Trad 104

Lecture Notes

J. Christopher Maloney

Formatting by Christopher Evans

1)Presocratic Lectures

a)Philosophical Problems for Ancient Greeks 2000 Years Before Science

i)Is the physical universe orderly or random?

(1)Some change appears regular; some does not. Why?

(2)Is the universe run by capricious gods?

(3)Is it otherwise determined by something fixed and constant?

ii)Presocratics who say that change is real and orderly

(1)Thales (600 BC)

(a)Everything = Water

(b)So: all change is regular, predictable and determined by the internal nature of water

(c)Explanation by reduction to the unobservable

(2)Pythagoras (560 BC)

(a)Everything is number (even music)

(b)Pythagorean formula shows how abstract thought (as opposed to perception) can reveal the true nature of things

(c)Abstracta (numbers) are real

(d)Change is explainable by mathematics

(3)Heraclitus (540 BC)

(a)Perpetual Flux: “you can’t step into the same river twice”

(b)Logos = abstract law that ensures the necessity and constancy of the pattern of change

(c)Logos is knowable only through the process of abstract thought

(4)Democritus (460 BC)

(a)Posits: atoms, the void, swerve

(b)All atoms are physically the same and without internal differentiation; atoms are internally simple

(c)Explanation of change by reductive appeal to number, position, and motion of atoms

iii)Presocratics who deny the reality of change

(1)Parmenides (500 BC)

(a)Appearance of change is illusory

(b)Sensation is unreliable

(c)Change presupposes plurality of objects but plurality is also illusory

(d)Monism

(i)The thesis that only one thing exists which is itself internally simple and lacking any form of differentiation

(ii)The “one” cannot literally be described or comprehended

(e)Argument for monism

(i)If change were possible then something (e.g. a butterfly) could come from nothing (that is a butterfly)

(ii)But that is impossible (it is not possible to produce a butterfly from something that is not a butterfly, appearances to the contrary!)

(iii)So, change is impossible; it is illusory

(f)Argument against plurality

(i)Plurality means that many different things exist, e.g. X and Y

(ii)If X is not Y, then X is the same as the absence of Y

(iii)But the absence of Y is nothing

(iv)So, if X is not Y then X is nothing

(v)If X is nothing, then X does not exist

(vi)That contradicts the assumption of plurality

(vii)So, the very idea of plurality is contradictory and impossible

(viii)Hence, monism must be true

(2)Zeno (Parmenides’ Student)

(a)All change is motion; but motion is impossible

(b)Achilles and the tortoise: aims to show, through abstract (as opposed to perceptual) reasoning that motion and change are impossible

(c)Change and knowledge

(i)Distinguish knowledge from opinion

(ii)Knowledge requires a certain unchanging representation that corresponds to what is represented

(iii)What changes cannot be so represented

(iv)So, knowledge of change is impossible

(v)What is real can be known, so change can’t be real

iv)Basic Presocratic Questions

(1)Is change real?

(2)Is change orderly or chaotic?

(3)Is plurality real: is the universe composed of many different things, or is the universe one, simple, indivisible thing?

(4)Can sensation lead to knowledge of the universe or can only abstract thought (as exemplified by pure mathematics) lead to knowledge?

2)Plato Lectures

a)Socrates (470-399 BC)

i)Plato’s teacher

ii)Oracle of Delphi: “No one is wiser than Socrates”

iii)Moral philosopher and social critic

iv)No extant writings

v)Athenian democracy

vi)Trial and execution of Socrates

b)Plato (428-348 BC)

i)Athenian philosopher

ii)“Student” of Socrates

iii)Aristotle’s teacher

iv)Founded the academy (Closed 525 AD; Justinian)

v)Composed Dialogues

vi)Theories of

(1)Morality

(2)Knowledge (also see Notes for Paper)

(3)Reality

(a)Abstract Objects

(i)Forms

(ii)The Soul

(b)Physical Objects

vii)Apology: Trial of Socrates

(1)Charged with: impiety and corrupting youths

(2)Accusers: Meletus, Anytus, Lycon

(3)Socrates defense against corrupting the youth is a version of the “Socratic Paradox”

