ILMU FILSAFAT

FILSUF & BUKUNYA

PHILOSOPHY 101 FROM PLATO AND SOCRATES TO ETHICS AND METAPHYSICS, AN ESSENTIAL PRIMER ON THE HISTORY OF THOUGHT

PAUL KLEINMAN

SOCRATES 


A quote often attributed to Socrates is, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Socrates believed that in order for a person to be wise, that individual must be able to understand himself. To Socrates, an individual’s actions were directly related to his intelligence and ignorance. He believed people should develop their self, rather than concentrate on material objects, and he sought to understand the difference between acting good and being good. It was in the new and unique way that he approached knowledge, consciousness, and morality that Socrates would forever change philosophy.

Socrates used the elenchus, a method in which he would refute the claims of the other person. Here are the steps of the elenchus:

1. An individual would assert a statement to Socrates, which Socrates would then refute. Or, Socrates might ask the other person a question, such as, “What is courage?”

2. Once the other person provides his answer, Socrates would think of a scenario where his answer was not the case, asking him to assume his original statement was false. For example, if the other person describes courage as “endurance of the soul,” Socrates might refute this claim by saying that “Courage is a fine thing,” while “Ignorant endurance is not a fine thing.”

3. The other person would agree with this claim, and Socrates would then change the statement to include the exception to the rule.

4. Socrates proves that the individual’s statement is false and that the negation is in fact true. As the other person continues to alter his answer, Socrates continues refuting, and through this, the individual’s answer gets closer to the actual truth

PLATO

Plato was born in Athens, Greece, around 429 b.c. to parents who were members of the Greek aristocracy. Because of his social class, Plato was taught by many distinguished educators. However, no individual would have as great an impact on him as Socrates and his ability to debate and create a dialogue. In fact, the written works of Plato are where much of the information we know about Socrates comes from. While he was expected by his family to pursue a career in politics, two events would lead Plato away from this lifestyle: the Peloponnesian War (in which, upon Sparta’s victory, several of Plato’s relatives were part of a dictatorship, but were removed for being corrupt) and the execution of Socrates in 399 b.c. by the new Athenian government. Plato then turned toward philosophy and began writing and traveling. He studied under Pythagoras in Sicily and, upon returning to Athens, founded the Academy, a school where he and other likeminded individuals taught and discussed philosophy and mathematics. Among Plato’s students was Aristotle. Like Socrates, Plato believed philosophy was a process of continuous questioning and dialogues, and his writing appeared in this format.

Two of the most interesting things about these dialogues are that Plato’s own opinions on the subject matters he wrote about were never explicitly stated (though with in-depth research, one might be able to infer his stance) and that he was never a character in his writing. Plato wanted readers to have the ability to form their own opinions on the subjects and not be told how to think (this also proves how skillful a writer he was). For this reason, many of his dialogues do not reach a concise conclusion. Those that do, however, allow for possible counterarguments and doubts.

Plato’s dialogues dealt with a variety of subject matters, including things such as art, theater, ethics, immortality, the mind, and metaphysics. There are at least thirty-six dialogues written by Plato, as well as thirteen letters (though historians dispute the letters’ authenticity)

The Theory of Forms

One of the most important concepts Plato developed was his theory of Forms. Plato states that reality exists on two specific levels:

1. The visible world that is made up of sights and sounds

2. The intelligible world (the world of Forms) that gives the visible world its being

For example, when a person sees a beautiful painting, that person has the ability to identify beauty because he has an abstract concept of what beauty is. Therefore, beautiful things are seen as beautiful because they are a part of the Form of beauty. While things in the visible world can change and lose their beauty, the Form of beauty is eternal, never changes, and cannot be seen.

Plato believed that concepts like beauty, courage, goodness, temperance, and justice exist in an entire world of Forms, outside of space and time, unaffected by what happens in the visible world. While the idea of Forms appears in many of Plato’s dialogues, Plato’s concept of Forms differs from text to text, and sometimes these differences are never completely explained. Through Plato’s theory of Forms, Plato incorporates abstract thought as a means to achieve a greater knowledge.

The Tripartite Theory of The Soul

In The Republic and another well-known dialogue, Phaedrus, Plato discusses his understanding of rationality and the soul. The soul, according to Plato, can be broken down into three parts: reason, spirit, and appetite.

1. Reason: This is the part of the soul responsible for thinking and understanding when something is true versus false, real versus not apparent, and making rational decisions.

2. Spirit: This is the part of the soul responsible for all desires that want victory and honor. If an individual has a just soul, the spirit should enforce reason so that reason leads. Frustration of the spirit will lead to feelings of anger and feeling mistreated.

3. Appetite: This is the part of the soul where very basic cravings and desires come from. For example, things like thirst and hunger can be found in this part of the soul. However, the appetite also features unnecessary and unlawful urges, like overeating or sexual excess. To explain these different parts of the soul, Plato first looked at three different classes in a just society: Guardian, Auxiliary, and Laborers. According to Plato, reason should rule an individual’s decisions; spirit should aid reason; and appetite should obey. By maintaining the relationship among these three parts in the correct way, an individual will achieve individual justice.

