What is Human Nature?
The traditional view of human nature asks us to make the assumption that
all human beings have a soul or as some call it, a self.
Self: the individual person; the ego; the knower; that which persists
through changes in a person.
The self is tied to the perception that all human life has a unique
individual destiny, and that our self is different from our physical
aspects. Our body is purely material, needing only material needs, where our
self is separate; a spiritual or nonmaterial entity. We can call this view,
“the traditional western view of human nature”.
There are two different versions of the traditional view
The traditional rationalist view & The traditional western religious view
The Traditional Rationalist View
- The rationalist view has inspired many western thinkers and philosophers.
- We view the human race as a thinker that is capable of reason.
- Plato stated that the human self was defined by three controlling
attributes: Reason, Aggression & Appetite
Appetite
- A part of the human self that is plagued with desire.
- Plato claimed it was located in the abdomen
- Craves physical delights such as wealth, hunger, thirst and sexual desires.
Aggression
- The aggressiveness or self-assertiveness part of the human self.
- According to Plato, aggression resides in the chest
- Is displayed in war, anger and in those who desire power.
Reason
- The uniquely human capacity for thinking reflectively and drawing
conclusions; it si the ability to follow relationships from one thought to
another in an orderly and correct way.
- Resides in the brain and is the most important part of human nature, and
represents those who desire knowledge. The one true element of human nature
that dominates is reason. Aggression and appetite have no knowledge how to
order or control themselves, and therefore must be taken under control of
reason. The goal of human nature is to allow reason to take control of
appetite and aggression to discover the truth on how life should be lived.
Only reason can comprehend these truths, and without reason in control, the
self cannot come to realization on that truth. If one continues to allow
appetite and aggression to freely feed their needs, total control would be
lost in time. People can then become slaves to those appetites and
aggressions.
The Traditional Western Religious Views of Human Nature
The western religious view of human nature encourages the tradition that
humans are made in the image of God. We are classified as divine beings
because we contain the ability to love and worship God. Since God gives this
love, it is divine, and so allows humans to share in divinity.
The two traditional views are much alike, even so that some of the
Rationalist views were assimilated into the religious views. Such as the
belief that the human self is a rational self, an immaterial soul that is
conscious and that can think. But it is with the help and love of God that
the self can overcome appetite and aggression. Also, the thought that the
self is immaterial and immortal has given means to the religious views of
afterlives and the notion that ones soul can live on forever with God.
The religious views also promote the idea of a moral self. This method of
moral self states that each of us is capable of great good, but also great
evil. Refusing to serve and love God is the greatest evil, such as
injustice, vanity, pride and dishonesty. When ever we commit offences
against God, we lose touch with ourselves by dehorning our alliance with
God.
Will: The ability to choose between good and evil
It is said that humans have both reason and will. To know the truth about
God and choose to love that God
Challenging Tradition, Existentialism - Darwin and Sartre
· Darwin proposed 2 key ideas:
1.) Plants and animals sometimes give birth to offspring with slight
variations from themselves. These slightly altered offspring can pass this
variation onto their offspring. Darwin argued that these variations happen
randomly and by chance.
2.) Animals are constantly in a struggle to exist. They are always straining
to stay alive. The organism with an advantageous variation has a better
chance at survival than one without this variation, or one with an
unfavorable difference. The stronger and better equipped for the struggle
will continue life and create numerous improved offspring. The weak die, and
no longer pass on their characteristics.
* As more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must
in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with
another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or
with thephysical conditions of life. (Darwin 91)
· Natural selection: preserving favourable individual differences and
variations, and destroying those which are injurious, i.e. Survival of the
Fittest (Darwin)
· Evolution: change in the genetic composition during successive
generations, as a result of natural selection, and resulting in the
development of new species.
Ex. Pg 93 The lobe fish over millions of years may have evolved into
amphibians, than to dinosaurs, and then to birds.
· Over time, one species could completely evolve into another. The
thought that the world is ever changing shook many people from their thought
of a comfortable static environment.
· Darwin declared only arrogance gave way to the opinion that human
beings were formed in God’s image.
· Traditional View
-although humans are animals, we have a unique characteristic
-ability to reason makes us unique
-makes us God like
-it is not just a more developed version of an animal ability
-we were made for a purpose
Darwinian View
- evolved from lower animals therefore ability to reason is an evolved
animal ability
- humans aren’t made in God’s image but ape like
- have no purpose, just a chance happening in the evolutionary tree
Does Darwin disprove the Traditional theory?