(a)To corrupt the youth is to make them evil

(b)Evil youths would harm Socrates

(c)No rational person would intentionally harm him/herself

(d)Socrates is rational

(e)So either

(i)Socrates did not corrupt the youth

(ii)He did so only unintentionally

(f)If Socrates did not corrupt the youth he should not be punished

(g)If he unintentionally corrupted the youths he should be educated but not punished

(h)Hence, in either case, Socrates should not be punished

(4)The Socratic Paradox reveals something about Plato’s conception of rationality: A rational person will, of necessity, always do what he/she judges to be the best; a rational person cannot knowingly do wrong

(5)Generalized Socratic Paradox

(a)Rational persons act deliberately

(b)Deliberation = the use of reason to select what is judged to be the best alternative action

(c)So, rational persons always do what seems best

(d)Hence, they never intentionally do what they think is wrong

(e)Therefore, rational agents should never be punished for wrongdoing. At worst, they should be taught what is right or best. For once they know this, they will inevitably do what is right or best

(6)Consequence of the Socratic Paradox

(a)The unexamined life is not worth living

(i)The examined life is the life of a rational person who undertakes to know what is generally good and valuable in life. Only such a person may come to know what is best to do or how to live so as to optimize what is valuable in life.

(ii)The unexamined life, by contrast, is one in which a person does not attempt to know what is generally good and valuable in life. Such a person cannot rely on deliberation to guide life. So, rationality is wasted in such a person. In this case, the person cannot hope to have a good or rewarding life. Such a life, the unexamined life, is not worth living.

viii)Crito

(1)Should Socrates flee prison in order to escape his unjust condemnation?

(2)Crito’s reasons for escape

(a)The majority will think ill of Socrates and his friends if he does not escape

(b)Since the court erred, it should not be obeyed

(c)The welfare of the children of Socrates requires his escape

(d)Death is an evil to be avoided

(3)Socrates’ Replies

(a)The majority opinion is important only if it is correct or true. So, the question is simply whether escape would be right, not whether someone happens to think it is right.

(i)Relativism

  1. Relativism is the doctrine that truth is simply a matter of belief, that a proposition is true if and only if it is believed by some designated set of people.
  2. Contrast relativism about: art, morality, mathematics, science
  3. In the Crito, Socrates assumes that relativism about morality is false. Why?
  4. The fact of final and deep disagreement about moral questions is evidence for the objectivity of morals
  5. The fact that it is possible reasonable to disagree with the ‘moral majority’ demonstrates that morality is not defined by the opinion of the moral majority
  6. If morality is determined by the conditions for human happiness or well-being, then since that is not determined by the opinion of the ‘moral majority’, relativism is false
  7. If relativism were true, then what the Nazis did was right (for them). But this is contrary to fact. So, relativism is false.

(ii)Given Socrates’ rejection of relativism, he concludes that he should flee only if flight is right. So, what might make it right?

  1. Welfare of Socrates’ children? No: it is better for them to remain in Athens than suffer exile
  2. Is death an evil to be avoided? It is uncertain whether death is an evil. Perhaps it is an advantage to the soul, if there is one
  3. Does the court’s error in convicting Socrates make it right for him to escape?
  4. No: to escape would harm the state
  5. It can’t be right to answer a harm (erroneous conviction) with a harm (given the Socratic paradox)
  6. So, escape is not right

(b)Socrates’ obligation to accept execution

(i)Socrates has promised to abide by the laws of Athens

(ii)This promise is not qualified to obey only the correct laws or only the correctly enforced laws

(iii)Socrates recognized in his promise that he ran the risk of bad laws and badly enforced laws

(iv)So, since promising imposes obligation, Socrates is obliged to accept execution

(c)Question: Does every promise result in an obligation? What of a promise to break a (moral) law? Certainly such a promise does not produce an obligation.

(i)But, Socrates’ situation is more complex. He is in a moral dilemma. His alternatives both involve doing something wrong in order to do something right.