Similarly, Plato believed that in a perfect society, reason would be represented by a Guardian class (rulers who led based on philosophy, which society would wholeheartedly follow); spirit would be represented by the Auxiliary class (soldiers who would force the rest of society to obey the Guardian class); and appetite would be represented by the Laborers, the workers and merchants of society.

Plato placed great emphasis on the role of education and believed it to be one of the most important pieces in creating a healthy state. Plato saw the vulnerability of a child’s mind and understood how easily it could be molded. He believed children should be taught early on to always seek wisdom and to live a virtuous life. Plato even went so far as to create detailed directions on what exercises a pregnant woman could perform so that she would have a healthy fetus and what types of art and exercise children should immerse themselves in. To Plato, who considered the Athenian people to be corrupt, easily seduced, and gullible to rhetoric, education was essential to having a just society.

The Allegory of Cave

The Allegory of the Cave reads as a conversation between Socrates and Plato’s brother, Glaucon. In the dialogue, Socrates asks Glaucon to imagine a world where an illusion is perceived as reality. To further his point, he creates the following example: There exists a cave where, inside, a group of prisoners has been locked up since birth. These prisoners cannot move. Their necks and legs are chained so that they can’t shift or turn around and they can only see what is in front of them: a stone wall. Behind and above the prisoners is a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a low wall where people walk, carrying objects on their heads. The light of the fire casts shadows of the objects onto the wall in front of the prisoners. These shadows are all the prisoners can see. The only sounds they hear are the echoes from the cave.

Now, because these prisoners have never been exposed to the actual objects and all their lives they have only witnessed the shadows, they mistake these shadows for reality. The echoes of the cave, to them, are noises created by the shadows. If a shadow of a book were to appear, for example, these prisoners would claim that they have seen a book. They are not saying this is a shadow of a book, because their reality doesn’t know shadows. Eventually, one of the prisoners would understand the nature of this world and would be able to guess what shadow would come next, which would lead to praise and recognition from the other prisoners. Now, let’s suppose one of the prisoners is set free. If a person were to show that prisoner an actual book, the prisoner would not be able to recognize it. To the prisoner, a book is the shadow that was cast on the wall.

The illusion of a book seems more real than the book itself. Socrates continues, pondering what would happen if that freed prisoner were to then turn toward the fire. The prisoner would surely turn away from so much light and turn back to the dark shadows, which he holds to be more real. Now, what if this was taken one step further, and the prisoner was forced to go outside? The prisoner would be angry, distressed, and unable to see the reality before him because he would be so blinded by the light.

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave in Popular

Culture

If this story sounds vaguely familiar, that’s because you might have seen some variation of it before. The 1999 blockbuster movie The Matrix is loosely based on Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. To quote Keanu Reeves’s character Neo, “Whoa.”

After a little while, however, the prisoner would adjust and understand that the reality in the cave was incorrect. He would look toward the sun and understand that this entity was what created seasons, years, and everything that was visible in this world (and was even the cause of what he and his fellow prisoners had been seeing in the cave to a certain extent). The prisoner would not look back at those days in the cave with fond memories, for he would now understand that his former perception was not actually reality. The freed prisoner then decides to return to the cave and set the others free. When the prisoner returns, he struggles to adjust to the darkness of the cave. The other prisoners find this behavior startling (for the darkness of the cave is still their only reality), and instead of offering praise, they find him to be stupid and will not believe what the freed prisoner has to say.

The prisoners threaten to kill the freed prisoner if he sets them free. Plato compares the prisoners chained inside the cave to people that are unaware of his theory of Forms. People mistake the appearance of what is in front of them as reality and live in ignorance (and quite happily, for ignorance is all these people know). However, when parts of the truth start to emerge, it can be frightening and can make people want to turn back. If one does not turn away from the truth and continues to seek it, he will have a better understanding of the world around him (and will never be able to return to that state of ignorance). The freed prisoner represents the philosopher, seeking a greater truth outside of the perceived reality. According to Plato, when people use language, they are not naming physical objects that can be seen; rather, they are naming something that can’t be seen. These names correlate to things that can only be grasped in the mind. The prisoner believed that the shadow of a book was actually a book until he was finally able to turn around and see the truth. Now, replace the idea of a book with something more substantial, like the notion of justice. Plato’s theory of Forms is what allows people to finally turn around and discover the truth. In essence, knowledge gained through the senses and perception is not knowledge at all, but opinion. It is only through philosophical reasoning that one is able to pursue knowledge. Existentialism is not a school of thought so much as a trend that appears throughout philosophy during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Prior to this time, philosophical thought had grown to become increasingly more complex and abstract. In dealing with ideas of nature and truth, philosophers began to exclude the importance of human beings. However, starting with Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche in the nineteenth century, several philosophers emerged placing a newfound focus on the human experience. Though there are significant differences between philosophers of existentialism (a term that would not be used until the twentieth century), the one common theme among all of them is the notion that philosophy should focus on the experience of human existence in this world. In other words, existentialism seeks out the meaning of life and finding oneself

COMMON THEMES OF EXISTENTIALISM

Though existentialist thought varies from philosopher to philosopher, there are several common themes. One of the key ideas of existentialism is that the meaning of life and discovering oneself can only be attained by free will, personal responsibility, and choice.

