How Do We Know What We Know, and How Do We Know that We Know It?
The first step is to determine "how would we know if we knew."
The second step is to apply that principle of "how we would know" to that which is proposed to be known. Then, using that principle, we would evaluate whether the proposed knowledge was in fact knowledge. Then, voila, we would "know that we knew it," meaning that which was proposed to be known was in fact and by proof actually known.
It seems so simple.
The Skeptics have been arguing about this for centuries. From some of the Sophists of ancient Greece, in the 5th Century, B.C., to David Hume, the Scottish Philosopher of the 1700's, their consensus has been, first, that there is not a knowable self to perceive, and, second, that the sensory perceptions of the world are not trustworthy. To whom or to what the senses would be trustworthy is not determinable, because there is no recognized entity, a self, to know.
Rather than feeling downcast at having the whole world thrown into this realm of the unknowable, Skeptics are elated.
Theologians, on the other hand, relegate status of the Unknowable to God. There is a whole body of mystical writings of the Christian authors, as well as most of the other major religions, that describe or define God as the ultimately Unknowable. The more we claim to know about God, they say, the more we realize God extends beyond our grasp. Whether or not we can know the material world is generally agreed to be by virtue of Divine Grace or by virtue of Divinely bestowed reason.
Scientists, by comparison, tend to agree that (1) the wholeness of the universe, or (2) the underlying principles, such as universal laws of physics, or (3) the mathematical formulas that represent the universe, or (4) the exactitude of measurement, or any, or all, or any combination of these are not truly knowable. The predictability and measurability of the universe bogs down almost completely by the time one investigates the sub-atomic world of the fuzzy particle and wave duality. At that level, they claim, the very effort of measuring alters that which is being measured. Knowability, then, seems to depend upon the perspective of the observer. Reality shifts according to where one stands. Ultimate knowledge is unknowable until there is an ultimate measure, or an ultimate or universal perspective. Seeking a "unified theory" of the laws of physics has been an investigation of central importance to Twentieth Century.
But is a knowledge of formulas the same as knowledge of that which they are said to represent? The formulas are not the things they are said to represent. The map is not the territory.
Through all of this deliberation, by theologian or by scientist, the Skeptics are elated by the vastness of that which they do not know. Knowing more of what they do not know, the more they know they have investigated the possibilities and found them lacking.
The one principle to which they adhere is they will not accept anything as true that cannot be proven through reason. All those things that are unreasonable, or unprovable through reason, are unknowable.
They claim to know a principle, namely reason, by which they can know what they know, or what they do not know. The knowable, then, is the principle that reason is the ultimate measure.
As much as I love reason, I do have to point out that this is a contradiction. If we do know something, such as what reason is, or what a reasonable proof would be, then we are saying that we do know something, even if it is an intangible something.
Here, we are back to the inherent contradiction of the once-popular Logical Positivists. They claimed, as their principle, that which was measurable was real, and the more something was measurable, the more real it was. This is a materialist claim. Following this, they claimed that the more unmeasurable something is, the less real it is.
This logical-positivist principle was a very useful theory to sweep away a bunch of cluttering ideas from the previous centuries that had resulted in cultural confusion and, they hinted, ultimately, in the passions of the wars of Europe. Without unmeasurable theories, such as, we might guess, loyalty to king or country in the form of patriotism, or theories of forms of government or economics, there would no longer be anything, save possibly territory boundary lines, over which to fight. Ironically, in their own way, they were idealists. Doing away with the control or sway of immeasurable ideas would lead an ideal world without war or persecution. Jews could live freely, and the stability of science would abound: very good goals which were considered radical in their day.
Then, sometime in about the middle of the Twentieth Century, it was pointed out that the whole theory rested on an inherent contradiction: Logical-Positivism was based on a principle, the principle that that which was measurable was more real, and the more measurable something was, the more real it was, and the more unmeasurable something was, the more unreal it was; yet that principle was itself unmeasurable.
Using measurability as a standard meant there was a standard, but that standard could not be measured, or at least not measured by anything that was measurable. Hence, it was a contradiction, one contained within the theory itself, so it was self-contradictory, or inherently contradictory. It was a contradiction under its own terms. It failed to meet its own standard.
Logical-Positivism was upheld by many respected Philosophers and still lingers on today in some fine universities. Relegating Philosophy to the analysis of language alone has been a popular version.
I would propose, that, in a parallel manner, the Skeptics are self-defeating.
The Skeptics' claim that reason is the ultimate principle of knowability is itself a claim of knowability. They claim, first of all, that reason is real, which I am willing to grant; but they claim, additionally, that it is the only way by which we can know the world, and that if something in the world did meet the standard of proof through reason, then, that "thing" would be knowable.
If reason or proof is knowable, then there is something which is knowable, and the claim of unknowability of the world falls.
Now, some Skeptics, such as Hume, would claim that since the principle of causality can be shown to be tenuous or even wrong, then the principles of reason themselves fall aside, and there is no reason by which to know whether the world is reasonable.
Hume claimed that we could not prove that one thing caused another, but only that one thing followed the only. The actually causal link could not be established. Does one clock striking twelve cause another clock to strike twelve? Following this metaphor, he argued that all we can truly know is that one thing follows the other in time, but not that one thing reached out and caused a next thing to happen.
Therefore, some Skeptics think that even reason cannot be trusted. Since they have no remaining tool by which to know whether the sensations of the world are real and whether the world those sensations represent are real, then we can never know if anything is real. Not only is the material world untrustworthy, but so is the interior world of reason.
Ultimate Skeptics, like Christian mystics, rejoice in the trueness of Unknowability.
Ultimate Skeptics refuse to accept there is any way we can know what we know.
Rather than be gloomy, Hume, for example, said we should live by common sense.
I respond that common sense is exactly where we started in the first place, before we began this study of whether we as human being are capable of knowledge. I and others are disappointed in the resignation of many Skeptics to an unreasonable, unknowable world. What a useless effort. What a disappointment.
Why did we bother?
No wonder anti-Philosophers laugh at Philosophy as a waste of time.
At the very least, I think we can accept the principle of the Pragmatists, the first occurring school thought of US Philosophy, who claim those ideas which are the most useful are likely to be the most true. This is a very practical idea, which seems to fit a very practical nation. Despite an apparent lapse into patriotism, which taken to an extreme, "my country, right or wrong," has led to many wrong actions, despite this apparent flaw, the notion of accepting as knowable that which works has a distinct appeal to reason.
Pragmatism hosts hope for a sufficiently knowable world for humans to act and think and flourish. Thought and things are pragmatically knowable.
Later, the Phenomenologists and Existentialists of Continental Europe in the Twentieth Century accepted as given the "essence" of things in order to decide how to act, with the emphasis on action taking priority over the question of the knowledge of being. Sartre, like Socrates, placed emphasis on ethics over epistemology. Later, the Spanish Existential, Ortega, claimed we are all writing our own autobiographies. This outlook puts attention, not on whether things exist, but on individual choice and action. We act within that condition in which we find ourselves. The phenomena of being is accepted as a basis of decision and action.
Many recent Skeptics have leaned over into logic, such as Russell; and linguististics, such as Wittgenstein. Empistemology is left behind by some as ultimately unknowable, and, therefore, uninteresting.
However, just because a question is difficult does not mean, I think, that it should be ignored. Nor, just because an answer is difficult to phrase does not mean effort should not be made. The study of past attempts to describe "how we know" helps to scratch the itch of intellect and lifts our species beyond others. Even if our reach were always to exceed our grasp, the attempt is ennobling.
Again, I say, at the very least, Pragmatism hosts hope for a sufficiently knowable world for humans to act and think and flourish.
Friday, September 10, 2010
7 - Do We Need Others?
Political Philosophy: Can we put into effect our best ideas about ourselves when we work together in groups to govern our actions?
If the least government is the best, then should we all move to the Sudan?
If police and armies are all we want, then who picks up the garbage?
How does the role of government protect and encourage individual desire and achievement?
---These are some of the questions of contemporary contention.
First, let's spin through some of the ideas of the great thinkers of the past.
Then, spin down to the bottom for a summary and conclusion to answer the conflicts of today.
(Yes, it is longer than I expected, but the sections are numbered, so you can find and read your favorites.)
(1) Aristotle identified three forms of government, both in their good stages and in their bad stages. "Democracy" means rule by the people, but at its worst is rule by a mob. "Oligarchy" means rule by the best, but at its worst is rule by a small group of dictators. "Monarchy" is rule by one, which can be a wise individual, or a terrible tyrant.
Further, he said there was a cycle among the three of them. Governments flow from one to the next, probably starting off in the good stage, then degenerating into the negative, until it was overthrown by the next form of government; and so on through all three. Democracy to mob, defeated (militarily?) by oligarchy that becomes a group of competing dictators, until one dictator emerges, who, once comfortable with power, might become a skillful leader.
Athens was ruled by several styles of government in a short period, from the uncle of Plato, who was an oligarch, to Socrates, who was given the death penalty by a democracy that Plato considered a mob, on through the tyranny of Alexander the Great, who ruled Athens at the time of Aristotle. As a child Alexander had been tutored by Aristotle. Rather than becoming a Philosopher-King, Alexander became a tyrant. Yet, he carried the philosophy, language, and culture of ancient Greece across much of the Middle East.
Rome, on the other hand, was a democracy for 500 years, ruled by an elected Senate, until their military campaigns across the Mediterranean. Over the next 500 years of their 1000 years, their conquests led to more and more treasure and slaves being sent back to Rome. The slaves were bought by the wealthy. The small farmers could not compete with the slave labor farms and found themselves going out of business. They went to Rome to find work. The only work was to join the military and continue the conquests. More treasure and slaves were sent back to Rome. More small farmers failed.
The wealthy generals, farmers, and bankers became more and more wealthy. The ruling Senators were these wealthy men. An oligarchy emerged, and then Julius Caesar defeated them to became the dictator. Julius and his nephew Augustus, who followed him, and was Caesar at the time of the birth of Jesus, brought stability to Rome, but at a cost of a line of rulers of brutality and capriciousness. (The word "capricious" meaning random or without forethought, comes from the name of the Island of Capri, where the Caesars spent their summers.)