(ii)So, he can’t avoid doing something wrong

(iii)Hence, he must select the alternative that is the better balance of good over evil

  1. Socrates thinks that the balance favors respecting his promise to follow the laws of Athens. His reason is that unless citizens conform to laws, society is itself impossible
  2. Creatures must live in society
  3. So, since Socrates is rational, he infers that he must obey the laws and accept execution

ix)Phaedo

(1)The execution of Socrates is an opportunity for a discussion of the nature of the soul

(2)Plato’s thesis: a person = his/her soul

(a)Soul is distinct from body

(b)Soul is immaterial; body is material

(c)Soul is cognitive and affective; body is non-cognitive and non-affective

(d)Soul can be separated from body while remaining cognitive

(e)Soul is immortal; body is mortal

(f)Soul is the seat of knowledge; body is the conduit of sensation

(g)Soul is naturally inclined to pursue what is good and valuable; body can draw the soul away from the good towards what is not good

(h)So, death of body is an advantage to the soul

(3)Arguments for immortality

(a)The argument from recurrent opposites

(i)Everything comes to be from its opposite

(ii)Being alive and being dead are opposites

(iii)So, being alive comes from being dead and conversely

(iv)This cycle from life to death must be eternal or otherwise there would be no life now

(v)So, life is eternal

(b)Objections

(i)The principle that everything comes to be from its opposite is dubious

(ii)The premise that the life/death cycle is eternal is not established

(iii)In any case, the argument does not address the question of personal immortality

(c)Argument from recollection

(i)In sensation we know only the particular: e.g. in sensing two approximately equal sticks, we sense the particular sticks but not equality in general

(ii)Sensing the equal sticks may make us think of or enable our understanding of equality in general

(iii)The only way that sensing could enable understanding of what is fully general is if sensing is a mnemonic cue for something known independent of and prior to sensation

(iv)This knowledge of the fully general must therefore exist in us before the possibility of sensation, i.e. before birth

(v)Hence, we must exist before the birth of the body

(vi)If we exist before the birth of the body, then we can exist without our bodies

(vii)Since we are identified with our souls, our souls exist before and independently of our bodies

(viii)Hence, death of the body does not imply death of the soul

(ix)This does not prove immortality of the soul, but it does aim to prove that death is not in itself a reason for thinking the soul to be mortal

(d)Objection: the crucial premise is that the only way that sensing could enable understanding of what is fully general is if sensing is a mnemonic cue for something known independent of an prior to sensation. But what compelling argument demonstrates this point? (See the Meno)

(4)Argument from simplicity

(a)What is simple cannot be destroyed and is therefore immortal

(b)The soul is simple because

(i)It is non-sensible and as such is likely simple

(ii)The soul is that which has knowledge of what is simple and indestructible (i.e. forms). So, it is likely similar to the simple and indestructible

(5)Objections

(a)The concept of simplicity is undefined. Numbers are non-sensible. But they seem composite in the sense that, for example, 4=3+1

(b)So, it is unclear that the non-sensible must be simple

(c)We are offered no reason to suppose that the knower must be similar to the known with respect to simplicity. So, even if the soul knows what is simple, it remains open whether the soul is simple. Also notice that the soul does know what appears to be complex (e.g. the soul can know that a cake is composed of many ingredients). Would this knowledge make the soul complex?

(6)Arguments from the soul’s essence

(a)By definition the soul is alive (just as by definition the number three is odd)

(b)What is true by definition cannot be otherwise

(c)So, the soul cannot be other than alive

(d)Hence, the soul is immortal

(7)Objection: by definition, green shirts are green. However, from that it does not follow that any green shirts exist. So even if it is true by definition that the soul is alive, it does not follow that the soul exists (after the death of the body).

x)The Complex Soul of the Republic

(1)Argument for the tripartite soul

(a)Nothing can be in incompatible states at once

(b)The soul displays apparently incompatible states:

(i)Inclination/disinclination to drink water known to be poisoned

(ii)Best explained by positing that the soul has at least two parts, reason and desire, each with only compatible states

(iii)Apparent incompatibility of self-reprimand and desire on the one hand and the possible separation of courage and reason best explained by positing a third part of soul = spirited part

(c)Conclusion: parts of the soul

(i)Reason

(ii)Spirit

(iii)Desire

(d)How does the tripartite soul of the Republic compare to the simple soul of the Phaedo?

(2)Health of the Soul

(a)Given the division of soul into parts, how should these parts optimally interact?