The Individual

Existentialism deals with the question of what it means to exist as a human being. Existentialists believe that humans have been thrown into this universe, and therefore it is existing in this world, and not consciousness, that is the ultimate reality. A person is an individual who has the ability to think and act independently and should be defined by his actual life. It is through an individual’s own consciousness that values and purpose are determined.

Choice

Existentialist philosophers believe that all humans have free will. The ability to have free will leads to life choices. Structures and values of society have no control over a person. Personal choices are unique to every individual and are based on outlook, beliefs, and experiences, not external forces or society. Based on these choices, people begin to discover who and what they are. There is no purpose for desires such as wealth, honor, or pleasure, for these are not responsible for having a good life.

The notion of personal responsibility is a key component of existentialism. It is entirely up to the individual to make decisions—and these decisions are not without their own consequences and stress. However, it is in the moments when an individual fights against his very nature that he is at his best. In essence, the very choices we make in life determine our nature, and there are things in this world that are unnatural and irrational.

Anxiety

Existentialists place great emphasis on moments when truths about our existence and nature bring a new awareness into what life means. These existential moments of crisis produce feelings of anxiety, angst, and dread afterward, and are the result of the freedom and independent responsibility we all have.

Because humans have been thrown into this universe, there is a certain meaninglessness to our existence. Our freedom means we are uncertain of the future, and our lives are determined by the choices we make. We believe we have an understanding about the universe around us, and when we discover something that tells us differently, we experience an existential crisis that forces us to re-evaluate aspects of our lives. The only way to have meaning and value is through making choices and taking responsibility.

Authenticity

To be authentic, one must truly be in harmony with his freedom. In existentialism, the notion of authenticity means really coming to terms with oneself, and then living accordingly. One must be able to come to terms with his identity while also not letting his background and history play a part in his decision-making process. Making choices should be done based on one’s values, so that there is a responsibility that comes with the decision-making process. If one does not live within a balance of his freedom, he is inauthentic. It is in the inauthentic experience that people allow ideas like determinism, believing choices are meaningless, and acting as “one should” to persuade their choice-making.

The Absurd

Absurdity is one of the most famous notions affiliated with existentialism. It is often argued in existentialism that there is no reason to exist and that nature has no design. While sciences and metaphysics might be able to provide an understanding of the natural world, these provide more of a description than an actual explanation, and don’t provide any insight into meaning or value. According to existentialism, as humans, we should come to terms with this fact and realize that the ability to understand the world is impossible to achieve. The world has no meaning other than the meaning that we provide it.

Furthermore, if an individual makes a choice, it is based on a reason. However, since one can never truly understand meaning, the reasoning is absurd, and so too is the decision to follow through with the choice.

RELIGION AND EXISTENTIALISM

While there are some very famous Christian and Jewish philosophers who use existentialist themes in their work, on the whole, existentialism is commonly associated with atheism. This does not mean that all atheists are necessarily existentialists; rather, those who subscribe to existentialist thought are often atheists.

Why is this the case? Existentialism does not set out to prove that God does or does not exist. Rather, the main ideas and themes of existentialism (such as complete freedom) simply do not mesh well with the notion of there being an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being. Even those existentialists who maintain a belief in a higher being agree that religion is suspicious. Existentialism asks human beings to search and discover their meaning and purpose from within themselves, and this is not possible if they believe in some external force controlling humanity


ARISTOTELES 384-322 BC

Aristotle was born around 384 b.c. Though little is known about his mother, Aristotle’s father was court physician to the Macedonian king Amyntas II (the connection and affiliation with the Macedonian court would continue to play an important role throughout Aristotle’s life). Both of Aristotle’s parents died when he was young, and at the age of seventeen, Aristotle’s guardian sent him to Athens to pursue a higher education. It was in Athens that Aristotle would enroll in Plato’s Academy and study under Plato. He would remain there for the next twenty years, studying with Plato as both a student and colleague.

When Plato died in 347 b.c., many believed Aristotle would take his place as director of the Academy. However, by that time, Aristotle had differing views on several of Plato’s works (for example, he disagreed with Plato’s theory of Forms), and Aristotle was not offered the position. 

In 338 b.c., Aristotle returned to Macedonia and began tutoring the thirteen-year-old son of King Philip II, Alexander (later known as “the Great”). When, in 335 b.c., Alexander became king and conquered Athens, Aristotle returned to Athens. While Plato’s Academy (which was now directed by Xenocrates) was still the major school in the city, Aristotle decided to create his own school, the Lyceum.

With the death of Alexander the Great in 323 b.c., the government was overthrown and anti-Macedonian sentiment was high. Facing charges of impiety, Aristotle fled Athens to avoid being prosecuted and remained on the island of Euboea until his death in 322 b.c.

LOGIC

While Aristotle focused on many different subjects, one of his most significant contributions to the world of philosophy and Western thought was his creation of logic. To Aristotle, the process of learning could be placed into three distinct categories: theoretical, practical, and productive. Logic, however, did not belong to any one of these categories. Instead, logic was a tool used to attain knowledge, and was therefore the very first step in the learning process. Logic enables us to discover errors and establish truths.

In his book, Prior Analytics, Aristotle introduced the notion of the syllogism, which turned out to be one of the most important contributions to the field of logic. A syllogism is a type of reasoning whereby a conclusion can be deduced based on a series of specific premises or assumptions.