The democracy was long disappeared.
(2) Machiavelli, from the 1500's in Italy, is said to have favored a cunning, amoral tyrant. However, reading more of his works than just his famous one, The Prince, shows that he favored a republic. Nevertheless, his name is still in use to describe a tyrant who maintains power at all costs.
(3) The history of the British Isles shows waves of conquests by Anglos, Saxons, Danes, and Normans, each bringing their own law. William the Conqueror, beginning in 1066, spread the reign of Norman kings over local, titled rulers who maintained their own small armies. The Norman kings centralized more and more power. Henry II solidified control and established a court system across his territory. His son, King Richard the Lionhearted, along with the majority of the king's army, departed the country on an expedition to the Crusades. Left behind, his brother, Prince John, had little power to resist the claims by the titled landowners to sign the Magna Charta, in the 1200's, and have his power limited by the House of Lords.
A dictatorship became an oligarchy.
House of Commons, elected commoners who did not have hereditary titles, were the other side of Parliament. Under Prime Minister Oliver Cromwell, the House of Commons beheaded King Charles I. This was followed by a Civil War over how much power the Parliament or the king would have. After one king was returned to power and was then beheaded by Parliament, the following king, at the Restoration of 1660, observed a careful balance with the legislature. For example, all demands for taxes first had to be presented to, and passed by, the House of Commons.
An oligarchy became a democracy. (Some people make a careful distinction between a democracy meaning direct rule by the people, also called participatory democracy, as compared to a republic, where the people elect representatives who rule.) The history of Britain then became continued civil reforms to grant the right to vote to more people, and to limit the rights of the nobles and lords. The government became more and more democratic.
(4) Thomas Hobbes, an Englishman of the 1600's, writing during the time of the English Civil War, said in a state of nature, man is a selfish animal at constant war with all other men. They live out lives which are "nasty, brutish, and short." Constant fear of violent death causes men to come together to create a state. They create a "social contract" to surrender their "natural rights" to an absolute sovereign. Hobbes challenged the doctrine of the divine right of kings by saying the power of the sovereign derived originally from the people. However, he said the monarch was absolute and not subject to acts of Parliament.
(5) Jean Jacques Rousseau, French, of the 1700's, called for a return to nature and was the father of Romanticism, saying men are by nature good, but in society are not. The "social contract" means government flows from the consent of the governed, who can withdraw their consent. In theory, "the advantages of a state of nature would be combined with the advantages of social life."
(6) John Locke, an Englishman of the 1600's, followed Hobbes in saying the state was formed by "social contract." However, unlike Hobbes, he believed in the natural goodness of humanity. He said the state should follow Natural Law, from which were derived "Human Rights," whereby all men were equal in having a right to "life, health, liberty, or possessions." An advocate of Democracy, Locke developed the idea of governmental checks and balances.
All four, Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke, agreed humans cannot live successfully without government.
(7) Thomas Jefferson, U.S., 1700's, altered the rights named by Locke from "life, liberty, and property," to those listed in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In doing so, he removed any reference in the document to a claimed right to property of slaves. He reached back to Aristotle's idea of the Good Life (the pursuit of happiness). Following Locke, Jefferson felt it was the role of government to allow individuals to reach their own happiness. Government should allow the individual to flourish.
The ideals of rule by consent of the governed under a social contract, the Constitution, with a balance of powers, became the foundation of the government of the United States. The Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution, specified rights remaining with the people.
(8) Rugged individualism was a U.S. theory based on the need to have lonely pioneers settle across a vast land, often living great distances from each other. Self-sufficient survival was often necessary. Farmers who grew everything they ate needed few government services, such as currency, roads, and the Post Office.
Thomas Jefferson envisioned an ideal government based on independent farmers, even though he owned nearly 200 slaves. As President, he made the Louisiana Purchase in 1802, doubling the size of the country, inviting westward expansion.
In the middle of the 1800's, New England essay writers and poets, such as Emerson and Thoreau, popularized Transcendentalism, a Romantic movement, with a get-back-to-nature theme, an optimistic view of self-reliant individualism, and with rejection of traditional authority.
Later becoming an excuse for anti-intellectualism, this Harvard-based system claimed personal intuition as the best source of knowledge. Mystics but not Christians, the Transcendentalists saw divinity in humanity and in nature. Their ideals of self-reliant individualism were absorbed by traditional U.S. Christians.
Rugged individualism has become a basis of U.S. libertarianism.
(9) Hegel, a German of the 1700's, claimed the state is the embodiment of the ultimate ideal, and the state's highest form, monarchy.
"In Hegelian dialectic, one concept (thesis) inevitably generates its opposite (antithesis), and the interaction of these leads to a new concept (synthesis). This in turn becomes the thesis of a new triad. This dynamic system flowed through history to reach absolute Idea." The Columbia Encyclopedia.
Hegelian dialectic, an Idealist theory of government based on a view of constant progress in history, became the theoretical basis of the two major forms of totalitarianism of the Twentieth Century, Nazism and Communism.
Totalitarianism differed from dictatorship in that in addition to control over the physical aspects of government and economy, it claimed control over thought and required adherence to a set of beliefs; a system comparable to rule by religious bodies.
(10) Fascism took Hegel's ideas in order to envision imperial expansion and conquest of neighboring nations. A panel of military and economic leaders would be the oligarchy that supported an absolute monarch.
(11) Nazism was based on fascism and incorporated ideas of national superiority of so great an extent that other peoples should be wiped out. Hitler not only wanted to kill all Jews, he wanted their money. He also wanted to wipe out Gypsies and gays. (However, when the Allies liberated the death camps, the gays were imprisoned to serve out their terms because they were considered "criminals.")
65 Million people, military and civilian, died in World War II.
(12) Marx envisioned history as dynamic, changing, using the three part dialectic which Hegel had described as being Ideal, as, instead, being material. He called this "dialectical materialism."
He predicted freeing labor (the working class) from oppressing owners of capitol (money and the means of production) (meaning, the ruling class). The working class would then rule the oppressors, the economic elite, (meaning, the ruling class), as a result of violent revolution, resulting in Communism, an utopia in which all were equal in rights, status, and material wealth.
Marx famously said "Religion is the opium of the people," and insisted all religion should wiped out. It kept the people asleep to the awareness of the oppression they were under, control by an international economic elite, the global ruling class.
(13) Socialism was a reform movement in England that sought greater voting rights and fairer taxes to ease the burden on the average man from the aristocracy who owned most of the land and the economic system.
Some people viewed Socialism as an intermediate stage that might be a part of an unstoppable historical march from monarchy to Communism. However, for Marx, Socialism was totally unacceptable because of its innate inequality. He rejected socialism because it was not idealistic. Only revolution would be able to bring about the complete change to Communism that he wanted.
(14) John Dewey, Twentieth Century, U.S., said democracy was a primary value in ethics. He felt that to enhance our democracy, all our social institutions should incorporate as much democracy as possible in their internal structure. From education to industry, democratic systems would improve functioning.
(15) John Rawls, Twentieth Century, U.S., said democracy should consider first the effect of any proposed action as it would impact the most vulnerable.
(16) Robert Nozick, Twentieth Century, U.S., to the contrary, argued for a state of individual rights with as few governmental limits as possible. Beyond military and police, he did not see value in government. He restated in the contemporary period, some of the ideas of Libertarianism.
Individuals should be able to purchase the goods and services they needed for their survival and happiness, and those individuals who could not purchase those things should do without. Regulation of commerce was an unnecessary impediment. The consumer should decide for themselves what to purchase; thus, he argued, competition would produce safe food, drugs, products, and industrial activities.
However, in the real, not the ideal world, only a fully informed consumer, with options in selection, and enough money, can purchase safe, quality products.
Long over-looked as impossible utopianism, Libertarianism has re-surfaced recently. Seeking a return to ideas of rugged individualism, libertarians want an end to government spending, even if it means denying their own interests in an economic safety net, or quality of products and environment, or stability of the mega-financial markets. Some, such as followers of Nietzsche, a German of the 1800's, claim individual freedom even when it causes harm others.
Some wish to freeze the United States in a political system of the 1700's, when the Constitution was written, to stretch over the technology, economy, and society that were simplistic by modern standards. The Constitution was written by quill on parchment by slave-owning, white, male landowners, and, with one exception, all Protestant.
Some claim the United States was founded by Christians as a Christian nation. In truth, religious freedom was proclaimed from Plymouth Rock to the founding of Rhode Island to Virginia to the First Amendment of the Constitution.
John Adams did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Washington and Jefferson did not believe in Divine Intervention. Washington was having an affair with the wife of a friend. Jefferson had (5?) children with a slave who was 14 when the relationship began and who was the half-sister of his deceased (white) wife. Benjamin Franklin frequented the brothels of Paris.
Some claim the Constitution must be interpreted as it would have been in an era when slavery was world-wide, women were possessions, only landowners could vote, and, in England, Jews and Catholics could not vote. Ironically, all the members of the current Supreme Court are Jewish or Catholic.
Based on the atheistic theories of Transcendentalism, and Nietzsche's atheistic, amoral elitism, Libertarianism has been embraced recently by some mainstream Christians and extreme Christians.
(17) Moderation is the notion that a balance can be maintained among the vulnerable, the working, and the economic elite.
With equal rights for all individuals, a government with some aid to the needy, and with effective regulation of commerce can allow, and at times enhance, the individual pursuit of happiness.
Both Liberals and Conservatives want a strong capitalist economy. Liberals tend to lean toward governmental programs to use a portion of government funds to benefit the poor, the sick, and the elderly. They are more likely to be suspicious of unregulated manufacturing and commerce. Conservatives lean toward more government protections and benefits for commerce.
(18) Summary: The history of Rome shows the downhill flow from republican democracy to unlimited tyranny. The history of Britain shows the rise of republican democracy, with a limited monarchy, flowing away from dictatorial landlords and kings.
The history of the United States shows a flow from a slavery-based, landowner citizenry in a republican democracy, to growing civil rights for all individuals. Political power has rocked back and forth between control by an economic elite, and control by reform movements.
