
The arguments of Secularization Theology – that man can live without God (Dietrich Bonhoeffer); the need to demystify the concept of God, for God is in the very depth of man’s being and not external to man (A.T. Robinson, Harvey Cox).
What does Nietzsche understand by the assertion: “God is dead”? man has been abandoned by God.
The Physical Essences of God are:
Unity, Simplicity, Infinity and Spirituality.
The absolute Divine Attributes of God are: Goodness, Immensity, Immutability, Eternity, Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Perfection.
The attributes which claims that God is not capable of change and is all–knowing are respectively known as Immutability and Omniscience.
Evil
Evil is that which is morally bad or that which cause harm or suffering. Moral evil – evil and suffering caused by human choice to do wrong. Natural evil – suffering that happens because of the natural world and not because of human fault.
Physical evil – the lack of a normal perfection or the absence of something that should be there. It is the kind of evil ascribed to the imperfections that we observe within all created things, such as physical disabilities and death. God can will physical evil per accidens and not per se.
The origin and cause of moral evil is man’s misue of his free will by making an evil choice or wrong use of responsibility.
Incompatibility of God’s Goodness and Evil in the Universe
God is by nature good – it is therefore absurd to attribute evil to Him to say that there is evil in a world created by a good God is a violation of the Principle of Contradiction, and is consequently inconsistent.
Evil is a result of man’s misuse of his free will, and as such cannot be attributed to God St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas. Human freedom is not threatened by God’s causality.
Evil is not part of God’s benevolent plan, contrary to the doctrines of the scholastics Hume and Voltaire.
Evil as a privation cannot be intelligibly thought of as something which God has made to be Brian Voltaire.
Evil as a privation cannot be intelligibly thought of as something which God has made to be Brian Davies.
God does not will physical evil per se but per accidens.
Physical evil is the primitive consequence of moral evil committed by man – proponents of the Fall of Man argue that evil was introduced into the world when man disobeyed God and fell from God’s grace and glory.
Evil as the consequence of man’s disordered love – when man expects from an object of love (things, persons or oneself), more than it is capable of providing the Augustinian view.
Compatibility of God’s Goodness and Evil in the Universe
The creation of the universe is attributed to God – hence, everything, including evil, should likewise be attributed to Him.
God’s omnipotence requires that he has the power and greatness to everything, even if to prevent evil – the fact that he does not prevent evil indicates that he permits it, and as such is the cause of it.
God is omniscient and in that regard knows that man can misuse his freedom – the fact that evil persists is evident that he wills it, and is consequently responsible for it.
God is indirectly accountable for moral evil, since he gave man the freewill which he can misuse – He could have created a world of no free will or one in which man does only what is right Mackie observed that God could have made a world where people could always behave right.
The Saintliness defence asserts God’s accountability for evil – the presence of evil in the universe can lead to greater moral awareness and goodness, and can be a way of God uses to make saints or moral heroes the “Means to an End Approach” view of Brian Davies; Richard Swinburne: “The fewer natural evil a God provides, the less opportunity he provides for man to exercise responsibility”.
The laws of nature are basically divine, and physical evil is the manifestation of natural laws – it invariably follows that since “evil is the necessary by–product of natural laws” (view of Tennant) then it is caused by God.
Death
Death can be defined as the cessation of the vital process in a living organism (Clinical death); or the separation of the soul from the body (Absolute death).
Characteristics of Death: Universally; Inescapability; Imminence; Inexorability (Inevitability); Fearfulness.
There are arguments for and against the view that death is the end of life:
Arguments For: The Nihilistic view – that death marks the total end of the psychic and somatic parts of man.
Arguments Against: the Non–Nihilistic view – that life continues after death especially through the immortality of the soul.
Doctrines on the Immortality of the Soul
Metempsychosis: The metaphysical view that when one dies, his soul leaves the human body is born again into another body.
Karma: The doctrine which asserts that man’s actions will have an impact on him even after death. In the cycle of rebirth, a person’s good/bad actions have a direct consequence on what happens to their soul when the body dies.
Transmigration: the belief that after body dies, the soul separates from the body and enters or reincarnates into a new one, and gets united with the Divine.
*******************************************************************************
N.B. This compendium is incomplete. Some views still have to be focused on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)