For example:

All Greek people are human. All humans are mortal. Therefore, all Greek people are mortal. To further break down what a syllogism is, one can summarize it in the following way:

If all X are Y, and all Y are Z, then all X are Z.

Syllogisms are made up of three propositions: the first two are premises;

the last is the conclusion. Premises can either be universal (using words like every, all, or no) or particular (for example, using the word some), and they can also be affirmative or negative.

Aristotle then set out to create a set of rules that would produce a valid inference. One classic example is:

At least one premise has to be universal.

At least one premise has to be affirmative.

If one of the premises is negative, the conclusion will be negative.

For example:

No dogs are birds.

Parrots are birds.

Therefore, no dogs are parrots.

three rules applied to all valid thoughts:

1. The law of identity: This law states that X is X, and this holds true because X has certain characteristics. A tree is a tree because we can see the leaves, the trunk, the branches, and so on. A tree does not have another identity other than a tree. Therefore, everything that exists has its own characteristics true to itself.

2. The law of noncontradiction: This law states X can’t be X and not X simultaneously. A statement can never be true and false at the exact same time. If this were the case, a contradiction would arise. If you were to say you fed the cat yesterday and then say you did not feed the cat yesterday, there is a contradiction.

3. The law of the excluded middle: This law claims a statement can be either true or false; there cannot be middle ground. This law also claims something has to either be true or be false. If you say your hair is blond, the statement is either true or false. However, later philosophers and mathematicians would dispute this law.

METAPHYSICS

Aristotle rejected Plato’s theory of Forms. Instead, Aristotle’s response to understanding the nature of being was metaphysics (though he never used this word, instead caling it “first philosophy”). While Plato saw a difference between the intelligible world (made up of thoughts and ideas) and the sensible world (made up of what could visibly be seen) and believed the intelligible world was the only true form of reality, Aristotle believed separating the two would remove all meaning.

Instead, Aristotle believed the world was made up of substances that could either be form, matter, or both, and that intelligibility was present in all things and beings.

Aristotle’s Metaphysics is composed of fourteen books that were later grouped together by editors. It is considered to be one of the greatest works ever produced on the subject of philosophy. Aristotle believed that knowledge was made up of specific truths that people gain from experience, as well as the truths that arise from science and art. Wisdom, as opposed to knowledge, is when one understands the fundamental principles that govern all things (these are the most general truths) and then translates this information into scientific expertise.

Aristotle breaks down how things come to be through four causes:

1. The material cause: This explains what something is made of.

2. The formal cause: This explains what form something takes.

3. The efficient cause: This explains the process of how something comes into being. 

4. The final cause: This explains the purpose something serves.

While other sciences might study reasons for a particular manifestation of being (for example, a biologist would study humans with regard to them being organisms, while a psychologist would study humans as beings with consciousness), metaphysics examines the reason why there is being in the first place. For this reason, metaphysics is often described as “the study of being qua being” (qua is Latin for “in so far as”).

VIRTUE

Another one of Aristotle’s most impactful works was Ethics. According to Aristotle, the purpose of ethics is to discover the purpose of life. Aristotle comes to realize that happiness is the ultimate and final good and that people pursue good things in order to achieve happiness. Aristotle claimed that the way to attain happiness (and therefore the very purpose of life) is through virtue.

Virtue requires both choice and habit. Unlike other ways to attain happiness, such as pleasure or honor, with virtue, when an individual makes a decision, the decision comes from that individual’s disposition, which is determined by that person’s past choices.

A virtuous choice is, then, the mean between the two most extreme choices. Between acting cold to someone and being overly subservient or attentive is the virtuous choice, friendliness.

To Aristotle, the ultimate type of happiness is living a life of intellectual contemplation, and using reason (which is what separates humans from other animals) is the highest form of virtue. However, for one to achieve such a level of virtue, a person needs the proper social environment, and a proper social environment can only be attained by an appropriate government.

PARADOX: In philosophy, a paradox is a statement that begins with a premise that seems true; however, upon further investigation, the conclusion ends up proving that the seemingly true premise is actually false.

The first time the ship of Theseus paradox appeared in print was in the writing of the ancient Greek philosopher (and Platonist) Plutarch. Plutarch writes of Theseus (the founder-king of Athens) returning from a long voyage at sea. Throughout the voyage, all of the old, decaying planks of wood the ship was made of were thrown overboard and replaced with new, strong pieces of wood. By the time Theseus and his crew finally returned from their trip, every piece of wood that the ship was made from had been replaced. This leads to the question: Was the ship that they returned on the same ship that they left on, even though it was made of completely different pieces of wood? What if the ship still had one of the original pieces of wood in it? What if there were two pieces of wood still in the ship? Would this change one’s answer?

Another way to look at it is this:

If the ship Theseus began his journey on is A, and the ship Theseus ended his journey on is B, then does A = B?

THOMAS HOBBES’S ADDITION

Much later, the famous seventeenth-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes took the paradox one step further.

Now, imagine that following Theseus’s ship is a scavenger. As Theseus’s crew throws the old pieces of wood overboard, the scavenger takes them out of the water and builds his own ship. Two ships arrive at the port: one with Theseus and his crew, made out of new wood; the other, the scavenger’s ship, made entirely out of the old wood that Theseus’s crew had thrown overboard. In this scenario, which ship is Theseus’s ship?