Darwin Criticisms
- main evidence are fossils
- Darwin said the fossils, chronologically, show gradual change
- Critics say, when fossils studied, they show sudden appearances of species
- the gradual steps are missing, but that could be b/c they haven’t been
found yet; the sudden jumps or appearance could be how evolution happens
- Opponents say it’s a mistake to assume the theory of evolution wipes
out the possibility that humans have a purpose.
2 ways to understand evolution:
1.) Naturalistic: completely explainable using natural law with no divine
intervention
2.) Theistic: divine direction and intent at every crucial stage of the
evolution in accordance with the divine plan; Was the theistic view a
legitimate opinion, or a way to embrace modern science, while not having to
question one’s religious foundation?
Existentialism
Existentialism: a twentieth century philosophy that denies any
essential human nature; each of us creates our own essence through free
action, we are whatever we make of ourselves
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 – 1980), chief thinker on atheistic existentialism
· “Man is nothing at birth and throughout his life he is no more than
the sum of his past commitments.” (Sartre, Blupete)
· As humans we are “condemned to be free” (Sartre 96) b/c we can’t rely
on God who doesn’t exist or society to justify our actions. We must suffer
the agony our decision making gives us.
· Human condition à we are free
· Believes emotions are choices we make on how we want to view the world
· We constantly want to escape the anguish from being responsible for
ourselves. We pretend that it’s our environment or genetics that makes us
what we are. When we try to be passive rather than active, we are acting
in “bad faith”
- Self-deception = bad faith
·An example: a “cafe waiter who is doing his job just a little too
keenly; he is obviously 'acting the part'. If there is bad faith here, it is
that he is trying to identify himself completely with the role of waiter, to
pretend that this particular role determines his every action and attitude.
Whereas the truth is that he has chosen to take on the job, and is free to
give it up at any time. He is not essentially a waiter, for no man is
essentially anything." (Sartre, Blupete)
· Since we have no human nature, we cannot be defined until we define
ourselves, therefore we have no plotted out purpose; we simply exist, much
like Darwin’s simple existence according to evolution; a human is
essentially nothing
· radical responsibility that we are completely accountable for our
nature and purpose
· inability to blame others for our faults is the basis for our
feelings of guilt, fear, and loneliness; also basis for our uncertainties
concerning death, where we confront the meaninglessness of our existence
· Is it comforting or disturbing to think you are completely in control
of your own destiny?
What Is Human Nature? The Feminist Challenge Pages 99-104
· Traditional human nature is sexist; Plato believes that:
a. The mind rules the body
b. The soul resembles the divine and is immortal, intellectual, uniform,
indissoluble, unchangeable, reasonable and pure
c. The body represents the mortal and is multiform, dissoluble,
changeable, impure, irrational and emotional
d. The soul is wholesome, however it can be corrupted by the body
because of the soul’s fascination with the physical world; the soul then
becomes impure; therefore the pure soul must turn the impure body away from
its “desires and pleasures”; Soul/reason are superior and body/desires are
secondary and should obey
Aristotle claims that:
a. Males are associated with soul/reason and are therefore superior to
females, who are associated with body/desires
b. Reasoning/Rationality (male) is the key to attaining truth, knowledge
and eternal salvation; Women lack this reasoning, which makes them less human
c. Women are driven by their emotions. These female appetites/emotions
interfere with reasoning; therefore, women need men to rule over them.
This Rationalist view is sexist and was used as an excuse to justify the
oppression of women. Genevieve Lloyd, a feminist philosopher, believes:
a. Femininity has been created by male standards
b. That activities/concerns associated with females have been downgraded
since only male activities/concerns are taken seriously
c. Females have had to adapt to a male world, therefore their
characteristics have been infused with male traits
d. Women have just as much reason as men, however an assumption is being
made that reason is in fact superior.