Militarism has become more popular since World War II. Recently, economic protection of national commerce has given way to a global system of competition for products and wages. Global protection of the environment and labor standards is non-existent.
(19) Conclusion: Generally, the most productive and creative times have been during a republican democracy based on the highest levels of individual freedom, individual economic opportunity, and a high ratio of an educated electorate.
Protection for the environment, labor, the needy, safety, human rights, and commerce accompany and enable liberty for individual flourishing.
Humans are frail creatures, each of us vulnerable at some points in our lives, from infancy through sickness to dying. Some do not have friends or families who can soften the blow of hardship, or become caretakers. The government is a creation of the whole that within reason can send aid in an organized and fair way that no charity can parallel. No one charity can reach so many "causes." From unpopular diseases to natural disasters to rare disabilities to public hygiene, government can represent us all.
If the least government is the best, then should we all move to the Sudan?
If police and armies are all we want, then who picks up the garbage?
How does the role of government protect and encourage individual desire and achievement?
---These are some of the questions of contemporary contention.
First, let's spin through some of the ideas of the great thinkers of the past.
Then, spin down to the bottom for a summary and conclusion to answer the conflicts of today.
(Yes, it is longer than I expected, but the sections are numbered, so you can find and read your favorites.)
(1) Aristotle identified three forms of government, both in their good stages and in their bad stages. "Democracy" means rule by the people, but at its worst is rule by a mob. "Oligarchy" means rule by the best, but at its worst is rule by a small group of dictators. "Monarchy" is rule by one, which can be a wise individual, or a terrible tyrant.
Further, he said there was a cycle among the three of them. Governments flow from one to the next, probably starting off in the good stage, then degenerating into the negative, until it was overthrown by the next form of government; and so on through all three. Democracy to mob, defeated (militarily?) by oligarchy that becomes a group of competing dictators, until one dictator emerges, who, once comfortable with power, might become a skillful leader.
Athens was ruled by several styles of government in a short period, from the uncle of Plato, who was an oligarch, to Socrates, who was given the death penalty by a democracy that Plato considered a mob, on through the tyranny of Alexander the Great, who ruled Athens at the time of Aristotle. As a child Alexander had been tutored by Aristotle. Rather than becoming a Philosopher-King, Alexander became a tyrant. Yet, he carried the philosophy, language, and culture of ancient Greece across much of the Middle East.
Rome, on the other hand, was a democracy for 500 years, ruled by an elected Senate, until their military campaigns across the Mediterranean. Over the next 500 years of their 1000 years, their conquests led to more and more treasure and slaves being sent back to Rome. The slaves were bought by the wealthy. The small farmers could not compete with the slave labor farms and found themselves going out of business. They went to Rome to find work. The only work was to join the military and continue the conquests. More treasure and slaves were sent back to Rome. More small farmers failed.
The wealthy generals, farmers, and bankers became more and more wealthy. The ruling Senators were these wealthy men. An oligarchy emerged, and then Julius Caesar defeated them to became the dictator. Julius and his nephew Augustus, who followed him, and was Caesar at the time of the birth of Jesus, brought stability to Rome, but at a cost of a line of rulers of brutality and capriciousness. (The word "capricious" meaning random or without forethought, comes from the name of the Island of Capri, where the Caesars spent their summers.)
The democracy was long disappeared.
(2) Machiavelli, from the 1500's in Italy, is said to have favored a cunning, amoral tyrant. However, reading more of his works than just his famous one, The Prince, shows that he favored a republic. Nevertheless, his name is still in use to describe a tyrant who maintains power at all costs.
(3) The history of the British Isles shows waves of conquests by Anglos, Saxons, Danes, and Normans, each bringing their own law. William the Conqueror, beginning in 1066, spread the reign of Norman kings over local, titled rulers who maintained their own small armies. The Norman kings centralized more and more power. Henry II solidified control and established a court system across his territory. His son, King Richard the Lionhearted, along with the majority of the king's army, departed the country on an expedition to the Crusades. Left behind, his brother, Prince John, had little power to resist the claims by the titled landowners to sign the Magna Charta, in the 1200's, and have his power limited by the House of Lords.
A dictatorship became an oligarchy.
House of Commons, elected commoners who did not have hereditary titles, were the other side of Parliament. Under Prime Minister Oliver Cromwell, the House of Commons beheaded King Charles I. This was followed by a Civil War over how much power the Parliament or the king would have. After one king was returned to power and was then beheaded by Parliament, the following king, at the Restoration of 1660, observed a careful balance with the legislature. For example, all demands for taxes first had to be presented to, and passed by, the House of Commons.
An oligarchy became a democracy. (Some people make a careful distinction between a democracy meaning direct rule by the people, also called participatory democracy, as compared to a republic, where the people elect representatives who rule.) The history of Britain then became continued civil reforms to grant the right to vote to more people, and to limit the rights of the nobles and lords. The government became more and more democratic.
(4) Thomas Hobbes, an Englishman of the 1600's, writing during the time of the English Civil War, said in a state of nature, man is a selfish animal at constant war with all other men. They live out lives which are "nasty, brutish, and short." Constant fear of violent death causes men to come together to create a state. They create a "social contract" to surrender their "natural rights" to an absolute sovereign. Hobbes challenged the doctrine of the divine right of kings by saying the power of the sovereign derived originally from the people. However, he said the monarch was absolute and not subject to acts of Parliament.
(5) Jean Jacques Rousseau, French, of the 1700's, called for a return to nature and was the father of Romanticism, saying men are by nature good, but in society are not. The "social contract" means government flows from the consent of the governed, who can withdraw their consent. In theory, "the advantages of a state of nature would be combined with the advantages of social life."
(6) John Locke, an Englishman of the 1600's, followed Hobbes in saying the state was formed by "social contract." However, unlike Hobbes, he believed in the natural goodness of humanity. He said the state should follow Natural Law, from which were derived "Human Rights," whereby all men were equal in having a right to "life, health, liberty, or possessions." An advocate of Democracy, Locke developed the idea of governmental checks and balances.
All four, Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke, agreed humans cannot live successfully without government.
(7) Thomas Jefferson, U.S., 1700's, altered the rights named by Locke from "life, liberty, and property," to those listed in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In doing so, he removed any reference in the document to a claimed right to property of slaves. He reached back to Aristotle's idea of the Good Life (the pursuit of happiness). Following Locke, Jefferson felt it was the role of government to allow individuals to reach their own happiness. Government should allow the individual to flourish.
The ideals of rule by consent of the governed under a social contract, the Constitution, with a balance of powers, became the foundation of the government of the United States. The Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution, specified rights remaining with the people.
(8) Rugged individualism was a U.S. theory based on the need to have lonely pioneers settle across a vast land, often living great distances from each other. Self-sufficient survival was often necessary. Farmers who grew everything they ate needed few government services, such as currency, roads, and the Post Office.
Thomas Jefferson envisioned an ideal government based on independent farmers, even though he owned nearly 200 slaves. As President, he made the Louisiana Purchase in 1802, doubling the size of the country, inviting westward expansion.
In the middle of the 1800's, New England essay writers and poets, such as Emerson and Thoreau, popularized Transcendentalism, a Romantic movement, with a get-back-to-nature theme, an optimistic view of self-reliant individualism, and with rejection of traditional authority.
Later becoming an excuse for anti-intellectualism, this Harvard-based system claimed personal intuition as the best source of knowledge. Mystics but not Christians, the Transcendentalists saw divinity in humanity and in nature. Their ideals of self-reliant individualism were absorbed by traditional U.S. Christians.
Rugged individualism has become a basis of U.S. libertarianism.
(9) Hegel, a German of the 1700's, claimed the state is the embodiment of the ultimate ideal, and the state's highest form, monarchy.
"In Hegelian dialectic, one concept (thesis) inevitably generates its opposite (antithesis), and the interaction of these leads to a new concept (synthesis). This in turn becomes the thesis of a new triad. This dynamic system flowed through history to reach absolute Idea." The Columbia Encyclopedia.
Hegelian dialectic, an Idealist theory of government based on a view of constant progress in history, became the theoretical basis of the two major forms of totalitarianism of the Twentieth Century, Nazism and Communism.
Totalitarianism differed from dictatorship in that in addition to control over the physical aspects of government and economy, it claimed control over thought and required adherence to a set of beliefs; a system comparable to rule by religious bodies.
(10) Fascism took Hegel's ideas in order to envision imperial expansion and conquest of neighboring nations. A panel of military and economic leaders would be the oligarchy that supported an absolute monarch.
(11) Nazism was based on fascism and incorporated ideas of national superiority of so great an extent that other peoples should be wiped out. Hitler not only wanted to kill all Jews, he wanted their money. He also wanted to wipe out Gypsies and gays. (However, when the Allies liberated the death camps, the gays were imprisoned to serve out their terms because they were considered "criminals.")
65 Million people, military and civilian, died in World War II.
(12) Marx envisioned history as dynamic, changing, using the three part dialectic which Hegel had described as being Ideal, as, instead, being material. He called this "dialectical materialism."
He predicted freeing labor (the working class) from oppressing owners of capitol (money and the means of production) (meaning, the ruling class). The working class would then rule the oppressors, the economic elite, (meaning, the ruling class), as a result of violent revolution, resulting in Communism, an utopia in which all were equal in rights, status, and material wealth.
Marx famously said "Religion is the opium of the people," and insisted all religion should wiped out. It kept the people asleep to the awareness of the oppression they were under, control by an international economic elite, the global ruling class.
(13) Socialism was a reform movement in England that sought greater voting rights and fairer taxes to ease the burden on the average man from the aristocracy who owned most of the land and the economic system.
Some people viewed Socialism as an intermediate stage that might be a part of an unstoppable historical march from monarchy to Communism. However, for Marx, Socialism was totally unacceptable because of its innate inequality. He rejected socialism because it was not idealistic. Only revolution would be able to bring about the complete change to Communism that he wanted.
(14) John Dewey, Twentieth Century, U.S., said democracy was a primary value in ethics. He felt that to enhance our democracy, all our social institutions should incorporate as much democracy as possible in their internal structure. From education to industry, democratic systems would improve functioning.
