I should perhaps begin with what I believe to be the core problem of philosophical history--namely, the issue of epistemology (how we come to know anything). There are some foundational terms to know as we begin this investigation.
1. Rationalism: The view that we come to know the world from the "mind down," so to speak. All understanding of the world begins with certain permanent features of the mind, such as logical principles, mathematical principles, even moral principles. We bring these ideas, as it were, with us as we begin our investigation of our sense experiences.
2. Empiricism: The view that we come to know the world from our "experiences up," so to speak. The various empiricists believe that we begin our search for understanding with the five senses. Some acknowledge that we must know some things without need for experience, such as principles of logic, but a faithful empiricist greatly restricts the amount of knowledge we possess prior to our experiences. Almost all will acknowledge that there is some content within our "noetic" (mind) structure. For example, no empiricist can seriously mean that we learn empiricism from sense experiences; it is a philosophy we employ to interpret them. But of course the philosophy we use to interpret sense experiences was not learned from those experiences.
3. Realism: Realism involves the view that there are mind-independent entities that exist. As it applies to people, the realist would say that there is such a thing as the "ideal man," a pattern of optimal ethical living. This pattern is not any one man. It is something that is, in a sense, independent from any man or group of men, and judges all by its standard of perfection. In science, we might say that a man is "more than the sum of his parts," meaning that his identity--or soul--is independent of the cellular composition of his body.
4. Nominalism: The unqualified rejection of realism. It is systematized by a philosopher called Ockam. Essentially it is the belief that there are no mind independent realities. The mind merely furnishes "names" for its regular experiences. We use the name "mankind" to identify those that share certain attributes, but they are nothing more than the collection of those attributes. As such, there is no objective pattern of "ideal humanity." There is only this man and that man in their unique environs. Perhaps human beings are nothing more than a collection of biological functions or parts. Perhaps you are nothing more than a collection of individual experiences captured in your memory. Perhaps you have no independent soul outside your experiences or your body. That is nominalism.
5. A Priori knowledge: Think of a prior knowledge as "knowledge prior" to experiences. Of course the great controversy in philosophical history is, "how much do we know a priori?" How one answers this question determines whether a philosopher is a rationalist or an empiricist. I should note here that any willingness to acknowledge some truths a priori opens the door for the consideration of other possibilities. For example, the atheist is willing to acknowledge that we just know about principles of logic. They are, in that sense, discovered rationally and not scientifically. We look inward and simply find these principles "hard-wired" into us. At least most atheists will grant this. They are not things we find anywhere in the world through the gate of the five senses, but we can't make sense of anything we find through the senses without them. Now our question as Christians is a simple one: Perhaps God is also a feature of our a priori knowledge. And how would one adjudicate such a question? The philosopher Alvin Plantinga has used the terms "noetic structure" and "properly basic belief" to convey this idea. In other words, perhaps the knowledge of God is a central aspect to the way the mind is built. If such knowledge of God exists as a permanent feature of the mind, it will be a "properly basic belief" by which we understand everything else. Or, in the words of Lewis, "I believe in God not because I can see Him, but because I cannot see anything except by Him." In ethics, we might ask, "do we know about moral law before our experiences or as a result of our experiences?" A rationalist would say that such knowledge is a feature of our a priori knowledge--namely, we evaluate our experiences given this intuitive awareness of what is right.
6. A Posteriori knowledge: Think of a posteriori knowledge as "knowledge after" experiences. Another way to understand this knowledge is to think of it as scientific knowledge. Some philosophers would note that most of our knowledge comes this way. Some have even been Christians, emphasizing what God has done in history to teach us. In ethics, a philosopher committed to nominalism might say that our sense of what is right is merely a result of individual instances of training or experience. Conscience is not separate from experiences; it is fashioned by experiences. This is why so many in our day are changing their position on gay marriage. They are uncritical nominalists in ethics. Ethics, to them, is a matter of group training. And why can we not simply retrain ourselves? And now to a brief tour of the central figures in philosophy, paying special attention to their contributions in ethics: Socrates: The Oracle at Delphi informed Socrates that he was the wisest man ever, and the reason for this great compliment was that Socrates knew his own ignorance well. Socrates claimed he knew nothing, and because of this he was wise indeed. In the story of Socrates, it becomes clear that humility and wisdom are the core virtues of life. Socrates demonstrates them while others do not, particularly those responsible for Socrates' death. It seems as though Plato believes that the men who killed Socrates were lesser men who had to kill Socrates for no other reason than the affront to their egos. They simply couldn't handle someone out-arguing them, and so one of the official charges against Socrates was, "making the weaker argument the stronger." In the end he was forced to drink Hemlock poison, ending his life. Socrates didn't write anything, and so what we know about him was set forth by his star pupil, Plato. But what we discern about his contributions in philosophy are significant. First, Socrates contributed a procedure for discovering the truth known as the Dialectic Method. Essentially the dialectic is a kind of intense discussion to draw out the implications of various ideas. It was not really intended to be a debate format (conceived as a contest), but rather a kind of cooperation in discovery. It would usually take the form of a series of questions and follow-up questions. For example, Socrates might start with, "What is piety?" Someone would answer, "It is the love of the gods." And then Socrates might follow-up with, "And can we love the gods if they do things we think wrong?" And so on... Second, Socrates developed a form of dialectic known as the "reductio ad absurdum" method. Essentially the reductio method involves reducing an argument to its essentials: either it's essential premises or it's utmost conclusion. In the process, it becomes clear that many arguments are built on, or proceed towards, faulty ideas. Of course this method of inquiry into the truth of things can be frustrating to many, since errors in logic are exposed rather mercilessly. It seems as though Socrates lost his life because he was so relentless in the reductio method. Plato: Plato is the star pupil of Socrates. It would perhaps take too long to detail his myriad contributions in philosophy. It will have to suffice for our present purpose to outline his metaphysics (his view of reality) and his ethics (his system of justice or right conduct), which will in the end be our procedure with the rest of the philosophers to be discussed here
Which leads us to Plato's ethics: Plato was an objectivist and a rationalist in ethics. He believed that there was an ideal man and an ideal society. The ideal man is one whose appetites (physical desires), spirit and reason are in proper harmony. If one's spirit should come to control him, then imbalance would exist and one would perhaps become a egomaniac. If one's desires were to become dominant, then one would act like lower animals. If reason were to become dominant to the exclusion of the other two, then he would perhaps become a cold and calculating man without any sense of love towards his fellow man.