How Do Mind and Body Relate? Pages 104-105
Body is an eternal entity; The mind is an immaterial substance; it is based
on consciousness which can only be experienced by the person to whose body
it belongs; therefore I am only aware of my own consciousness, but can not
be aware of someone else’s
· Human beings consist of both body and mind, the mental and physical,
the immaterial and the material
· Our mind’s thoughts/desires have an effect on how our body behaves;
our bodies are also able to affect the mind
· This duality of the human being has puzzled many. Some believe that
humans consist of two separate things; mind and body. However, others,
mainly scientists, believe that we only consist of bodies and that our mind
is simply a property of the body’s brain
The Dualist View of Human Nature - Pages 105-108
· Descartes, a dualist believes about the mind that:
a. We can conceive of ourselves as existing without a body
b. Therefore self and body must be separate; self mustn’t be part of the body
a. One cannot think of themselves without thinking
b. Therefore, thinking is an important part of the essence of self
Descartes believes that the body:
a. is confined to a certain shape
b. is perceived by the senses
c. is moved by something other than the body
Therefore, a human is comprised of two things: the immaterial,
conscious mind and the material, unconscious body. This is called dualism.
BUT!! If the mind is immaterial and not part of the physical world where
the material body resides, how is it that the mind affects the body?
Here are three philosopher’s theories:
a. Descartes: Mind/Body interact, possibly through the Pineal Gland near
the brain. b. Leibniz: Mind/Body seem to interact, yet operate
independently of each other c. Malebranche: God synchronizes the body and
the mind
Modern Feminism “The Problem With Today’s Feminism”
· Seems to empower women to be equals of men, however, teaches women to
be dependant on men and government under the false pretences that women have
their own rights
· Feminists of the past have gained the right to vote (Suffrage
Movement), have torn down barriers by taking predominately male jobs and
have changed the way that society views women; they now feel as if there is
nothing else to accomplish and have turned to advocating certain issues to
bring men down. These issues include:
a. Abortion
b. Domestic Violence
c. Affirmative Action
· Alexander believes that this proves that: “it is based on the premise
that women are not as capable as men and need extra help from the government
in order to get ahead of –not just equal to- men.”
· This seems to create a ‘new’ woman, who thinks of herself as a
victim, chooses to underachieve, uses the government to give herself
artificial advantages over men and remains economically dependant on men
· FEMINISTS DO NOT REPRESENT THE THOUGHTS OF WOMEN AS A WHOLE
Feminism/Mind and Body/Dualism Questions - Page 104 #7
1) Do you agree with Aristotle’s reasoning when he states that men are
superior to women? Do you think that it would be just in today’s society to
come to the same conclusion that Aristotle came to long ago? Why or why not?
2) Why does Genevieve Lloyd believe that women have had to adapt
themselves in today’s world?
3) How does Descartes differentiate between mind and body?
4) Summarize the three dualists’ thoughts on the interaction of body and
mind. Which do you agree with? Why?
The Materialist View of Human Nature
Materialists believe that activities we attribute to the mind are really
that of the material body.
Materialist Thomas Hobbes thought that we can explain human activities as
like those of a machine. As he stated “What is the heart but a spring and
the nerves, but so many strings and the joints, but so many wheels, giving
motion to the whole body.”
Materialism in plain form is that the mind is nothing more then a
physical
material thing that can be broken down and explained. There is no greater
purpose for us. We just are.
The materialist point of view of the brain and how you feel or the self,
is that everything can be explained, everything can all be related back to
the function of the brain and how it responds to material things.
Materialists believe that everything is physical.
Hobbes decided that a scientific view of the universe required accepting
as real only what we can observe and measure.
Hobbes decided that a scientific view of the universe required accepting
as
real, only what we can observe and measure. “The Universe that is the whole
mass of things that are, is corporeal, that is to say body; it has the
dimensions of magnitude, namely length, breadth, and depth… and that which
is
not body is not part of the Universe."
Since only material bodies exist the mind must be a material thing.
Reductionism is the idea that one kind of thing is, or can be defined as,
another kind of thing.
Ex. The northern lights. They are the northern lights, but they can be
explained because of sunspots.
Materialism explainings the thoughts and emotions you have. Even
explaining the stories of people with near death experiences. A Materialist
Joseph Hurley explains.
“Astronauts go through a gravity stimulator that tests them to see how much
they can take before they pass out. The conditions explained while going
thought this experience is very much the same as people with near death
experiences. This can be explained as when the gravity stimulator throws
them around they experience less blood to the brain. The same thing happens
when a person’s heart stops; there brain receives less blood. As people
with near death experiences they see a bright white light, to much light to
take.
Astronauts experience the same sensations.”
So the materialist point of view would prove correct, that anything can be
broken down and explained.
Materialists think science will discover that brain states are identical
to mental states. That brain states are identical
with “desiring,” “seeing,” “feeling pain,” “being happy,” and “being sad.”