In this scenario, let’s call the boat the scavenger arrived in the letter C. We know that B ≠ C because two ships land in the harbor and so they clearly cannot be one and the same.

So what makes something the ship of Theseus? Is it the individual parts that the ship is made from? Is it the structure? Is it the history of the ship?

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

One theory, known as the mereological theory of identity (or MTI), states that the identity of something is dependent upon the identity of that thing’s component parts. This theory claims that a necessary condition of identity is that there must be a sameness of parts.

In other words, X = Y if all of the parts of X are also a part of Y and vice versa.

For example, object X is composed of certain components at the beginning of a period of time (t1). If by the end of that period of time (t2),

the object (which is now Y) has the same components, then it continued to exist. In the ship of Theseus paradox, according to MTI, A = C. This means that there are two ships. The ship Theseus began his voyage on is the exact same as the ship the scavenger comes in on (making these one ship), and then there is the ship Theseus came to port in, which was composed of new parts.

However, there is a problem with this conclusion. In this scenario, Theseus would have had to change ships in his journey because he comes to the port in B (which does not equal C). But Theseus never leaves his ship.

He leaves on A, comes back on B, and was never aboard two ships (which MTI states there must be).

There might be other possible ways to solve this problem. We can abandon what MTI states altogether and instead claim that A = B. In this scenario, there are still only two ships: the ship Theseus began his journey in (A) and the ship he came back in (B) are considered one, and the scavenger’s ship is the second.

This scenario also raises problems. To say that A = B would also imply that B ≠ C and therefore A ≠ C. But one cannot feasibly say this because every part of C is a part of A and vice versa. In addition, A and B do not have any parts in common, and yet we are claiming that they are the same ship.

Another theory that can be applied to the paradox of Theseus’s ship is called spatiotemporal continuity (STC). This theory states that an object can have a continuous path in space-time, as long as the change is gradual and the shape and form are preserved. This would allow for the gradual changes that are made to the ship over time.

However, even here we see problems! What if every piece of the ship was packed in individual boxes, shipped all over the world to different locations, then shipped back, and then opened and reassembled? While numerically it may be the same ship, the object does not constantly exist as a ship-like object through space-time (note that MTI does seem to fit in this scenario).

WHAT DOES THE SHIP OF THESEUS MEAN?

Of course, this paradox goes beyond a problem about ships. The ship of Theseus is really about identity and what makes us the people that we are.

Parts of ourselves change as the years go by, and yet we still consider ourselves to be the same person.

Is our identity the same because of our structure? If that were the case, if you were to lose a limb or even cut your hair, you wouldn’t be you anymore. Is it because of your mind and feelings? If that were the case, are you no longer yourself when you lose memories or have a change of heart? Is it because of the parts we are made up of? Our history?

The ship of Theseus and its implications about what identity is are still discussed to this day.


IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804)


Immanuel Kant is one of the single most important philosophers to have ever lived. His work forever changed the shape of Western philosophy. Born on April 22, 1724, in Königsberg, East Prussia, Kant came from a large and modest family. As Kant grew older, the popular Protestant movement Pietism played a large role in his family’s life (and would subsequently influence his later work). At eight years old, Kant attended the Collegium Fridericianum, where he studied classicism. Kant remained there until 1740, when he enrolled in the University of Königsberg, studying mathematics and philosophy. When his father died in 1746, Kant found himself suddenly without money and began to take work as a private tutor to pay for his education. He worked as a tutor for seven years, and it was during this time that Kant published many of his philosophical ideas. 

Kant worked as a lecturer at the University of Königsberg for fifteen years, until finally, in 1770, he became a professor in logic and metaphysics. When he was fifty-seven years old, Kant published the Critique of Pure Reason, which is one of the single most important philosophical texts ever written. In his book, Kant detailed how the human mind organizes experiences in two ways: how the world appears, and how one thinks about the world.

Kant continued to teach at the University of Königsberg and write major philosophical texts for the next twenty-seven years. However, as word spread of his unorthodox methods of teaching religious texts, the Prussian government began to pressure Kant. In 1792, the king of Prussia banned Immanuel Kant from writing about and teaching religious subjects, which Kant obeyed until the king’s death five years later.

Kant taught at the same school until his retirement in 1796. Though his life was relatively ordinary, his contributions to philosophy were anything but.

THE CRITIQUES OF IMMANUEL KANT

The work of Immanuel Kant is immense and incredibly complex. However, the common theme throughout all of his work is his use of a critical method to understand and come to terms with philosophical problems. Kant believed that in philosophy, one should not speculate about the world around him; rather, we should all critique our own mental abilities. We should investigate all that we are familiar with, understand and define the limits of our knowledge, and determine how our mental processes affect how we make sense of everything. Rather than speculating on the universe around us, Kant believed that by looking inward we would discover the answers to the many questions posed by philosophy. Thus, Kant shifts away from metaphysics and toward epistemology (the study of knowledge).

PHENOMENA: According to Kant, phenomena are the realities or appearances that are interpreted from our minds. NOUMENA: These, according to Kant, are the things that exist regardless of our minds’ interpretations.

Kant claims that we only have the ability to know the world that is presented to us from our minds and that the external world can never truly be known. In other words, the only knowledge that we know, and ever will know, is knowledge of phenomena. This means that knowledge of noumena is, and always will be, unknown.