(b)Reason as ruler of the other parts

(c)Nature of soul = seek knowledge

(d)Happiness = a well-ordered soul = a soul ruled by reason in pursuit of knowledge

xi)Forms

(1)Principle of the one over many: if two or more things are similar with respect to R, then R itself must exist as distinct from the similar things themselves

(2)E.g. if Daffy and Donald are similar with respect to ‘being a duck’, then ‘being a duck’ itself exists as distinct from Daffy and Donald

(3)E.g. if Oscar and Matilda are both good, then being good (goodness itself) exists as distinct from Oscar and Matilda

(4)Form = that which makes numerically different individual objects similar and that which is known in correct judgments of similarity

(5)Characteristics of forms

(a)Necessary existents

(b)Abstract

(c)Not sensible

(d)Separated realm

(e)Objects of non-empirical knowledge/definition

(f)Immutable

(g)Eternal

(h)Determine individual concrete objects

(i)Hierarchically ordered

(j)Superior in being and value to sensible objects

(k)The natural objects of desire and source of true happiness for rational beings

(6)Examples of forms

(a)Moral forms: justice, courage, temperance

(b)Non-moral forms: equality, humanity, liquidity, solidity, felinity, animality

xii)Significance of Republic’s metaphor of the cave and divided line of objects and cognition

OBJECTS

/

COGNITION

Forms and Numbers / Knowledge and Thinking
Sensible Things and Images of Sensible Things / Belief and Imagination

xiii)Cave Metaphor

(1)Inside cave

(a)Original perspective – fire and shadows

(b)Improved perspective – fire and artifacts

(2)Outside cave: sun, natural objects

xiv)The Meno

(1)Knowledge = recollection

(2)What is knowledge? Certainty about the universal and necessary

(3)Sensation cannot provide certainty about the universal and necessary

(4)Such knowledge cannot be learned:

(a)To learn about the universal and necessary is to learn about forms

(b)To learn about a form one first be ignorant of the form

(c)To learn a form one must have an idea or representation of the form in the mind and already know that the representation matches the form

(d)But this presupposes knowledge of the form, which contradicts the presumed ignorance of the form

(e)Hence learning forms is impossible

(f)Example of the slave boy

(5)Theorem: double the area of a square = the diagonal squared

(a)2(ABCD) = (BD)2

(b)

(c)AEFG = 4(ABCE), ½(AEFG) = 2(ABCD), ½(AEFG) = BHID = 2(ABCD), Area of BHID = (BD)2 = 2(ABCD)

(d)

(6)Significance of slave boy example: attempt to show that knowledge of forms/the universal and necessary is recollected or innate rather than learned

3)Aristotle Lectures

4)Background

a)Greek philosopher 354-322 BC

b)Plato’s student

c)Tutor of Alexander

d)Rejected Plato’s theory of forms

e)Rejected Plato’s theory of knowledge

5)Central Ideas in Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Epistemology

a)Matter and form

b)Substance

c)Substantial forms

d)Accidental forms

e)Universals

f)Soul as form of body

g)Knowledge = informed soul

h)Unmoved mover

6)Matter and Form

a)Matter: the source of potentiality in objects capable of change

i)Matter is that which can be anything but which is itself nothing

ii)All physical objects include matter

iii)When physical objects persist through change their matter remains

iv)Matter exists only in physical, sensible objects; matter cannot exist isolation

b)Form

i)Aristotle holds that forms exist as that which determines the qualities, properties and relations that objects have

ii)Forms ordinarily exist only in (physical) objects

iii)Forms is what is knowable

iv)Forms are universals: forms can exist in many different objects in many different places at once

7)Substance

a)Definitions

i)That which is the subject of predication (Socrates is the object of predication in the sentence ‘Socrates is tall’)

ii)That which persists through change (Socrates is that which persists through change of stature from short to tall)

b)Hence, individual objects are (primary) substances for Aristotle

c)Composite substances: physical objects are substances consisting of matter and form

i)Such substances can change only because they contain matter

ii)Such substances owe their qualities, properties and relations to their forms

d)Substantial form: the substantial form of a substance is that form which determines the kind or species into which the substance falls (e.g. the substantial form of Socrates is the form of rational animality since that form determines that Socrates is the kind of thing that he is: a human being). Essence = substantial form according to Aristotle.

e)Accidental form: any non-substantial form in a substance (Socrates has a snub nose. So, he has the form of being snub-nosed. That form is an accidental form in Socrates because it does not determine his kind or species)