That these two have a contingent relationship. I do not know when the text
book was written but scientist can already touch parts of your brain and
make you taste something that isn’t present in your mouth or make you feel
like your flying. So it has been proven to an extent that your brain is a
physical thing. So from a materialist’s point of view everything can be
explained by a physical factor and by physical observation.
The mind is nothing more then a physical material thing that can be broken
down and explained.
Behaviorist View of Human Nature
Behaviorism represents that your action and thoughts are taken place
because of the material things around you. For example on page 111 of the
textbook. “John knows what chairs are” so “when the chair is present and
given certain conditions, john will engage in specific behaviors with the
chair.” How he acts is based on the chairs characteristics. If the chair
were gold, John would act differently then if it were made of gelatin.
Behaviorism is a school of psychology that restricts the study of human
nature to what can be observed rather then to states of consciousness.
Behaviorism is used to explain interior mental processes that are not
physically observable, such as thinking, feeling, knowing, loving, hating,
desiring, and imagining. They argue that you can explain these mental
activities and mental states in term of the externally observable behaviors
with which they are associated. (Gilbert Ryle)
Behaviorism says that all feelings are external behaviors that others can
observe
Behaviorism there is no consciousness. We seem directly aware of what is
in our consciousness. We seem to know directly, in a way that others cannot
observe, what we are thinking, feeling, sensing.
Yet behaviorism says that all feelings result from external behaviors that
others can observe.
So this is saying others know that something makes you happy before you
do. Is that not in some way wrong?
Behaviorism inspired a famous joke “It was great for you. How was it for
me?” When the first behaviorist says this too the second after making love.
The fault with behaviorism is that it restricts its self to the outer
behaviors. In doing so it seems to leave out the inner conscious states
that cause behavior.
Functionalism
What is Functionalism? Functionalism is one of the major proposals that have
been offered as solutions to the mind/body problem. Solutions to the
mind/body problem usually try to answer questions such as: What is the
ultimate nature of the mental? At the most general level, what makes a
mental state mental? Or more specifically, What do thoughts have in common
in vrtue of which they are thoughts? That is, what makes a thought a
thought? What makes a pain a pain?
Functionalism says that mental states are constituted by their causal
relations to one another and to sensory inputs and behavioral outputs.
Functionalism is one of the major theoretical developments of Twentieth
Century analytic philosophy, and provides the conceptual underpinnings of
much work in cognitive science. Functionalism is a theory in the philosophy
of mind which, most simply, holds that mental states are functional states.
Specifically, mental states are understood by their relations to (a) their
sensory stimulation or input, (b) other inner states, and (c) their behavior
effects. The most distinctive feature of functionalism is that it implies
that human mental states are not restricted to human biological systems,
such as brains. Non-biological systems which exhibit the same functional
relationships as humans do, such as systems of computer chips, can be said
to have the same mental state. As such, mental states are not based on the
intrinsic properties of the mental state in question, such as the stuff it
is made of. The same state may be shared by things with different physical
makeups, thereby distinguishing between the role which a mental state plays,
and the occupant in which the state exists. The hardware/software
distinction, borrowed from computer science, is a useful metaphor to explain
the difference between the bodily occupant and mental event experienced.
Although functionalists associate themselves with materialistic monism (that
is, the view that only material things exist), there is a dualism lurking
beneath the surface. For, since any given mental state cannot be reduced to
the physical mechanism which produces it (whether neurological or silicon-
based), then mental states must be something more than the merely physical.
One motivation behind functionalism can be appreciated by attention to
artifact concepts like carburetor and biological concepts like kidney. What
it is for something to be a carburetor is for it to mix fuel and air in an
internal combustion engine--carburetor is a functional concept. In the case
of the kidney, the scientific concept is functional--defined in terms of a
role in filtering the blood and maintaining certain chemical balances.
According to functionalism, the nature of a mental state is just like the
nature of an automaton state: constituted by its relations to other states
and to inputs and outputs. According to functionalism, all there is to being
in pain is that it disposes you to say ‘‘ouch'', wonder whether you are ill,
it distracts you, etc.
Functionalism may be contrasted both to behaviorism and identity theory in
its account of mental events. Behaviorism defines mental events solely in
relation to sensory input and behavioral output. Unfortunately, this
includes any input/output device, such as a mousetrap, to which we would not
want to attribute mental states. However, in addition to input and output
relations, functionalism also acknowledges causal relations with other
internal mental states, which mousetraps do not exhibit (such as the mental
state of worry).
