Philosophy 1010 Class 10/13/11

1. Philosophy 1010 Class 10/13/11 Title: Introduction to Philosophy Instructor: Paul Dickey E-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.edu Tonight: Hand in Video Lecture Notes. Quiz! By Next Week: Late homework (partial credit only) Be Sure You Have Read Chapter 4, Sections 4.1 & 4.2.

2. A Logic Workshop: Applying Critical Thinking to Philosophical Arguments Let’s Discuss our Mini-Essays. Did we address the questions we posed with the principles of critical thinking? That is, did we make the question clear, our claim (or opinion) clear and relevant to the question (or issue), and did we propose a “good” argument for our opinion? Midterm Exam: 10/27 --- 7:30 PM.

3. Chapter 2 • On Human Nature: • A Metaphysical Study • What is it to be Human? • What is a Person? • What is a Self? What is a Soul? • What is a Person Worth?

4. The Traditional Western View • The Prevalent View Regarding the Nature of Man Makes Four Basic Claims: • That the self is conscious and has a purpose • That the self is distinct from the body, but somehow is related. • That the self endures through time. • That the self has an independent existence from other selves

5. The Dualist View of Human Nature • The Dualist View is an ancient view going back to Plato in the Traditional Rationalist View of Human Nature. • A developed, systematic view of Dualism was best expressed by Rene Descartes (1596-1650). • Descartes argues that he can imagine his self without a body, thus the self is not the body. We cannot think of the self without thought which is immaterial. Thus, the mind and body must be distinct. • Descartes further argues that the mind or “soul” is the essential form of the self and could exist without the body. • I think, therefore I am.

6. The Mind-Body Problem • So how can the mind as a non-physical entity cause the physical body to act and how can the physical body cause changes in the state of the mind? • Can the mind add energy or force to the physical world? • But that is exactly what seems to happen when I decide to move my hand and then move it. • How can a physical body alter a state of consciousness or thought? • But that is exactly what seems to happen when a fly buzzes near my head and I become annoyed.

7. Cartesian Dualism on the Mind-Body Problem • Descartes suggested that the mind/body interacts through the pineal gland, a small gland near the brain by being so small that an immaterial mind could move it. • But the problem still seems to remain! No matter how small a physical object is, it is of course still a physical object.

8. Responses to Cartesian Dualism • Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) denied that the mind and body actually do interact. They only appear to do so. • Leibniz argued that the mind and the body operate in parallel universes like synchronized clocks. • Nicholas Malebranche (1683-1715) argued that such a synchronism could not occur by coincidence. Only by the constant act of God could the two worlds be kept parallel.

9. Materialism • Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) rejects Cartesian dualism claiming that not only was Descartes “solution” to the Mind/Body problem wrong, but the problem itself refutes dualism. • Since mind and body cannot interact, they cannot both exist within human nature. • There can only be one realm of human nature and that is the material world. • All human activities, including the mental, can be explained on the paradigm of a machine.

10. Materialism • Hobbes was reductionist in that he believed that one kind of reality (the mind) could be understood entirely in terms of another (matter). • New scientific techniques of observation and measurement being used by Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus were making giant strides in understanding the universe. • The spirit of his century suggested to Hobbes that all reality would be explained in time in terms only of the observable and the measurable. • Hobbes himself was unable to explain any mental processes in terms of the physical. • Perhaps motivating Hobbes’ view was basically his passionate faith in the advancement of science at the time.

11. Ten Minute Break!

12. The Mind/Brain Identity Theory • Hobbes’ materialism became a research strategy for the sciences and modern philosophy. One prominent form of 20th century materialism is known as The Identity Theory. • The Identity Theory claims that states of mind (e.g. consciousness) are identical with states of the brain. Someday science will discover what states of the mind (e.g. “desiring, “being happy,” etc) coincide with particular states of the brain. • A prime proponent of the Identity Theory is J.J.C. Smart (1920-) • The relationship between brain states and mind states is “contingent” or empirical and not “necessary” or logical. It is a subject of science, not philosophy. It cannot be understood by clarifying the meanings of our words or through reason alone.

13. The Mind/Brain Identity Theory • Although materialism is a strong force in philosophy to this day, not all modern philosophers “buy in” to the Identity Theory. • Norman Malcolm (1911-1990) argues against the Mind/Brain Identity Theory. • He claims that mental states have no location in space like brain states do. Thoughts require abstract context such as rules and practices, mutual understandings between parties, and assumptions. Since brain events do not, then brain states cannot ever be identical to mental states.

14. Behaviorist View of Human Nature • Behaviorism is a second form of Materialism. • Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976) claimed in his book The Concept of Mind that mental activities and states can be explained in terms of the external, observable behaviors with which they are associated. • For Ryle, to say that a person loves someone is only to say that she is likely to behave in certain ways to the other person. Note that this does not refer to any states of consciousness.