In philosophy, idealism refers to the various notions that share the belief that the world is composed not of physical things, but of mental ideas. In Kant’s transcendental idealism, however, Kant does not deny that an external reality exists. Nor does he assume that things are less fundamental than ideas. Instead, Kant claims that our minds contextualize and limit reality, and that we will never be able to transcend these limitations.

The Synthetic A Priori

Kant attempts to answer the question of how, when the nature of experience is individual and particular (for example, we each experience sights and sounds individually), there can be universal truths from experience. How can we infer cause and effect when we cannot experience (see, smell, touch, etc.) the law of causation?

Kant makes a distinction between two types of propositions:

1. Analytic proposition: This is when the concept is contained within the subject. For example, “all squares have four corners.” In this sentence, four corners is part of the definition of a square.

2. Synthetic proposition: This is when the concept is not contained within the subject. For example, “all women are happy.” In this sentence, happiness is not part of the definition of a woman.

Kant then makes a distinction between two more propositions:

1. a priori proposition: This is when the justification of a proposition does not rely on any experience. For example, “8 + 6 = 14” or “all mice are rodents.”

2. a posteriori proposition: This is when the justification of a proposition relies on experience. For example, the proposition “all women are happy” requires experience to say whether or not it is true. Kant asks how synthetic a priori knowledge can be possible (in other words, how one can know something is universal and necessary without it being definitional or self-evident). Kant concludes that synthetic a priori knowledge is in fact possible. And here’s how:

According to Kant, experience is organized in our mind based on certain categories. These categories then become features of experience that are both necessary and universal. For example, it is not that we can’t find causation in nature. Rather, causation is a feature in our minds, so we always perceive it. We can’t not find causation. The synthetic a priori, according to Kant, is how people develop substantive knowledge.

KANT’S VIEWS ON ETHICS

Kant was a deontologist, meaning he firmly believed that an action should be determined as moral or immoral based on the motive behind the action (as opposed to consequentialists, who judge an action’s morality based on its consequences). According to Kant, since we have the ability to deliberate and provide reasons for an action, moral judgment should be placed on those reasons why an action was performed. While it is important that our actions have good consequences and we should always try for that result, consequences are not affected by reason, and therefore, reason is not completely responsible for the consequences of a particular action that was endorsed by reason.

Reason can only be held accountable for endorsing a particular action. Therefore, we can only judge motives and actions as being moral or immoral. Since morality is determined from reason, this means that goodness and badness also stem from reason. Kant claims that acting badly is violating the maxims created from one’s own personal reason, or creating maxims that cannot consistently be viewed as universal laws. In other words, badness is the result of laws of reason being violated. From this notion, we can conclude that immorality is actually a type of irrationality because the laws of reason are being violated.

By acting immorally, Kant believes that we become less rational human beings, thus weakening our humanity. We can only stop ourselves from doing things against our better judgment by behaving rationally. The mind and the body separated Dualism attempts to answer the mind-body problem, which asks what the relationship is between an individual’s physical properties and an individual’s mental properties.

According to dualism, the mind and body are two separate things. While the body (or matter) is the physical substance that an individual is made of, the mind (or soul) is a nonphysical substance that exists apart from the body and includes consciousness. There are three major types of dualism:

1. Substance Dualism: Substance can be broken down into two categories: mental and material. According to René Descartes, who made this theory famous, the material substance does not have the ability to think, and the mental substance has no extension in the physical world.

2. Property Dualism: The mind and body exist as properties of one material substance. In other words, consciousness is the result of matter being organized in a specific way (like the human brain).

3. Predicate Dualism: In order to make sense of the world, there needs to be more than one predicate (the way we go about describing a proposition’s subject). According to predicate dualism, mental predicates cannot be reduced into physical predicates. For example, in the sentence “Troy is annoying,” one cannot reduce the act of “being annoying” into a physical thing (predicate). “Annoying” cannot be defined by its structure or composition, and it can look different in different situations.


ARGUMENTS FOR DUALISM

There are several arguments that support the claims of dualism. In

particular, dualism is very popular among those who believe in the

existence of a soul that is separate from one’s physical body.

The Subjective Argument

One of the more famous arguments supporting substance dualism is the

subjective argument. This argues that mental events feature subjective

qualities, while physical events do not. For a mental event, one can ask

questions about what something looks, feels, or sounds like. However, those

sensations cannot be reduced into a physical event. Even though you can

see, touch, or hear physical events, when you are describing a sensation

such as “what something feels like,” you cannot actually reduce it to

something physical. It is still a sensation with subjective qualities.

The Special Sciences Argument

The special sciences argument supports the notion of predicate dualism.

If predicate dualism is true, then “special sciences” must exist. These

sciences should not be able to be reduced any further using the laws of

physics. Because psychology, which cannot be further reduced by the laws

of physics, exists as a form of science, this must imply that the mind exists.

Even the science of meteorology proves the special science argument to be

true, because studying weather patterns is only of interest to people, and

therefore, this science presupposes that the mind cares and is interested in

weather. Therefore, in order for the material world to be perceived mentally,

there must be a perspective from the mind about the material world.