Identity theory restricts mental events to brain activity. Functionalism, by
contrast, acknowledges that mental events may be instantiated in systems or
machines other than brains.
There are several different types of functionalism, each based on different
models; these include Turing machine functionalism, causal theory of mind,
and teleological (homuncular) functionalism. Turing machine functionalism,
proposed by Hilary Putnam, uses as its model a special theoretical
mechanical device (the Turing machine). Most succinctly, the machine (a)
receives input, (b) carries out the instructions of the input program, (c)
changes its internal state, and (d) produces an appropriate output based on
the input and instructions. A pop machine, for example, shows these features
insofar as it has instructions on various acceptable inputs with various
associated behavioral outputs. Based on this model, Putnam argues that
humans are probablistic automatons.
A second type of functionalism, defended by David Armstrong and David Lewis,
involves a causal theory of mind. Mental states are defined by a common
sense understanding of the situations in which they appear and the behavior
that i elicited. In his essay "Mad Pain and Martian Pain", Lewis
hypothesizes about two kinds of beings which experience pain differently
than normal humans. In the case of mad pain, the subject experiences pain
when doing moderate exercise on an empty stomach; further it improves his
concentration for mathematical reasoning. Martian pain, by contrast, takes
place in a Martain organism constructed of hydrolic hardware rather than
neurons. Lewis'íís point is that pain is associated only contingently with
either its causes (as in mad pain) or its physical realization (as in
Martian pain). We cannot specify a priori its causal role or physical
realization. A third type of functionalism, associated with William G. Lycan
and Daniel Dennett, breaks mental states down into a hierarchy resembling
that of a large corporation. This includes cooperating units, sub-units, sub-
sub-units, and so on, until a neurological level is reached which simply
reduces to a series of on-off switches. On this view, the pattern of on-off
switches can be instantiated in a variety of non-biological mechanisms, such
as computers.
The main problem with all types of functionalism is that they approach
mental states in a purely relational way. One criticism focuses on a
hypothetical situation in which someone perceives an inverted light
spectrum. For example, person A perceives red when person B perceives green.
Although they both function precisely the same with regard to input, related
internal states, and behavior, they clearly have different qualitative
mental states (qualia).
However, a functionalist might reply to this charge maintaining that what is
central to functionalism is how people discriminate between colors, not
their qualia. A second criticism of functionalism hypothesizes that if we
could create an android which is functionally the same as a human, but lacks
qualia, then functionalism would be incomplete or false. To this the
functionalist might respond that we should be able to make an android out of
some physical stuff which has qualia (since its type of constituent physical
stuff should not make a difference). A third criticism is that functionalism
is too narrow (or chauvinistic) in the kinds of things that are capable of
having mental states. Specifically, functionalism seems to be dependent on
physicalism, insofar as only physical things (biological, silicon, etc.) can
house functional mental states. This leaves out non-physical mental beings,
such as disembodied spirits.
Functionalism Handout:
- Functionalism is way if thought that believes that all humans should be
thought of as complicated computers.
- It believes that all mental states are functional states and that every
that has to do with the body is material. It also does not believe in the
idea of consciousness.
- It implies that human mental states are not restricted to human
biological systems, such as brains.
- One of the founders of Functionalism D. M. Armstrong believed that
mental activities and mental states, are just series of inputs and outputs.
- Like many functionalists, he believed that all conscious mental states
and activities are shorthand terms for the complex connections that the
body's brain makes between sense inputs and behavioral outputs.
- According to functionalism, the nature of a mental state is just like
the nature of an automaton state: constituted by its relations to other
states and to inputs and outputs. For example according to functionalism,
all there is to being in pain is that it disposes you to say ‘‘ouch''.
- Another founder of functionalism was Alan turning who invented the
"Turning Test."
- It attempted to prove that a machine like humans, (a) receives input,
(b) carries out the
instructions of the input program, (c) changes its internal state, and
(d) produces an appropriate output based on the input and instructions.
- The main problem with all types of functionalism is that they approach
mental states in a purely relational way.
- David J. Chalmers was a person who contested this theory by saying that
consciousness is a nonmaterial property of the world, which exists within a
material body.
- American philosopher John Serle also disapproved the usefulness of the
"Turning Test."
- If Functionalism were correct it would mean that the mind is a physical
thing, and we are not immaterial. This means that we are not unique and
therefor there is no spiritual realm. Also we do not have souls and we die
with our bodies.