(15) John Rawls, Twentieth Century, U.S., said democracy should consider first the effect of any proposed action as it would impact the most vulnerable.
(16) Robert Nozick, Twentieth Century, U.S., to the contrary, argued for a state of individual rights with as few governmental limits as possible. Beyond military and police, he did not see value in government. He restated in the contemporary period, some of the ideas of Libertarianism.
Individuals should be able to purchase the goods and services they needed for their survival and happiness, and those individuals who could not purchase those things should do without. Regulation of commerce was an unnecessary impediment. The consumer should decide for themselves what to purchase; thus, he argued, competition would produce safe food, drugs, products, and industrial activities.
However, in the real, not the ideal world, only a fully informed consumer, with options in selection, and enough money, can purchase safe, quality products.
Long over-looked as impossible utopianism, Libertarianism has re-surfaced recently. Seeking a return to ideas of rugged individualism, libertarians want an end to government spending, even if it means denying their own interests in an economic safety net, or quality of products and environment, or stability of the mega-financial markets. Some, such as followers of Nietzsche, a German of the 1800's, claim individual freedom even when it causes harm others.
Some wish to freeze the United States in a political system of the 1700's, when the Constitution was written, to stretch over the technology, economy, and society that were simplistic by modern standards. The Constitution was written by quill on parchment by slave-owning, white, male landowners, and, with one exception, all Protestant.
Some claim the United States was founded by Christians as a Christian nation. In truth, religious freedom was proclaimed from Plymouth Rock to the founding of Rhode Island to Virginia to the First Amendment of the Constitution.
John Adams did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Washington and Jefferson did not believe in Divine Intervention. Washington was having an affair with the wife of a friend. Jefferson had (5?) children with a slave who was 14 when the relationship began and who was the half-sister of his deceased (white) wife. Benjamin Franklin frequented the brothels of Paris.
Some claim the Constitution must be interpreted as it would have been in an era when slavery was world-wide, women were possessions, only landowners could vote, and, in England, Jews and Catholics could not vote. Ironically, all the members of the current Supreme Court are Jewish or Catholic.
Based on the atheistic theories of Transcendentalism, and Nietzsche's atheistic, amoral elitism, Libertarianism has been embraced recently by some mainstream Christians and extreme Christians.
(17) Moderation is the notion that a balance can be maintained among the vulnerable, the working, and the economic elite.
With equal rights for all individuals, a government with some aid to the needy, and with effective regulation of commerce can allow, and at times enhance, the individual pursuit of happiness.
Both Liberals and Conservatives want a strong capitalist economy. Liberals tend to lean toward governmental programs to use a portion of government funds to benefit the poor, the sick, and the elderly. They are more likely to be suspicious of unregulated manufacturing and commerce. Conservatives lean toward more government protections and benefits for commerce.
(18) Summary: The history of Rome shows the downhill flow from republican democracy to unlimited tyranny. The history of Britain shows the rise of republican democracy, with a limited monarchy, flowing away from dictatorial landlords and kings.
The history of the United States shows a flow from a slavery-based, landowner citizenry in a republican democracy, to growing civil rights for all individuals. Political power has rocked back and forth between control by an economic elite, and control by reform movements.
Militarism has become more popular since World War II. Recently, economic protection of national commerce has given way to a global system of competition for products and wages. Global protection of the environment and labor standards is non-existent.
(19) Conclusion: Generally, the most productive and creative times have been during a republican democracy based on the highest levels of individual freedom, individual economic opportunity, and a high ratio of an educated electorate.
Protection for the environment, labor, the needy, safety, human rights, and commerce accompany and enable liberty for individual flourishing.
Humans are frail creatures, each of us vulnerable at some points in our lives, from infancy through sickness to dying. Some do not have friends or families who can soften the blow of hardship, or become caretakers. The government is a creation of the whole that within reason can send aid in an organized and fair way that no charity can parallel. No one charity can reach so many "causes." From unpopular diseases to natural disasters to rare disabilities to public hygiene, government can represent us all.
8 - Aesthetics - What is Art?
Aesthetics: What is art? What is Beauty?
What a pleasant thing to discuss. We all like aesthetics, even if we disagree about what we like, and why.
The other day, my car mechanic used the word aesthetics, in reference to my car, so I decided the term is in common usage. Here is a chronological outline of thought about the topic:
1 - Classical theory of Aesthetics begins with the writing of ancient Greek Aristotle. He had plenty to say and defined art as needing:
a - significant subject matter;
b- due proportion;
c - specific limitations, such as in the tragedy in drama, where plot, character, time, rhetoric, theatrics, all have contributions that he carefully described; finally,
d - art should be an improvement on nature. (The statue should look better than the model.)
Tragedy required "hubris," humans trying to act like gods; today we might call it unconscious vanity. Even though action was fated, hubris, an inherent character defect caused great loss.
Comedy was the discharge, or cleansing, of the emotion of pity.
Proportion was particularly important to the ancient Greeks who felt it was essential to beauty. They were the first in the Western world to use proportion in sculpture, particularly of the human figure, and in representational art. Before them, the ancient Egyptians, for example, presented art in flat relief, more as symbol than as representation.
Further, the Greeks used mathematics to create a system of proportion for their architecture, for example. The length and breath of a room or a building was in a set ratio.
2- The Romantic theory says that "Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder." Thus, anything can be art or beautiful if the perceiver says it is so. In the mid-1800's, Beethoven in music, and Turner in painting, bridged the gap from Classical to Romantic, from strict form to a bold expression of feeling. The ability to communicate emotion was the goal.
Tragedy was no longer restricted to drama but could be in any art form which showed the tension of human striving that could lead to a higher realm of being or could devastatingly fail. Ultimate meaning could be gained or lost.
3- The Formal theory of art states that painting, for example, is good if it has pleasing composition, or form. Balance of the structural elements is essential. Art does not have to be representational of nature but can instead express emotion.
4 - The Modern theory says that art is but a frame, a perspective on ordinary life. It directs our attention in a new way to what we may have been aware of many times before. For example, a photograph might capture a slant of light on a stair step that hints at the unseen staircase of which it is a part.
The invention of the camera became a challenge to painters, who no longer needed to represent or document reality. New styles, such as Impressionism, showed light itself as the subject. The figure is revealed as a series of brushstrokes taking on the color of each flicker of light, fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle.
5 - In the Twentieth Century artists, such as Picasso, looked to non-Western art for inspiration. Folk art and other "naive," untrained, expressions were studied. "Fine" art, which was described as that which had no purpose other than being art, was no longer necessarily "better" than "decorative" art, which could be affixed to everyday items and uses. Also, art could take more than one perspective at a time, such as in Cubism, in which Picasso showed a figure or a face from several sides at once.
Writers, such as William Faulkner or Gertrude Stein, attempted to show dialect, rather than lofty language. Ernest Hemingway sought simplicity, using nouns and verbs, but few adjectives or adverbs; again, avoiding lofty language. John Steinbeck and Arthur Miller also depicted "common" people. These writers all used the language of everyday to express bold or even tragic themes. From the ancients to Shakespeare, tragedy had been limited to royalty or high status, but no more.
Even though the settings, people, or language might have been everyday, the strivings were not.
6 - Post-modern theories tend to look to the fragments of structure that are art in themselves, even if they do not compose a "whole." The minimal units of art can be recombined to give a fresh perspective, even if they have no function or "meaning." Symmetry, for example, which was so important to the ancients and to classical theory, is to be avoided.
Authors no longer seek expression of the self but of elements of the self. There is no tension. Tragedy is impossible because there is no ultimate meaning to be gained or lost.
7 - Anti-aesthetics have also come into favor, in which the conscious avoidance of classical theory is the guiding principle. Not that ugliness is the goal, but rather a conspicuous rejection of convention. Self-awareness is one of the few remaining elements.
8 - Finally, there are those who in all seriousness claim that whatever they say is art, is art. Everything is art: Nothing is art; both statements are equally true, they say. Then, undefined, random individual opinion and popularity are that which determine what is art.
9 - Nevertheless, if anything is art, without regard to perspective, content, execution, form, or emotion; if art is no longer in some way separate from the ordinary, then it is no longer extraordinary. With nothing to communicate, art is no longer expression.
Sadly, without art, there can be no beauty.
What a pleasant thing to discuss. We all like aesthetics, even if we disagree about what we like, and why.
The other day, my car mechanic used the word aesthetics, in reference to my car, so I decided the term is in common usage. Here is a chronological outline of thought about the topic:
1 - Classical theory of Aesthetics begins with the writing of ancient Greek Aristotle. He had plenty to say and defined art as needing:
a - significant subject matter;
b- due proportion;
c - specific limitations, such as in the tragedy in drama, where plot, character, time, rhetoric, theatrics, all have contributions that he carefully described; finally,
d - art should be an improvement on nature. (The statue should look better than the model.)
Tragedy required "hubris," humans trying to act like gods; today we might call it unconscious vanity. Even though action was fated, hubris, an inherent character defect caused great loss.
Comedy was the discharge, or cleansing, of the emotion of pity.
Proportion was particularly important to the ancient Greeks who felt it was essential to beauty. They were the first in the Western world to use proportion in sculpture, particularly of the human figure, and in representational art. Before them, the ancient Egyptians, for example, presented art in flat relief, more as symbol than as representation.
Further, the Greeks used mathematics to create a system of proportion for their architecture, for example. The length and breath of a room or a building was in a set ratio.
2- The Romantic theory says that "Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder." Thus, anything can be art or beautiful if the perceiver says it is so. In the mid-1800's, Beethoven in music, and Turner in painting, bridged the gap from Classical to Romantic, from strict form to a bold expression of feeling. The ability to communicate emotion was the goal.
Tragedy was no longer restricted to drama but could be in any art form which showed the tension of human striving that could lead to a higher realm of being or could devastatingly fail. Ultimate meaning could be gained or lost.
3- The Formal theory of art states that painting, for example, is good if it has pleasing composition, or form. Balance of the structural elements is essential. Art does not have to be representational of nature but can instead express emotion.
4 - The Modern theory says that art is but a frame, a perspective on ordinary life. It directs our attention in a new way to what we may have been aware of many times before. For example, a photograph might capture a slant of light on a stair step that hints at the unseen staircase of which it is a part.