In the realm of ethics, Plato would affirm that through the dialectic process, we can arrive at our ideal and optimal functioning as human beings. We are to be guided into that experience by those with the vision to see such things (the Philosopher-Kings).
We might critique Plato along epistemological lines. The dialectic process leads to a variety of conclusions with respect to human behavior and the ideal society. Clearly thinking people are going to be in disagreement about how things should be done in society. How do we know that Plato is right in claiming that a communistic government run by philosopher-kings is going to be better than Aristotle's golden mean philosophy, for example? If subjective dialectics is the only epistemology, it seems to me that Platonism is hopelessly destined to collapse into relativism.
Aristotle:
Aristotle was Plato's star pupil, and rather seriously departed from the teaching of his master, claiming at one point that, "Piety compels me to honor truth above my friends."
Aristotle's metaphysics: As the father of science, Aristotle is often categorized as an empiricist, though he still believed in the forms. He merely believed that the forms were synonymous with something he called "entelechy," or at least this is how it sounds to me. Entelechy basically means "intelligence within" various things. Everything has its purpose within it. The purpose of an acorn is to form an oak tree, but that reality or form is not an "external" phenomenon. It is intrinsic to the acorn, and then to the tree. Thus he believed that the way to arrive at the forms was to study the world--that is, to be a good observer of things. The more you study something, the more its purpose will become clear, and thus its form would emerge.
Plato's metaphysics can best be described simply as dualistic. He believed there was a spiritual dimension and a physical dimension. He maintained that the spiritual was more real than the physical, and that through the practice of dialectical reflection (meditation and discussion), one could access unchanging, resplendent principles that apply to all of life. For example, Plato would say that it is far more important that one should come to think deeply and rightly about unchanging realities like truth, beauty and piety than it is to merely have a physically comfortable life.
Which leads us to Plato's ethics: Plato was an objectivist and a rationalist in ethics. He believed that there was an ideal man and an ideal society. The ideal man is one whose appetites (physical desires), spirit and reason are in proper harmony. If one's spirit should come to control him, then imbalance would exist and one would perhaps become a egomaniac. If one's desires were to become dominant, then one would act like lower animals. If reason were to become dominant to the exclusion of the other two, then he would perhaps become a cold and calculating man without any sense of love towards his fellow man.
In the realm of ethics, Plato would affirm that through the dialectic process, we can arrive at our ideal and optimal functioning as human beings. We are to be guided into that experience by those with the vision to see such things (the Philosopher-Kings).
We might critique Plato along epistemological lines. The dialectic process leads to a variety of conclusions with respect to human behavior and the ideal society. Clearly thinking people are going to be in disagreement about how things should be done in society. How do we know that Plato is right in claiming that a communistic government run by philosopher-kings is going to be better than Aristotle's golden mean philosophy, for example? If subjective dialectics is the only epistemology, it seems to me that Platonism is hopelessly destined to collapse into relativism.
Aristotle:
Aristotle was Plato's star pupil, and rather seriously departed from the teaching of his master, claiming at one point that, "Piety compels me to honor truth above my friends."
Aristotle's metaphysics: As the father of science, Aristotle is often categorized as an empiricist, though he still believed in the forms. He merely believed that the forms were synonymous with something he called "entelechy," or at least this is how it sounds to me. Entelechy basically means "intelligence within" various things. Everything has its purpose within it. The purpose of an acorn is to form an oak tree, but that reality or form is not an "external" phenomenon. It is intrinsic to the acorn, and then to the tree. Thus he believed that the way to arrive at the forms was to study the world--that is, to be a good observer of things. The more you study something, the more its purpose will become clear, and thus its form would emerge.
No comments:
Post a Comment