Is There an Enduring Self? pp. 118-130 - The Traditional Western View
You are today the same person you were earlier in your life. Our outward
appearance changes, but through it all, we remain the same person inside.
Humans are selves that endure through time. This is a basic part of who we
are. “We speak of an individual as being the same as long as he continues to
exist in the same form". - Diotima
Bodily Continuity: What makes us the same person today, as we were earlier
in our life, is our body. Our body changes dramatically as we age, but it
never changes completely from one day to the next. Each day, most of the
body continues to be what it was the previous day, but gradually, over time
our body changes. We don’t realize when it’s happening, so we always feel
like the same person. Perhaps what makes us the same is this bodily
continuity between each succeeding period of our life.
Problems...Having the bodily continuity view means that we could never
become totally new persons.Our ideas about life after death do not make
sense.
Apparently, what makes a person remain the same through time is not the
body. Instead, there is something “in” the body that remains the same as
the body changes.
The Soul as the Enduring Self
The Traditional Western view says that in each living human body is a soul.
The soul is “immaterial” or spiritual. The soul remains the same as the
body changes. As long the soul remains in your body,you remain the same
person. According to Descartes, the soul thinks. It is the continuity of
the soul that makes a person endure as the same person over time. If your
thinking soul/mind did not continue to be the same, then “you” would no
longer continue to exist.
Problems... How are we supposed to know that a person’s mind continues to be
the same over time? I know you are the same person today that you were
yesterday without observing your mind or soul. This seems to suggests that
it is not your soul or mind that makes you the same.
Memory - John Locke’s view:
What makes me the same person I was ten years ago is that I remember being
that person ten years ago. My memory of what happened to me in the past or
of what I did in the past is what makes me today the person I was then.
If we do not remember who we were in our earlier life, we are not the same
person we used to be.
Problems... I can’t remember everything I ever did. Does that mean that
some “other” person did those things? What about the insane person
that “remembers” that she was once Queen Victoria. Does that mean that she
must be the same person as Victoria because she has the “memory” of it?
The No-Self View:
We might have made a mistaken assumption that there is something called
the “self” that endures through time. Perhaps humans have no self. There
is no such thing as a “person” who stays the same throughout a human life.
Much of Eastern philosophy is based on this notion that an individual self
does not exist.
Eastern Philosophy:
Holds that the delusion that the self exists is the source of all pain and
suffering. “It is simply the mind clouded over by impure desires and
impervious to wisdom, that obstinately persists in thinking of ‘me’
and ‘mine.’” - Buddha
Buddhism: Central belief: all things are composite and transient.
Everything changes over time. This constant movement and change
characterizes everything, including the gods and all living things. The
self is also in constant flux. Our perceptions, thoughts, and sensations
are never the same from moment to moment. As a permanently abiding
individual entity, the self does not actually exist.According to Buddha…
Unless one grasps that everything, along with the self, is transient, one
cannot find salvation.
We should give up craving for self identity and striving for personal
success and fulfillment. Is it possible to reject the “delusion” of our
individuality?
The Individual
· Our culture says the self is independent and should be self sufficient
· However, no man is an island
· American Poet Walt Whitman talks about celebrating yourself, and
differentiation yourself from society
· Descartes says that when you separate yourself from society you can
really learn about yourself
· Taylor believes that in order to see oneself, one must see oneself in
relation to others
· Hegel uses the master/slave relationship to illustrate how we are reliant
on each other, and how the master only gets his freedom and independence
from the slave and vice versa.
Reality in Pragmatism
Pragmatism: Philosophy. From Greek word Pragma, meaning action. A movement
consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by
Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that
the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical
consequences. School of thought that tries to mediate between idealism and
materialism, views the universe as pluralistic
A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of
solving problems.
Pragmatism rejects: verbal solutions, abstraction, fixed principles,
pretended absolutes.
Pragmatism turns toward: concreteness, adequacy, action, facts.
Pragmatism suggests a confidence in the ability and power of the mind to
make the world over
- The human intellect can make its ideals a reality. Charles S. Peirce,
William James and John Dewey (important figures involved in pragmatism as a
philosophical movement) believed that people recognize a number of realities.
- Reality is what stimulates and interests us, and our interests us, and our
interests will ultimately determine what our reality is
Idealism - in metaphysics, the position that reality is ultimately nonmatter
Materialism - the metaphysical position that reality ultimately composed of
matterDebates between idealism and materialism and questions such as: Is the
world material or spiritual? Fated or free? One or many? are unending.