The invention of the camera became a challenge to painters, who no longer needed to represent or document reality. New styles, such as Impressionism, showed light itself as the subject. The figure is revealed as a series of brushstrokes taking on the color of each flicker of light, fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle.
5 - In the Twentieth Century artists, such as Picasso, looked to non-Western art for inspiration. Folk art and other "naive," untrained, expressions were studied. "Fine" art, which was described as that which had no purpose other than being art, was no longer necessarily "better" than "decorative" art, which could be affixed to everyday items and uses. Also, art could take more than one perspective at a time, such as in Cubism, in which Picasso showed a figure or a face from several sides at once.
Writers, such as William Faulkner or Gertrude Stein, attempted to show dialect, rather than lofty language. Ernest Hemingway sought simplicity, using nouns and verbs, but few adjectives or adverbs; again, avoiding lofty language. John Steinbeck and Arthur Miller also depicted "common" people. These writers all used the language of everyday to express bold or even tragic themes. From the ancients to Shakespeare, tragedy had been limited to royalty or high status, but no more.
Even though the settings, people, or language might have been everyday, the strivings were not.
6 - Post-modern theories tend to look to the fragments of structure that are art in themselves, even if they do not compose a "whole." The minimal units of art can be recombined to give a fresh perspective, even if they have no function or "meaning." Symmetry, for example, which was so important to the ancients and to classical theory, is to be avoided.
Authors no longer seek expression of the self but of elements of the self. There is no tension. Tragedy is impossible because there is no ultimate meaning to be gained or lost.
7 - Anti-aesthetics have also come into favor, in which the conscious avoidance of classical theory is the guiding principle. Not that ugliness is the goal, but rather a conspicuous rejection of convention. Self-awareness is one of the few remaining elements.
8 - Finally, there are those who in all seriousness claim that whatever they say is art, is art. Everything is art: Nothing is art; both statements are equally true, they say. Then, undefined, random individual opinion and popularity are that which determine what is art.
9 - Nevertheless, if anything is art, without regard to perspective, content, execution, form, or emotion; if art is no longer in some way separate from the ordinary, then it is no longer extraordinary. With nothing to communicate, art is no longer expression.
Sadly, without art, there can be no beauty.
9 - The Greatest Hits
"The Top Twenty": A Short Review of Who Says What.
The scaffolding: [The least possible knowledge?]
The philosophers are listed in chronological order. This is a good Chapter to check for the historical context of philosophers and their work.
If this is your first confrontation with these names and ideas, you probably won't gather all the information initially. As you read more of the other Chapters, some of these names and ideas will become more familiar. Also, this is a good place to refer back to while reading other portions of the pamphlet. This Chapter might help you put some of the ideas into perspective.
Notice definitions of the words Rationalist and Empiricist. Much of the history of Western philosophy has been an intertwining between Rationalists, those who think we learn first or more reliably through the mind; and Empiricists, those who think we learn first or more reliably through sensory perception. As you will see, Plato, Descartes, and others think ideas come first. Aristotle, Locke, and Hume, and others think we learn first from observation of the material world. (However, use of the terms Rationalist and Empiricist does not appear until the Modern era.)
How this is assembled: first is the name, followed by the "bumper sticker" version of what that thinker proposed; then, the nationality and dates follow; finally, there is a short paragraph condensing major thoughts. Quotations attributed to that thinker are given in quotation marks.
============================================
Thales - "All is water."
(Greek, 6th C., b.c.) The first Western philosopher; he sought the basic element of the universe, without relying on religion: an effort just as controversial then as it is now.
Pythagoras - Cosmic harmony is based on the relations of numbers.
(Greek, 5th C., b.c.) Discovered the Pythagorean theorem; developed the musical scale; held that numbers could express the essence of all things, just as Physicists do today.
Zeno - Devised paradoxes showing that time and motion do not exist.
(Greek, 4th C., b.c.) Example: if we want to travel somewhere, we have to travel halfway there, then halfway of that, then halfway again. We get closer and closer, but we never actually get there! Mathematicians still explore his work.
Protagoras - "Man is the measure of all things."
(Greek, 4th C., b.c.) Taught that truth and the universe should be studied as relative to humans; founded the Sophists.
Socrates - "First, Do No Harm."
"Nothing to extremes."
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
His method included dialectic and paradox.
(Greek, 4th C., b.c.) Called the "wisest man in Athens," by the Oracle, Socrates knew that he knew nothing; he attempted to make others define their terms, and was the first moral philosopher. Said to be responsible for most of the Philosophy of Plato. (See also, "Proofs of God.)
Plato - Innate forms lead to understanding of ordinary experience.
Wrote Dialogues (conversations) about Socrates.
Wrote "The Republic," a political utopia.
(Greek, became a student of Socrates in 407 b.c.) Often considered the most influential Western philosopher. Wrote the "Apology," the defense of Socrates, one of the most read selections of Philosophy. In the "Allegory of the Cave," he wrote that we live trapped in shadows until we discover the real world of Philosophy. Forms, or ideas, are more real than the material world, and the ultimate idea is the Idea of the Good. Philosopher-Kings should rule. (Small note: the term "Platonic love" was coined by Victorian era philosophers who were embarrassed at the very sensual nature of some of Plato's writings and wanted to hide that from their students.)
Aristotle - "Man is a political animal."
(Greek, 3rd C., b.c.) Wrote earliest books on logic, biology, physics, metaphysics, ethics, and more. Wrote about the syllogism, causality, and category; tragedy, poetics, and rhetoric. Unlike Plato, he said form and matter are not separate. The Good Life is based on reason, and is, first, the intellectual life, and, second, involvement in politics (the moral life). Virtue is a learned habit that seeks moderation in all things. Thus, education and living in cities were necessary for happiness.
Aquinas, St. Thomas - Used reason to prove the existence of God.
(Italian, 1200's) Applied Aristotle to Christian revelation. Reason and faith are gifts of God. Evil is not a separate being, but is the absence of good. A major theologian of the Roman Catholic Church. (See also, "Proofs of God.)
William of Occam- "Occam's Razor."
The simplest explanation is usually the best.
(English, 1300's) An early Franciscan, educated at Oxford, who argued that Jesus lived in poverty; argued against Aquinas by saying faith was superior to reason; supported the separation of Philosophy and Theology; excommunicated.
Rene Descartes - Modern philosopher who began with doubt.
"I think, therefore, I am."
Dualist (Mind and Matter are the two basic parts of the
Universe.)
Rationalist (We know the world best through the mind.)
(French, 1600's) Set aside all that he had been taught to examine what he truly knew: a radical idea; decided he could not doubt that he was doubting, and therefore was thinking; as long as he was thinking, he was existing. He proved the existence of God (see, "Proof of God), and, because God would not deceive us, therefore, the material world must exist. Developed study of optics (particularly reflection and refraction: He is responsible for eyeglasses). Also, he devised, God bless him: analytical geometry, Cartesian coordinates, negative roots, and exponent notation.
John Locke - Knowledge comes from sensory experience.
Empiricist (We know the world best through sensory
experience.)
(British, 1600's) Founder of British empiricism, he said each of us is born as a blank tablet on which the senses transcribe the experiences of the world. He furthered the use of the Social Contract theory of government, that each person contracts with the whole: government depends on the consent of the governed. He developed the system of checks and balances in government. He believed humans are by nature good.
David Hume - Skeptic.
(Scottish, 1700's) Empiricist. He considered the mind only a bundle of sensory perceptions, not a separate entity. He saw no reason to accept the existence of God, a soul, a mind, the material world, or that any one thing caused another. (See also, Chapter on "Skepticism")
Immanuel Kant - Morality is based on a universal rule.
"The Categorical Imperative."
(German, 1700's) Synthesized Rationalism and Empiricism: We know the world through sensory perceptions passing through the filter of the categories of the mind; he defined what those categories are. Wrote extensively about logic and ethics. The Categorical Imperative (the universal ethical command) is to treat others not as a means (a thing) but as an end. Each human is entitled to the integrity of being regarded as a moral agent.
John Stuart Mill - Utilitarian
Actions are right that promote happiness and pleasure.
(British, 1806—73) Empiricist; described inductive reasoning (which is used by science); added the qualitative principle to earlier Utilitarianism, claiming that some pleasures are better than others, for example reading Socrates is better than a pig's wallowing. An advocate of woman's suffrage.
William James - Pragmatist and early psychologist.
(U.S., 1842—1910) Those ideas that are the most useful are the most likely to be true. Ideas precede action (changing beliefs will change actions). Wrote about consciousness, will, and interest. Early study of world religions. (See, "Proofs of God") Brother of novelist Henry James.
John Dewey - Pragmatist and education reformer.
(U.S., 1859—1952) Viewed democracy as primary ethical value. In education, he worked to end authoritarian methods; he urged learning through experiment and practice. An advocate of woman's suffrage.
Bertrand Russell - Logician and Empiricist.
(British, 1872—1970) Skeptic; opposed to any dogmatism. Ethical relativist; imprisoned twice for his pacifism. Wrote general descriptions and history of Philosophy. Awarded the 1950 Nobel Prize in Literature. Leading Philosopher of Twentieth Century English-speaking philosophers. God bless him, he spent 3 volumes demonstrating that mathematics could be explained by the rules of formal logic.
Jean-Paul Sartre - Existentialist
(French, 1905—80) Claimed "existence precedes essence." No fixed human nature; thus, everyone has total freedom and is responsible for results of action. A prolific writer, he also used fiction to describe his philosophical ideas. Lifetime companion of Simone de Beauvoir. Leading Philosopher of Twentieth Century continental Europe.
Simone de Beauvoir - Feminist and existentialist.
(French, 1908—86) First French female Ph.D. in Philosophy. Wrote extensively about Existentialism; also, about ethics, the status of women, and the status of the elderly. In addition, she used fiction and autobiography to describe philosophical ideas.
John Rawls - Justice is fairness.
(U.S., 1921—2002) Using the social contract theory, he balanced liberty and equality. In particular, he claimed inequalities in wealth and power must consider the advantage of those who have the least.
Carol Gilligan - Feminist and advocate of Caring Ethics.