Argument from Reason

According to the argument from reason, if our thoughts are simply the

result of physical causes, then there is no reason to believe that these

thoughts are based on reason or are rational. A physical material is not

rational, and yet we as humans have reason. Therefore, the mind must not

simply be from a material source.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST DUALISM

There are many arguments against dualism. Many of these arguments fall

under a broader belief known as monism, which states that instead of two

separate substances, the mind and body are part of one substance.

Monism in a Nutshell

Idealistic Monism (also known as Idealism): The only substance that

exists is the mental substance (consciousness).

Materialistic Monism (also known as Physicalism): The physical

world is the only reality, and anything mental stems from the physical.

Neutral Monism: There exists one substance that is neither physical

nor mental, but is where physical and mental attributes come from.


Argument from Brain Damage

This argument against dualism questions how the theory works when, for

example, brain damage from trauma to the head, pathological diseases, or

drug abuse leads to a compromised mental ability. If the mental and the

material truly were separate from one another, the mental should be

unaffected by such events. In fact, scientists have discovered that there is

most likely a causal relationship between the mind and the brain, and that

by manipulating or damaging the brain, mental states are affected.

Causal Interaction

The argument of causal interaction questions how something immaterial

(the mental) has the ability to affect the material. It is still very unclear

where such interactions would occur. If you were to burn your finger, for

example, a chain of events would unfold. First, the skin is burned; then

nerve endings become stimulated. Eventually, the peripheral nerves lead to

a specific part of the brain, and the result is the feeling of pain. However, if

dualism were true, pain would not be able to be located in a particular spot.

However, the pain is located in a particular spot, the finger.

Additionally, the theory of causal interaction deals with how an

interaction occurs between the mental and the physical. Let’s say you move

your arm up and down. To do so, you first have the intention to move your

arm up and down (the mental event). The message travels via neurons, and

then you move your arm up and down. However, the mental event of

intending to move your arm is not enough to move your arm. There must be

a force that makes the neurons send the message. Dualism lacks the

explanation of how a nonphysical event can create a physical event.

Argument from Simplicity

Perhaps the most common argument against dualism is also the simplest.

The ar

gument from simplicity ponders why someone would attempt to

explain the existence of the mind and body in two parts when doing so in

one part is simpler.

This is expressed through the principle known as “Occam’s razor,” which

states that, when explaining a phenomenon, one shouldn’t multiply entities

beyond what is necessary. Therefore, it should be rational for humans to

want the simplest explanation.

While parts of dualism have their strengths, there is no denying that

dualism does not answer all of the questions that arise from the mind-body

problem.

Measuring happiness

In analyzing moral behavior, two questions are often raised:

1. What makes an act right or wrong?

2. Which things are good, and which are bad?

Utilitarianism, introduced by Jeremy Bentham and later altered by John

Stuart Mill, is the most common consequentialist theory. It holds that the

only thing of value, and the only thing that is good in itself, is happiness.

Though other things have value, their value is merely derived from their

contribution to happiness.


GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL (1770–1831)

The power of others

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s father wished for his son to become a

clergyman. Hegel enrolled in the seminary at the University of Tübingen in

1788 and studied theology. During his time at the University, Hegel became

friends with Friedrich Hölderlin and Friedrich W. J. von Schelling, who

would go on to become incredibly successful as a poet and philosopher,

respectively. Throughout their lives, these three men would have profound

impacts on one another’s work.

After graduating, Hegel decided he would not pursue being a pastor and

lived in Frankfurt, where he worked as a tutor. When his father died, Hegel

was left with enough money to financially support himself and began to

devote his time entirely to working on his religious and social philosophies.

In 1800, Hegel was introduced to the work of Immanuel Kant and became

very interested in Kant’s philosophies. In 1801, Hegel moved with von

Schelling to the city of Jena, where both were hired to teach at the

University of Jena. Jena was an artistic and intellectual epicenter, and Hegel

decided his philosophy would combine his influences of theology, Kantian

idealism, and romanticism with contemporary politics and social issues.

That same year, Hegel began publishing his philosophical texts.

Hegel published one of his most famous works, Phenomenology of Spirit,

in 1807, in which he discussed in depth his views on Spirit, consciousness,

and knowledge. Hegel would later systematize his philosophical approach

in his three-volume Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences of 1817

and, in 1821, his Elements of the Philosophy of Right, where he combined

his philosophical ideas with critiques of modern society and political

institutions.

In the years leading up to his death, Hegel became quite influential. The

impact of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel can be seen in theology, cultural

theory, and sociology, and his work is often considered a precursor to

Marxism.

DIALECTIC AND SPIRIT

Prior to Hegel’s work, the word dialectic was used to describe the process of

arguing and refuting in order to determine the first principles (like the

dialogues made famous by Socrates). Hegel, however, used the word

dialectic in a very different way.

Like Kant, Hegel was an idealist. Hegel believed the mind only has access

to ideas of what the world is like, and that we can never fully perceive what

the world is. However, unlike Kant, Hegel believed these ideas were social,

meaning they are completely shaped by other people’s ideas. Through the

use of a common language, traditions of one’s society, and the religious and

cultural institutions that one belongs to, an individual’s mind is shaped. This

collective consciousness of a society, which Hegel refers to as “Spirit,” is

responsible for shaping one’s consciousness and ideas.