15. Behaviorist View of Human Nature • Ryle would tell us that this has to be so because otherwise it would be impossible for us even to we learn the meaning of love, or even pain or fear. We cannot do so by referring to states of consciousness because we cannot know such states in others. • Hilary Putnam (1926 - ) provides a counter-argument to Ryle -- Imagine a super-actor who can give a perfect imitation of someone in pain but does not feel pain or a super-Spartan who can endure pain without showing it. Putnam says the behaviorist would have to deny the possibility of these events. Surely that is wrong. • Thus, Putnam argues that behaviorism throws out the baby (consciousness) with the bath water.

16. Functionalist View of Human Nature • Functionalism is a third form of materialism that is inspired by the model of the modern computer and is reminiscent of Aristotle’s teleological explanations. • D. M. Armstrong (1926 - ) argues that mental activities and states can be explained in terms of perceptual inputs and behavioral outputs. • Mental state are the connections that the material brain makes between certain inputs and outputs. • Or in other words, conscious mental states and activities refer only to the functions that are served in the processes connecting sensory inputs and behavior outputs.

17. Functionalist View of Human Nature • Functionalism allows mental states to explain other mental states, but ultimately must be tied to the perceptual inputs and the behavioral outputs. • A functionalist would say that a machine that connects sensory inputs to a group of behavioral outputs like our brain does would itself have mental states, namely, it would have a mind. • Many philosophers would argue that in the end, functionalism like behaviorism does not provide a fully adequate account of consciousness.

18. Computer View of Human Nature • A view closely related to Functionalism is the view that humans indeed are sophisticated computers. • This view proposes that the mind is a computer following a program that generates outputs when given certain inputs. • Alan Turing (1912-1954) has suggested the Turing Test as a criteria to determine whether computers have minds. • According to Turing, when a computer is able to provide outputs that are indistinguishable in its answers from the answers of a human being, it would be entirely appropriate to say that the computer has a mind. • Turing believed it was only a matter of time before we would have such computers.

19. Computer View of Human Nature • John Searle (1932 - ) proposes the Chinese Room as a counter argument. • Searle asserts that a person following a program that outputs the right Chinese characters when given certain Chinese inputs may not understand Chinese. • Thus, Searle argues that Turing’s view in the end, does not provide a fully adequate account of consciousness. • Searle however does not slide back into Dualism. Instead, he claims that consciousness is a unique kind of human quality and someday science will explain how the brain produces it. It is not reducible to the physical reality of the brain but the brain does in fact produce it.

20. In Conclusion • Thus, in conclusion, the Mind/Body problem remains unsolved and, in fact, might still be as baffling today as ever!!!

21. The Traditional Western View • The Prevalent View Regarding the Nature of Man Makes Four Basic Claims: • That the self is conscious and has a purpose • That the self is distinct from the body, but somehow is related. • That the self endures through time. • That the self has an independent existence from other selves

22. Is There An Enduring Self? • Descartes argues that the enduring self is the soul, an • enduring immaterial being or existence. • John Locke (1632-1704)says that the enduring self is a based only on our having continuous memory. • Buddhism asserts that nothing in the universe, particularly the self, remains the same from one moment to the next. • David Hume (1711-1776)also denies that there is an enduring self. He argues that only what we perceive exists and that we never perceive an enduring self, only a constant flow of perceptions.

23. The Traditional Western View • The Prevalent View Regarding the Nature of Man Makes Four Basic Claims: • That the self is conscious and has a purpose • That the self is distinct from the body, but somehow is related. • That the self endures through time. • That the self has an independent existence from other selves

24. Is the Self Independent or Relational? • Descartes argues that the self exists independently of others and the independent self can judge the truth about what is. • Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)suggests that the self is the ability to choose independently of others, and not being determined by conforming to others. • Georg W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) proposes that the self is relational. A person is only free and independent if others recognize him or her to be so. • Charles Taylor (1931- ) argues that we depend on others for the very definition of what our real self is.

25. Ten Minute Break!

26. Chapter 3 • Reality and Being • (a Metaphysical Study)

27. “Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy.” ... Albert Einstein

28. What Is Reality? • Some might argue that reality is what we experience through our senses. • Or would you perhaps argue that reality consists of more than the material world? What about justice, mathematics, liberty, freedom, truth, beauty, space, time, and love? • Is language real? • Is God real? What do we even mean by that? • Or the sub-atomic theoretical entities that physics asserts? Are they real?

29. Metaphysics is the Study of What is Real • The most fundamental question in metaphysics is: Is reality purely material (just what we sense) or is there reality beyond the material? • We already discussed this question to some degree in terms of the mind/body problem, but now we will begin to look at this issue in a much broader scope. • We have already seen the materialism of Thomas Hobbes, particular in the context of the mind/body problem. Hobbes, however, argued for Materialism in a much broader sense.

30. The Prima Facie (or Self-evident) Case for Materialism • The argument from common sense: • If there are other realities besides the material, can they causally interact with the material world? • If so, how can this interaction happen? If they can not interact, what does it mean to say that such a reality exists? • Please note this may be moredifficult that even the mind/body problem where we do seem to have direct evidence to believe that our own consciousness exists.