(U.S., b. 1936) Emphasized empathy and compassion as a part of moral decision-making; contrasted with Kantianism that considered only rules.
(Okay, so it's the top 21, not 20.)
============================================
For Review -
One more time!
"The Top Twenty"
Thales - "All is water."
Pythagoras - Cosmic harmony is based on the relations of numbers.
Zeno - Devised paradoxes showing that time and motion do not exist.
Protagoras - "Man is the measure of all things."
Socrates - "First, Do No Harm."
"Nothing to extremes."
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
His method included dialectic and paradox.
Plato - Innate forms lead to understanding of ordinary experience.
Wrote Dialogues about Socrates.
Wrote "The Republic."
Aristotle - "Man is a political animal."
Wrote earliest books on logic, biology, physics, and many others.
Aquinas, St. Thomas - Used reason to prove the existence of God.
William of Occam- "Occam's Razor."
The simplest explanation is usually the best.
Rene Descartes - Modern philosopher who began with doubt.
"I think, therefore, I am."
Dualist
John Locke - Knowledge comes from sensory experience.
David Hume - Skeptic.
Immanuel Kant - Morality is based on a universal rule.
The Categorical Imperative.
John Stuart Mill - Actions are right that promote happiness and pleasure.
William James - Pragmatist and early psychologist.
John Dewey - Pragmatist and education reformer.
Bertrand Russell - Logician and Empiricist.
Jean-Paul Sartre - Existentialist.
Simone de Beauvoir - Feminist and existentialist.
John Rawls - Justice is fairness.
Carol Gilligan - Feminist and advocate of Caring Ethics.
===============
Terrific! You did it!
The scaffolding: [The least possible knowledge?]
The philosophers are listed in chronological order. This is a good Chapter to check for the historical context of philosophers and their work.
If this is your first confrontation with these names and ideas, you probably won't gather all the information initially. As you read more of the other Chapters, some of these names and ideas will become more familiar. Also, this is a good place to refer back to while reading other portions of the pamphlet. This Chapter might help you put some of the ideas into perspective.
Notice definitions of the words Rationalist and Empiricist. Much of the history of Western philosophy has been an intertwining between Rationalists, those who think we learn first or more reliably through the mind; and Empiricists, those who think we learn first or more reliably through sensory perception. As you will see, Plato, Descartes, and others think ideas come first. Aristotle, Locke, and Hume, and others think we learn first from observation of the material world. (However, use of the terms Rationalist and Empiricist does not appear until the Modern era.)
How this is assembled: first is the name, followed by the "bumper sticker" version of what that thinker proposed; then, the nationality and dates follow; finally, there is a short paragraph condensing major thoughts. Quotations attributed to that thinker are given in quotation marks.
============================================
Thales - "All is water."
(Greek, 6th C., b.c.) The first Western philosopher; he sought the basic element of the universe, without relying on religion: an effort just as controversial then as it is now.
Pythagoras - Cosmic harmony is based on the relations of numbers.
(Greek, 5th C., b.c.) Discovered the Pythagorean theorem; developed the musical scale; held that numbers could express the essence of all things, just as Physicists do today.
Zeno - Devised paradoxes showing that time and motion do not exist.
(Greek, 4th C., b.c.) Example: if we want to travel somewhere, we have to travel halfway there, then halfway of that, then halfway again. We get closer and closer, but we never actually get there! Mathematicians still explore his work.
Protagoras - "Man is the measure of all things."
(Greek, 4th C., b.c.) Taught that truth and the universe should be studied as relative to humans; founded the Sophists.
Socrates - "First, Do No Harm."
"Nothing to extremes."
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
His method included dialectic and paradox.
(Greek, 4th C., b.c.) Called the "wisest man in Athens," by the Oracle, Socrates knew that he knew nothing; he attempted to make others define their terms, and was the first moral philosopher. Said to be responsible for most of the Philosophy of Plato. (See also, "Proofs of God.)
Plato - Innate forms lead to understanding of ordinary experience.
Wrote Dialogues (conversations) about Socrates.
Wrote "The Republic," a political utopia.
(Greek, became a student of Socrates in 407 b.c.) Often considered the most influential Western philosopher. Wrote the "Apology," the defense of Socrates, one of the most read selections of Philosophy. In the "Allegory of the Cave," he wrote that we live trapped in shadows until we discover the real world of Philosophy. Forms, or ideas, are more real than the material world, and the ultimate idea is the Idea of the Good. Philosopher-Kings should rule. (Small note: the term "Platonic love" was coined by Victorian era philosophers who were embarrassed at the very sensual nature of some of Plato's writings and wanted to hide that from their students.)
Aristotle - "Man is a political animal."
(Greek, 3rd C., b.c.) Wrote earliest books on logic, biology, physics, metaphysics, ethics, and more. Wrote about the syllogism, causality, and category; tragedy, poetics, and rhetoric. Unlike Plato, he said form and matter are not separate. The Good Life is based on reason, and is, first, the intellectual life, and, second, involvement in politics (the moral life). Virtue is a learned habit that seeks moderation in all things. Thus, education and living in cities were necessary for happiness.
Aquinas, St. Thomas - Used reason to prove the existence of God.
(Italian, 1200's) Applied Aristotle to Christian revelation. Reason and faith are gifts of God. Evil is not a separate being, but is the absence of good. A major theologian of the Roman Catholic Church. (See also, "Proofs of God.)
William of Occam- "Occam's Razor."
The simplest explanation is usually the best.
(English, 1300's) An early Franciscan, educated at Oxford, who argued that Jesus lived in poverty; argued against Aquinas by saying faith was superior to reason; supported the separation of Philosophy and Theology; excommunicated.
Rene Descartes - Modern philosopher who began with doubt.
"I think, therefore, I am."
Dualist (Mind and Matter are the two basic parts of the
Universe.)
Rationalist (We know the world best through the mind.)
(French, 1600's) Set aside all that he had been taught to examine what he truly knew: a radical idea; decided he could not doubt that he was doubting, and therefore was thinking; as long as he was thinking, he was existing. He proved the existence of God (see, "Proof of God), and, because God would not deceive us, therefore, the material world must exist. Developed study of optics (particularly reflection and refraction: He is responsible for eyeglasses). Also, he devised, God bless him: analytical geometry, Cartesian coordinates, negative roots, and exponent notation.
John Locke - Knowledge comes from sensory experience.
Empiricist (We know the world best through sensory
experience.)
(British, 1600's) Founder of British empiricism, he said each of us is born as a blank tablet on which the senses transcribe the experiences of the world. He furthered the use of the Social Contract theory of government, that each person contracts with the whole: government depends on the consent of the governed. He developed the system of checks and balances in government. He believed humans are by nature good.
David Hume - Skeptic.
(Scottish, 1700's) Empiricist. He considered the mind only a bundle of sensory perceptions, not a separate entity. He saw no reason to accept the existence of God, a soul, a mind, the material world, or that any one thing caused another. (See also, Chapter on "Skepticism")
Immanuel Kant - Morality is based on a universal rule.
"The Categorical Imperative."
(German, 1700's) Synthesized Rationalism and Empiricism: We know the world through sensory perceptions passing through the filter of the categories of the mind; he defined what those categories are. Wrote extensively about logic and ethics. The Categorical Imperative (the universal ethical command) is to treat others not as a means (a thing) but as an end. Each human is entitled to the integrity of being regarded as a moral agent.
John Stuart Mill - Utilitarian
Actions are right that promote happiness and pleasure.
(British, 1806—73) Empiricist; described inductive reasoning (which is used by science); added the qualitative principle to earlier Utilitarianism, claiming that some pleasures are better than others, for example reading Socrates is better than a pig's wallowing. An advocate of woman's suffrage.
William James - Pragmatist and early psychologist.
(U.S., 1842—1910) Those ideas that are the most useful are the most likely to be true. Ideas precede action (changing beliefs will change actions). Wrote about consciousness, will, and interest. Early study of world religions. (See, "Proofs of God") Brother of novelist Henry James.
John Dewey - Pragmatist and education reformer.
(U.S., 1859—1952) Viewed democracy as primary ethical value. In education, he worked to end authoritarian methods; he urged learning through experiment and practice. An advocate of woman's suffrage.
Bertrand Russell - Logician and Empiricist.
(British, 1872—1970) Skeptic; opposed to any dogmatism. Ethical relativist; imprisoned twice for his pacifism. Wrote general descriptions and history of Philosophy. Awarded the 1950 Nobel Prize in Literature. Leading Philosopher of Twentieth Century English-speaking philosophers. God bless him, he spent 3 volumes demonstrating that mathematics could be explained by the rules of formal logic.
Jean-Paul Sartre - Existentialist
(French, 1905—80) Claimed "existence precedes essence." No fixed human nature; thus, everyone has total freedom and is responsible for results of action. A prolific writer, he also used fiction to describe his philosophical ideas. Lifetime companion of Simone de Beauvoir. Leading Philosopher of Twentieth Century continental Europe.
Simone de Beauvoir - Feminist and existentialist.
(French, 1908—86) First French female Ph.D. in Philosophy. Wrote extensively about Existentialism; also, about ethics, the status of women, and the status of the elderly. In addition, she used fiction and autobiography to describe philosophical ideas.
John Rawls - Justice is fairness.
(U.S., 1921—2002) Using the social contract theory, he balanced liberty and equality. In particular, he claimed inequalities in wealth and power must consider the advantage of those who have the least.
Carol Gilligan - Feminist and advocate of Caring Ethics.
(U.S., b. 1936) Emphasized empathy and compassion as a part of moral decision-making; contrasted with Kantianism that considered only rules.
(Okay, so it's the top 21, not 20.)
============================================
For Review -
One more time!
"The Top Twenty"
Thales - "All is water."
Pythagoras - Cosmic harmony is based on the relations of numbers.
Zeno - Devised paradoxes showing that time and motion do not exist.
Protagoras - "Man is the measure of all things."
Socrates - "First, Do No Harm."
"Nothing to extremes."
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
His method included dialectic and paradox.
Plato - Innate forms lead to understanding of ordinary experience.
Wrote Dialogues about Socrates.