The Pragmatic Method
A method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be unending
- This method tries to interpret each notion by figuring out its consequence
What difference would it practically make to anyone if this notion rather
than that notion were true?
If no practical difference can be traced than the alternatives mean
practically the same thing and the dispute is pointless.
Materialism and idealism fail this test
Pragmatists believe that our mind is only a function of behavior that
develops when we learn about the things around us.
For pragmatists, thinking is coming to understand the connection between
action and consequence
Problems... If the mind is only an instrument of biological survival than
what about meditation, contemplation, music composition, philosophical
questions? When pragmatism emphasizes the mind's capacity to impose order on
an open unlimited world, does this mean that there is no natural order to
things?
Logical Positivism
Logical Positivism: the philosophical school of thought associated with
Carnap and Ayer that claims that only analytic and synthetic statements are
meaningful and that because metaphysical and ethical statements are neither,
the latter are meaningless. Logical positivism focuses on language and
meaning. Logical positivism disputes between idealists and materialists.
Logical positivists react to the disputes by objecting that idealists and
materialists never stop to look carefully at the meaning of the language
they
use. Positivists believe the language used with metaphysical approaches to
reality is meaningless.
Alfred J. Ayer was one of the most influential positivists.
Ayer's point was there can only be 2 kinds if meaningful statements.
1) Tautologies or "relations of ideas"
2) Empirical Hypotheses or "statements of fact"
Tautologies are statements that are true by definition.
Ex) "All bachelors are unmarried"
Antirealism: The New Idealists pg. 211-218
Ø Antirealism is the postmodern view that no external reality exists
independent of our minds.
Ø Antirealism claims that the world we inhabit and everything in it
depends on how it is described, perceived, and thought about.
Ø Modern antirealists base their views on language and arguing. They
believe that all we know are our linguistic creations.
Ø Antirealists say that there are no features in our reality that are
independent of our language or system of concepts.
Ø Nelson Goodman was one of the first contemporary philosophers to
argue that there is no independent world. He believes that humans construct
and live in a multitude of different real worlds each created by different
systems of thought and languages.
Ø Dale Spender argues that language is not neutral and that humans can
not impartially describe the universe because in order to describe it that
must have a classification system. Paradoxically once they have that system
they are only able to see certain arbitrary things.
Ø Other philosophers that hold the antirealist view include Paul
Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, Jacques Derrida, Liz Stanley, Sue Wise, Ruth
Hubbard, and Hillary Putnam.
Objections to Antirealism
Ø Antirealism seems to counter some of the basic claims of feminism as
long as some men and women think or say that oppression and sexism does not
exists.
Ø If antirealism is true then each of us would only know our own
ideas.
This would mean that we would not be able to communicate with and understand
one another about our own personal ideas. In order for two people to
understand each other’s statements, their statements must mean the same
thing
to both of them. At some point we must be talking with another individual
about the same external realities.
Could this idea of Antirealism be true? Is our reality no one else’s? Are we
to believe in other’s reality of Antirealism?
Phenomenology pg. 218-224
· Phenomenology was coined in 1764 Johann Heinrich Lambert. Its
meaning ws “the setting forth or articulation of what shows itself.” The
textbook puts it more simply as “the study of what appears.”
· The goal of phenomenology is the study of experiences to bring out
the ‘essences’ or underlying reason of the experience.
· Phenomenologists do not wish you to purely focus on the scientific
explanation (reductionism) of an experience, but to recognize the
experience. Trough this recognition phenomenologists explore reality.
Edmund Husserl (1859-1938)
· He started phenomenology
· He wanted clarity and certainty above all else. He opposed the
relativism of his time that believed science was the only way to know
anything. To him relativism created social consequences, example the mob
mentality that led to the Nazis ruling Germany.
· He proposed that Europe return to rationality of the Plato and
Aristotle who took upon the attitude of a disinterested spectator.
· To Husserl most people assume the ‘natural standpoint’ when
experiencing the world. To explain the natural standpoint picture this, you
have a die in your hand and you are asked to describe it. The natural
standpoint is describing the die like most people do, by its physical
characteristics. By doing this Husserl would say we live in a ‘fact world’
where we take in the world as it is.