31. The Prima Facie (or Self-evident) Case for Materialism • The argument from science: • Science seems to be our most developed and useful organized body of knowledge about the world by focusing on observation and measurement of the physical material world. In the history of science, discussion of any kinds of entities other than material entities largely have been blind alleys. • The history of science is full of examples where entities once thought to be necessary to explain life and man have been replaced by fully causal explanations in terms of chemicals and biological processes. Doesn’t it seem reasonable that this also may be the case with mental states?

32. Is There an Alternative to Materialism? Idealism & Plato’s Theory of Forms • The view that reality is primarily composed of ideas or thought rather than a material world is the doctrine known as Idealism. That is, an Idealist would say that a world of material objects containing no thought either could not exist or at the least would not be fully "real." • The earliest formulation of this view is given to us by Plato. • In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, the world of shadows is representative of the material world and is not fully real.

33. Plato’s Theory of Forms • What is the problem with which Plato is faced? • How can one live a happy and satisfying life in a contingent, changing world without there being some permanence on which one can rely? • Indeed, how can the world appear to be both permanent and changing all the time? • Plato observed that the world of the mind, the world of ideas, seems relatively unchanging. Justice, for example, does not seem to change from day to day, year to year. • On the other hand, the world of our perceptions change continuously. One rock is small, the next large, the next…?

34. Plato’s Theory of Forms • To resolve this problem, Plato formalized the classic view of idealism in his doctrine of Forms. • In everyday language, a form is how we recognize what something isand unify our knowledge of objects. (e.g How do we say two objects of different size, color, etc. are both cars?) • Permanence comes from the world of forms or ideas with which we have access through reason. • In Plato’s view, all the particular entities we see as material objects are shadows of that reality. Behind each entity is a perfect form or ideal. Ideal forms are eternal and everlasting. Individual beings are imperfect. • e.g. Roundness is an ideal or form existing in a world different from physical basketballs. Individual basketballs participate or copy the form, and rather imperfectly so.

35. Plato’s Theory of Forms • Forms are transcendent, that is they do not exist in space and time. That is why they are unchanging. • Forms are pure. They only represent a single character and are the perfect model of that property. • Material objects are a complex conglomeration of copies of multiple forms located in space and time.

36. What is the Essence of the Form of the Good? • Forms are the cause of all that exists in the world. Forms exist in a hierarchy with the Form of The Good being the highest form and thus is the first cause of all that exists. • Forms are the ultimate reality because they are more objective than material things which are subjective and vary in our perception of them. • For Socrates and Plato, the question “What is a thing?” is the question what is the essence of the thing? That is, the attempt is to identify what (presumably one) characteristic or property makes that thing what it is.

37. What is the Essence of the Form of the Good? • Further, Plato compares the power of the Good to the power of the sun. The sun illuminates things and makes them visible to the eye. The absolute or perfect Good illuminates the things of the mind (forms) and makes them intelligible. • The Good sheds light on ideas but, the vision of the idea of the Good is, according to Plato, too much for human minds. • When Plato emphasizes The Good as the cause (I.e. an active agent) of essences, structures, and forms, as well as of knowledge, he seems to be invoking the idea of the Good as God. The Good as absolute order makes all intermediate forms or structures possible.

38. Modern Idealism • The founder of modern Idealism is Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753). • Berkeley argued against Hobbes’ Materialism. He argued that the conscious mind and its ideas and perceptions are the basic reality. • Berkeley believed that the world we perceive does exist. However that world is not external to and independent of the mind. • The external world is derived from the mind. • However, there is a further reality beyond our own minds. Since we have ordered perceptions of the world which are not controlled by an individual’s mind, they must be produced by God’s divine mind.

39. Anti-Realism • Realism is the view that the real world exists independent of our language, our thoughts, our perceptions, or our beliefs about it. • Anti-realism rejects the notion that there is a single reality. Rather, there are multiple realities that are dependent upon how they are described, perceived, or thought about. • Notice that whereas Berkeley emphasized consciousness as the basis of the world, the modern anti-realists focus on the pervasiveness of language. Everything seems to be able to be described many different ways.

40. Pragmatism • The major pragmatist philosophers are Charles S. Pierce (1839-1914) and William James (1842-1910). • To the American Pragmatists, the debate between materialism and idealism had become a pointless philosophical exercise. • They wanted philosophy to “get real” (as we would say today)  • The Pragmatists argued that philosophy loses its way when it loses sight of the social context and the problems of its day. Thus, the Pragmatists focused on issues of practical consequence. For them, asking even “what is real” is not an abstract matter.

41. Pragmatism • Thus, James argued against both sense observation / scientific method andreason as the determinants of reality. • Reality is determined by its relation to our “emotional and active life.” In that sense, a man determines his own reality. What is real is what “works” for us. • Pragmatism was refreshing and offered new insights to various disciplines, particularly psychology as a developing science. • Ultimately to most philosophers, pragmatism failed to give a systematic response to the traditional philosophical issues that Materialism and Idealism were struggling with.

42. Video (if time permits): • What is Real?