Wrote "The Republic."
Aristotle - "Man is a political animal."
Wrote earliest books on logic, biology, physics, and many others.
Aquinas, St. Thomas - Used reason to prove the existence of God.
William of Occam- "Occam's Razor."
The simplest explanation is usually the best.
Rene Descartes - Modern philosopher who began with doubt.
"I think, therefore, I am."
Dualist
John Locke - Knowledge comes from sensory experience.
David Hume - Skeptic.
Immanuel Kant - Morality is based on a universal rule.
The Categorical Imperative.
John Stuart Mill - Actions are right that promote happiness and pleasure.
William James - Pragmatist and early psychologist.
John Dewey - Pragmatist and education reformer.
Bertrand Russell - Logician and Empiricist.
Jean-Paul Sartre - Existentialist.
Simone de Beauvoir - Feminist and existentialist.
John Rawls - Justice is fairness.
Carol Gilligan - Feminist and advocate of Caring Ethics.
===============
Terrific! You did it!
10 - Why We Study the Past
One of the rewards of studying Philosophy is the ability to name-drop.
In the midst of intense political debate, or of making a crisp first impression, or just casual conversation, one can throw out the name of a Famous One, with some iota of knowledge about that thinker's contribution, and bring to oneself immediate respect and intellectual recognition. If for no reason than pride alone, it is beneficial to learn a micro-dot about the best renowned.
Like classics in literature, which are the regarded as the best fiction, poetry, and essays over time, so the classics in philosophy are those that have given the best expression to ideas, within the confines or limits of their own period, and that have won the respect as the highest or the deepest of written thinking over the generations.
Socrates communicated solely in oral conversation, dialogues, and chronologically before him, we have only fragments of writing, saved in the greatest amount by the efforts of Aristotle and his students. Aristotle, the student of Plato, who was the student of Socrates, is said to have written forty books.
Aristotle's teacher, Plato, was the prized student of Socrates. He founded the first school of the humanities, the liberal arts, and of Philosophy, indeed, the Western World's first university, which was called the Academy, from which we derive the name “academic." The Academy survived nearly a thousand years. How few universities of today can make that claim of longevity? Plato wrote down many of the dialogues of Socrates, and his own political philosophy, The Republic.
The story is that, long before the founding of the Plato's Academy, or of the much later school of Aristotle, called the Lyceum, Socrates commented on the need for spoken study of Philosophy. He bemoaned the shift to writing ideas because it would lead to a lack of the quality of memory: We would become forgetful. Who now, who needs a list of one word items merely to go the grocery store, can argue against the observation that the Greek bards who could recite thousands of lines of verse were superior in the mental skill of recall?
Nevertheless, technological progress prevailed.
Soon after the death of Socrates these schools, one after the other, were founded, devoted to the writing and preserving of ancient Greek Philosophy.
Because Philosophy is now a written art, we can converse through writing over time with the ideas that have come before, with the awareness that ideas challenging and elaborating on our own, will follow after us. These conversations can be translated, and have been, into many languages, including those that did not even exist at the time of Socrates.
The dust of our flesh shall disappear, but Philosophical writing can keep our mental exercises, if not in eternal being, then at least in long-lived existence.
Like a wave upon wave in the ocean of time, written ideas relate to each other, change each other, and reach the individual on the shore of the here and how. Contemporary thought is sculpted by the past.
There are always those who say they have “Their Own Philosophy,” and don't need to know Philosophy of the past, “The Old Stuff.” They live in their own worlds, possibly with fleeting fame, but without lasting impression or comprehension. Why? Because our use of the names, vocabulary, and definitions of the past help us to communicate in the present. Thought can be so difficult to express verbally that we need the aide of common understandings of the terms and concepts that have been carefully, artfully discussed, written, and studied by so many for so long.
I hate to be the one to convey this possible disillusionment to some people, but there really are very few new ideas. New technologies, yes; new systems of thought, rarely. Most of our insights have already been stated by some preceeding thinker, some more clearly than others, and some more famously than others. Do not dispair. There is always a need for re-statement, for clarification, for refinement.
We need to use the terms, definitions, and concepts of the past to discuss the ideas we hold today. The better we use the concepts, vocabulary, and our knowledge of the thinkers of the past, the better we can express ourselves in the present. We can then be clearer, more precise, and more assured that our audience will understand what we are trying to communicate.
These ideas from the past are like coins of gold that, ever and continually spent, are never lost. The more we use them, the richer we become.
One thing we do learn from the past: The one thing upon which all the Philosophers of all times and places have agreed, no matter how far apart they were on the other issues, is that the study of Philosophy is the highest and greatest joy.
The more we try out thinking, the more we discover this is true.
11 - The Meaning of Life
The "Good Life." And "The Meaning of Life."
You would not have wanted to travel so far without coming to that answer, would you?
(1) Some skeptics say there is no Good Life and no Meaning of Life to be found. Many of them live contented lives. Yet, others say that those who maintain meaningfulness as paramount seem happier, less bitter. (Also, skepticism is a self-contradiction, as explained in the Chapter, "Why I'm Skeptical about Skepticism.") Saying there is no answer is not an answer when there is no proof that there is no answer. Besides, it is more fun to make an effort to answer life's most lasting questions.
(2) Aristotle defines the "Good Life" as one with virtue, health, wealth, family, friends, and longevity. St. Thomas Aquinas defines the Good Life as one with faith, reason, and virtue. Many other philosophers agree that the moral life is, or is a major part of, the Good Life. Living virtuously is one of the most important elements of enjoying life. When we have respect for ourselves for living up to our own standards, we can feel we are enjoying the Good Life.
Finding and living the Good Life is an important aspect of finding Meaning in Life. Whatever else the Good Life might include, moral living is central. One cannot be truly happy without it.
Some argue that greed, not morality, is the secret of happy living. However, recently, there have been studies that show, after about $50,000 per year, wealth does nothing to increase happiness. We all need material survival and enjoy comfort, but after a certain point, added money does nothing to improve a sense of being satisfied with life. (See also, the Chapter on "Egoism" for a discussion of the contradiction contained in selfishness.)
If moral living is needed for the Good Life, and the Good Life is needed for the Meaning of Life, then moral living must be needed for finding Meaning in Life.
(3) One of the best insights into the question Man's Search for Meaning comes from the book by that name, written by Viktor Frankl. A psychiatrist in Germany at the beginning of World War II, he and his family were violently taken to a Nazi prison camp. He was immediately separated from his wife and children, and then was sent to the men's work camp. Years later, he learned that his family had been gassed immediately.
He survived in the camp for two years. The first half of his book documents his struggles, both physical and psychological. He maintained his balance by looking forward to being reunited with his wife and children and to re-writing his book. The manuscript had been taken from him at the time of the arrest. In those days before digital copies and photocopies, the typed version was the only one. He would have to reconstruct it from the beginning.
Hope of being returned to the wife and children he loved and the work to which he was dedicated kept him level-minded. He imagined conversations with his wife. Some in the camp coped amazingly well, others in the camp lost all hope, and some died slowly because of a lack of will to live. The rigors of the camp, the hard work, the starvation diet, the filth, the long work days, all weakened both body and mind. Many died. Others, considered useless, were taken off to be gassed.
After two years, relatives were able to raise enough money to buy Frankl's freedom. Alone, he moved to New York City. There he began to re-build his life. He developed the method of psychology that he called Logotherapy, the study of meaning. As long as one has a meaning for which to live, one can have hope, and shape a life of happiness.
The second half of his book explains his theory of the meaningful life being the best. As long as we live with meaning, we can live well. The meaning may shift over time, just as he had to shift from finding meaning in the hope he would find his wife. The source or goal of meaning can change; the fact of living with meaningfulness should not. Through his therapeutic method, he was able to help many other survivors of camps who by then lived in New York City. He helped those who had lost everything, possessions and family and friends. He was a deeply religious man but did not impose his religion or having a religion on his patients.
I have found that everyone who reads this book is deeply moved. Frankl's strength gives all of us insight and respect. Each of us hopes we can find a similarly strong sense of meaning.
(4) What are some of the aspects of life in which humans find meaning? Freud offered (a) love and (b) work as the goals of living. Yet, statistics show that barely half have happy marriages, and fewer than that are happy in their work. Further, both of these goals are often outside our control. Finding a good job depends on time and place and economy. Finding love depends on time, place, and circumstance.
(5) To be a suitable meaning of life, I argue that it must be something that we can obtain through our own effort and which can only with great difficulty ever be taken from us. This is why Spinoza and others said education is the source of meaning: we can find it ourselves; and, once gained, it cannot be taken away.
I have already disputed love and work as sufficient answers, now I would like to dispute education, as much as I love it and worked hard for it for myself and for others. Education does not necessarily increase critical thinking, but it does seem to increase political awareness, enjoyment of culture, and to slow the instincts for violence. Yet, Germany at the time of the Nazi rise to power was among the most cultured and best educated nations in the world. Here, in the United States, even when the ratio of attained degrees is high, we have entered diplomatic and military endeavors that brought shame. Education, alone, does not protect us from silliness or misjudgment.
(6) Another commonly offered idea for ultimate meaning is religious faith. It is true that people of faith do find meaning and contentment in that faith, but there are so many different and different kinds of faith, that one is left asking which is the right one? Or, does having just any religion suffice? Interestingly, as religious as Viktor Frankl was, he never pressed religion upon others.
Huston Smith, the best known Twentieth Century expert on world religions, similarly to William James, defined religion as the trust in ultimate justice, which trust gives us strength and peace of mind. This is an appealing definition, but leaves us with the possibility of choosing a religion with a narrowly drawn sense of justice that looks to one's own betterment alone, or of a select few. Trust in ultimate justice for only a select few can lead to resentment and revenge. Self-defined justice can be a very selfish thing.
Finally, there are three things that are most often offered as suitable as a meaning of life: (7) wealth, (8) fame, and (9) falling in love. Each of these is especially popular in contemporary living.
(7) None of these met my standard of being in one's own control: wealth is often the result of luck more than work, and can be stolen or frittered away as quickly as it was gained.