· Husserl asks us to bracket our experiences. By bracketing he means
we do not assume the natural standpoint we set it aside for a while. To
better explain recall the die; do not assume it is your hand; you may be
hallucinating, dreaming, etc. Of course you may know you have a die in your
hand and ask, “Why should I not assume I have it in my hand?” By bracketing
an experience it helps you to uncover truths and the essence of an
experience you would normally ignore, because you only interpreted the
experience from the natural standpoint
· Consciousness is the thing that survives bracketing. By
consciousness, he means being conscious of an experience and how you
experience it.
Explain bracketing and the natural standpoint.
Do you agree with the idea of suspending the natural standpoint to
look deeper into an experience? Why? Have you ever done something similar or
like this?
· His major issue was the question of being. To him being is the act of
existing.
· Being is not the characteristic of a person being is the individual, the
essence of a person.
· To explain Heidegger’s idea think about the phrase, “Love me for what I
am”, but Heidegger might instead say, “Love my am.” Love the being, the
individual, not the body, mind or soul.
· Heidegger wants us to become conscious of our own being. Doing this will
help us understand the being that lies within everything.
Is Time Real?
What is time? Time is relative Example - yesterday, today, tomorrow, now,
never, soon. Time is constant Example - a river always flowing as we stand
by and watch. We can see events coming up the river (things we look forward
to), until they pass us (we experience them), then we see them down the
river (we remember them), until they eventually vanish from sight (we
forget). OR The river carries us along, (which symbolizes us aging), until
the river carries us no more (our death), but continues flowing without us.
Saint Augustine
"If no one asks me, I know what time is; if someone asks and I want to
explain it, I do not know". Time does not exist - Any time that has passed
no longer exists. Any time in the future does not exist yet. The only time
that exists is time in its smallest amount of measurement(nanosecond), which
passes so quickly, it hardly has any duration at all.
"Time passes from that which does not yet exist, through that which does not
endure, into that which no longer exists."(242)
The present is the only time that is real. Memory preserves the past, and
anticipation holds the future, but neither really exists.
Time is objective Example - God is outside time. God views time as a line
Before . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .After
This view suggests that time changes nothing. "Nothing is lost, but always
remains and endures." It has before/after, but no past/future. To god,
there is no past, present, and future. Time is subjective Example - We are
in time. The past is frozen, the future is uncertain, we are flowing along.
The future becomes the present,then becomes the past. This view is the
source of all our pain and sorrow, as this is what causes us to age and die.
Marleau-Ponty
Existentialist philosopher. Argued that the flow of time does not exist.
We experience time as changing because that is how we relate to objective
time, which does not change. "The flow of time we feel is an illusion
produced because we experience objective time one moment at a time" (243)
McTaggart Idealist
Believed time is objective. Believed idea of time changing to past, present,
and future is contradictory. Past, Present, and Future - "Incompatible
determinations" (243) Time can not be all three, past present, and future.
Every event has all three characteristics, which would say they are not
incompatible. This contradiction shows time is not real. Reality is
consistent - Past, present, and future are inconsistent - reality
cannot have the inconsistency of a past, present, and future. "...nothing
that exists can be temporal, and therefore time is unreal." (243) BUT - Will
this theory really disprove time? If reality is consistent, and reality has
a past, a present, and a future, would that not make the three consistent?
Smart
Argued that titles "past", "present", and "future" can be gotten rid of, and
refer to time only in the objective. Once this happens, we will realize
that time does not change, it is objective. Thus, we will see there is no
flow of time, and that time is unreal. BUT - will this theory really
disprove time? Just because we ignore past, present and future, does it
mean they no longer exist?
Kant
Objective and subjective time were created by the human mind. The world
is "a disordered, chaotic parade of sensations" (244) which people try
making sense of Time is the basic system used to order these
events/sensations.
"Time is an infinitely long container in the mind into which we insert each
sensation as we experience it" (244) We can not understand the sensations
unless we put order to them. We then try to relate them to one another.
Scientists
Many scientists believe objective time does exist. In subjective time, the
difference between the past and the future is that we can not change the
past, but we can change the future. In objective time, for scientists,
there is no difference, either can be figured out. Einstein said "you have
to accept the idea that subjective time with it's emphasis of the 'now' has
no objective meaning...the distinction between the past, present, and future
is only an illusion, however persistent" BUT - Will this theory really
disprove time? Time is something we all experience, so how can it be proved
unreal? For example - anticipation, memories, and ageing.
Bergson
Argues that objective time is a "construct of the mind". The "image of time
as a line" is only an image. Only what we experience is real. Believes in
subjective time. BUT - Will this theory really prove time? Do we all possess
the "intuition of time" (246)?