Socrates and Spinoza were generally considered to have been impoverished or of only minimal income; yet, both excited their followers with their thought. They found, among other things, the secret we discuss below to the Meaning of Life.
(8) Fame depends on the attention of others, who can turn their attention away quickly and finally. Popularity is fleeting. Drama can entice briefly, but relying on the opinions of others robs one of self-esteem and of an inner life.
(9) Falling in love is particularly popular with poets and song-writers. Yet, falling in love is completely out of our control. We cannot just intend to fall in love with the next person we meet, because we cannot predict who that might be. We cannot choose to fall in love at one day and one hour. Time and place and circumstance for falling in love are outside our control.
Not only is gaining love outside our control, so is losing it. Poems and songs seem to spend as much time on love lost as they do on love gained. In truth, we know that one half of even the happiest couple is more likely to die before the other. The remaining partner is left with irreconcilable grief if their meaningfulness consisted solely in being in love with the other.
(10) What are we left with to answer our longing for meaning? Friendship. It is within our own grasp. We can attract good friends by being a good friend.
What are the qualities we want in a good friend? We can exhibit those in our own lives: loyalty, honesty, sincerity, dependability, kindness, empathy, and even a sense of humor. These are some of the qualities most of us admire. Surely, we can think of more. And surely, we can learn to conduct ourselves in these ways. So, gaining friendship can to a large extent be under our own control. We can choose good friends, we can be a good friend, and we can maintain long friendships. Yet, even if our friends may change or die, we still have the likelihood of gaining new friends. Many who report having long and happy marriages say that the basis of their marriage is friendship.
Friendship is a goal within our grasp and one that brings vast hours of contentment and meaningfulness. The quality of our lives, our work, our place of living, even our health, all are enhanced with the quality of our friendships.
A lifelong endeavor and pleasure, friendship is the meaning of life.
You would not have wanted to travel so far without coming to that answer, would you?
(1) Some skeptics say there is no Good Life and no Meaning of Life to be found. Many of them live contented lives. Yet, others say that those who maintain meaningfulness as paramount seem happier, less bitter. (Also, skepticism is a self-contradiction, as explained in the Chapter, "Why I'm Skeptical about Skepticism.") Saying there is no answer is not an answer when there is no proof that there is no answer. Besides, it is more fun to make an effort to answer life's most lasting questions.
(2) Aristotle defines the "Good Life" as one with virtue, health, wealth, family, friends, and longevity. St. Thomas Aquinas defines the Good Life as one with faith, reason, and virtue. Many other philosophers agree that the moral life is, or is a major part of, the Good Life. Living virtuously is one of the most important elements of enjoying life. When we have respect for ourselves for living up to our own standards, we can feel we are enjoying the Good Life.
Finding and living the Good Life is an important aspect of finding Meaning in Life. Whatever else the Good Life might include, moral living is central. One cannot be truly happy without it.
Some argue that greed, not morality, is the secret of happy living. However, recently, there have been studies that show, after about $50,000 per year, wealth does nothing to increase happiness. We all need material survival and enjoy comfort, but after a certain point, added money does nothing to improve a sense of being satisfied with life. (See also, the Chapter on "Egoism" for a discussion of the contradiction contained in selfishness.)
If moral living is needed for the Good Life, and the Good Life is needed for the Meaning of Life, then moral living must be needed for finding Meaning in Life.
(3) One of the best insights into the question Man's Search for Meaning comes from the book by that name, written by Viktor Frankl. A psychiatrist in Germany at the beginning of World War II, he and his family were violently taken to a Nazi prison camp. He was immediately separated from his wife and children, and then was sent to the men's work camp. Years later, he learned that his family had been gassed immediately.
He survived in the camp for two years. The first half of his book documents his struggles, both physical and psychological. He maintained his balance by looking forward to being reunited with his wife and children and to re-writing his book. The manuscript had been taken from him at the time of the arrest. In those days before digital copies and photocopies, the typed version was the only one. He would have to reconstruct it from the beginning.
Hope of being returned to the wife and children he loved and the work to which he was dedicated kept him level-minded. He imagined conversations with his wife. Some in the camp coped amazingly well, others in the camp lost all hope, and some died slowly because of a lack of will to live. The rigors of the camp, the hard work, the starvation diet, the filth, the long work days, all weakened both body and mind. Many died. Others, considered useless, were taken off to be gassed.
After two years, relatives were able to raise enough money to buy Frankl's freedom. Alone, he moved to New York City. There he began to re-build his life. He developed the method of psychology that he called Logotherapy, the study of meaning. As long as one has a meaning for which to live, one can have hope, and shape a life of happiness.
The second half of his book explains his theory of the meaningful life being the best. As long as we live with meaning, we can live well. The meaning may shift over time, just as he had to shift from finding meaning in the hope he would find his wife. The source or goal of meaning can change; the fact of living with meaningfulness should not. Through his therapeutic method, he was able to help many other survivors of camps who by then lived in New York City. He helped those who had lost everything, possessions and family and friends. He was a deeply religious man but did not impose his religion or having a religion on his patients.
I have found that everyone who reads this book is deeply moved. Frankl's strength gives all of us insight and respect. Each of us hopes we can find a similarly strong sense of meaning.
(4) What are some of the aspects of life in which humans find meaning? Freud offered (a) love and (b) work as the goals of living. Yet, statistics show that barely half have happy marriages, and fewer than that are happy in their work. Further, both of these goals are often outside our control. Finding a good job depends on time and place and economy. Finding love depends on time, place, and circumstance.
(5) To be a suitable meaning of life, I argue that it must be something that we can obtain through our own effort and which can only with great difficulty ever be taken from us. This is why Spinoza and others said education is the source of meaning: we can find it ourselves; and, once gained, it cannot be taken away.
I have already disputed love and work as sufficient answers, now I would like to dispute education, as much as I love it and worked hard for it for myself and for others. Education does not necessarily increase critical thinking, but it does seem to increase political awareness, enjoyment of culture, and to slow the instincts for violence. Yet, Germany at the time of the Nazi rise to power was among the most cultured and best educated nations in the world. Here, in the United States, even when the ratio of attained degrees is high, we have entered diplomatic and military endeavors that brought shame. Education, alone, does not protect us from silliness or misjudgment.
(6) Another commonly offered idea for ultimate meaning is religious faith. It is true that people of faith do find meaning and contentment in that faith, but there are so many different and different kinds of faith, that one is left asking which is the right one? Or, does having just any religion suffice? Interestingly, as religious as Viktor Frankl was, he never pressed religion upon others.
Huston Smith, the best known Twentieth Century expert on world religions, similarly to William James, defined religion as the trust in ultimate justice, which trust gives us strength and peace of mind. This is an appealing definition, but leaves us with the possibility of choosing a religion with a narrowly drawn sense of justice that looks to one's own betterment alone, or of a select few. Trust in ultimate justice for only a select few can lead to resentment and revenge. Self-defined justice can be a very selfish thing.
Finally, there are three things that are most often offered as suitable as a meaning of life: (7) wealth, (8) fame, and (9) falling in love. Each of these is especially popular in contemporary living.
(7) None of these met my standard of being in one's own control: wealth is often the result of luck more than work, and can be stolen or frittered away as quickly as it was gained.
Socrates and Spinoza were generally considered to have been impoverished or of only minimal income; yet, both excited their followers with their thought. They found, among other things, the secret we discuss below to the Meaning of Life.
(8) Fame depends on the attention of others, who can turn their attention away quickly and finally. Popularity is fleeting. Drama can entice briefly, but relying on the opinions of others robs one of self-esteem and of an inner life.
(9) Falling in love is particularly popular with poets and song-writers. Yet, falling in love is completely out of our control. We cannot just intend to fall in love with the next person we meet, because we cannot predict who that might be. We cannot choose to fall in love at one day and one hour. Time and place and circumstance for falling in love are outside our control.
Not only is gaining love outside our control, so is losing it. Poems and songs seem to spend as much time on love lost as they do on love gained. In truth, we know that one half of even the happiest couple is more likely to die before the other. The remaining partner is left with irreconcilable grief if their meaningfulness consisted solely in being in love with the other.
(10) What are we left with to answer our longing for meaning? Friendship. It is within our own grasp. We can attract good friends by being a good friend.
What are the qualities we want in a good friend? We can exhibit those in our own lives: loyalty, honesty, sincerity, dependability, kindness, empathy, and even a sense of humor. These are some of the qualities most of us admire. Surely, we can think of more. And surely, we can learn to conduct ourselves in these ways. So, gaining friendship can to a large extent be under our own control. We can choose good friends, we can be a good friend, and we can maintain long friendships. Yet, even if our friends may change or die, we still have the likelihood of gaining new friends. Many who report having long and happy marriages say that the basis of their marriage is friendship.
Friendship is a goal within our grasp and one that brings vast hours of contentment and meaningfulness. The quality of our lives, our work, our place of living, even our health, all are enhanced with the quality of our friendships.
A lifelong endeavor and pleasure, friendship is the meaning of life.
12 - What to Read - The List
The Suggested Reading List.
Some are more important than others;
and some are easier to read than others:
Meditations on First Philosophy, Rene Descartes
"The Value of Philosophy," Bertrand Russell
Mind
Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume
New Essays on Human Understanding, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Vindication of the Right of Women, Mary Wollstonecraft
Free Will
Ethics, Benedict Spinoza
Thus Spake Zarathustra, Friederich Nietzsche
The Self
The Dialogues and The Republic, Plato
The Souls of Black Folk, W.E.B. DeBois
The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir
Homosexuality: The Psychology of the Creative Process, Paul Rosenfels
God
Pensees, Blaise Pascal
The Will to Believe, William James
"Why I Am Not a Christian," Bertrand Russell
Reasoning
Logic, Aristotle
Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant
The World
Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith
"Letter from a Birmingham Jail" Martin Luther King, Jr.
A Theory of Justice, John Rawls
Anarchy, State and Utopia, Nozick
What to Do
The Analects, Confucius
Ethics, Aristotle
Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Immanuel Kant
On Liberty, John Stuart Mill
The Ethics of Ambiguity, Simone de Beauvoir
Meaning Of Life
"Humanism and Existentialism," John-Paul Sartre
Man's Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)