Hegel, unlike Kant, believed that this Spirit is constantly evolving.

According to Hegel, the spirit evolves by the same kind of pattern as an idea

would during an argument, the dialectic. First, there is an idea about the

world (much like a thesis), which has an inherent flaw, giving rise to the

antithesis. The thesis and antithesis eventually reconcile by creating a

synthesis, and a new idea arises comprised of elements of both the thesis and

the antithesis.

To Hegel, society and culture follow this pattern, and one could

understand all of human history, without the use of logic or empirical data,

simply by using logic.

SOCIAL RELATIONS

Hegel agreed with Kant’s notion that being conscious of an object also

implies one is being self-conscious (because to be conscious of an object

means there is also a consciousness of a subject, which would be oneself

perceiving the object). Hegel adds to this theory by stating that self-

consciousness not only involves an object and a subject; it also involves

other subjects because individuals truly become aware of themselves when

someone else is watching. Therefore, according to Hegel, actual self-

consciousness is social. It is only when another consciousness is present

that one views the world from another’s eyes in order to get a self-image.

Hegel likens this to relationships of inequality and dependence, where the

subordinate in the relationship (known as the bondsman) is consciously

aware of his status, while the independent partner (known as the lord) is

able to enjoy the freedom of not being concerned about the bondsman’s

consciousness. However, this creates feelings of guilt for the lord because in

order to have this superiority, he must deny the bondsman mutual

identification. According to Hegel, this dynamic—where one competes for

objectification and mutual identification, and also distances oneself and

identifies with another person—is the basis of social life.

ETHICAL LIFE

Hegel describes one cultural expression of Spirit as “ethical life.” Ethical

life is defined as a reflection of the basic interdependence among people in

a society. Hegel lived during the Enlightenment, and as a result, he argued

that the tendency of modern life was shifting away from recognizing the

essential social bonds. Prior to the Enlightenment, people were regarded by

their social hierarchies. However, the Enlightenment, and its key players

like Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Hobbes, placed emphasis on the

individual.

Hegel believed the modern state would correct the imbalance set forth by

modern culture, and believed institutions were needed that would be able to

preserve freedom while affirming ethical life and common bonds. For

example, Hegel believed it was the state’s job to provide for the poor,

regulate the economy, and create institutions based on different occupations

(almost like present-day trade unions) so that people can experience a sense

of social belonging and a connectivity to a society at large.


ROSCOE POUND

Roscou Pound berpendapat bahwa hukum

merupakan suatu proses yang mendapatkan bentuknya dalam pembentukan

peraturan perundang-undangan dan keputusan hakim atau pengadilan. Ia

mengedepankan idenya tentang hukum sebagai sarana untuk mengarahkan

dan membina masyarakat. Untuk memenuhi fungsinya tersebut, sorotan yang

terlalu besar pada aspek statis dari hukum yang harus ditinggalkan.selain

Pound, Cardozo berpendapat, bahwa hukum bukanlah penerapan murni dari

peraturan perundang-undangan. Pada hukum berpengaruh pula kepentingan-

kepentingan sosial yang hidup dalam masyarakat. Secara filosofis, fungsi dari

sosiologi hukum adalah menguji apakah benar peraturan perundang-undangan

yang dibuat dan berfungsi dalam masyarakat.

Sosiologi hukum di Amerika Serikat telah menemukan ketelitian yang

sangat terperinci dan meluas, berkat penemuan ilmiah Roscoe Pound, pakar

tiada tandingannya dari mazhab “ilmu hukum sosiologis yurisprudensi”.

Pound lebih mengutamakan tujuan-tujuan praktis, yaitu antara lain :

a. Menelaah “akibat-akibat sosial yang aktual dari lembaga-lembaga

hukum dan doktrin-doktrin hukum”, dan karenannya lebih

memandang kepada kerjanya hukum daripada isi abstraknya.

b. Mengajukan “studi sosiologis berkenaan dengan studi hukum

untuk mempersiapkan perundang-undangan”.

c. Menciptakan “efektifitas studi tentang cara-cara membuat peraturan-

peraturan dan member tekanan kepada tujuan-tujuan sosial yang

henadk dicapai oleh hukum dan bukannya kepada sanksi”.

d. Studi “sejarah hukum sosiologis” yakni tentang akibat sosial yang

telah dihasilkan oleh doktrin-doktrin hukum dan bagaimana cara

menghasilkannya.

. Membela apa yang telah dinamakan pelaksanakan hukum secara adil

dan mendesak agar ajaran-ajaran hukum harus dianggap petunjuk-

prtunjuk ke arah hasil-hasil yang adil bagi masyarakat dan bukannya

terutama sekali sebagai bentuk-bentuk yang tidak dapat dirubah.

d. Akhirnya tujuan yang hendak dicapai dari keseluruhan ialah agar

lebih efektifnya usaha untuk mencapai maksud-maksud serta

tujuan-tujuan hukum.

Penandasan Pound kepada kepentingan-kepentingan sosial, yang

terkadang dianggap salah sebagai kecenderungan kepada keserbamanfaatan

sosial suatu pandangan yang selalu ditentangnya secara tegas, yang terbukti

dengan pertikaiannya denga Ihering baginya pada hakikatnya hanyalah

merupakan suatu metode untuk mengajak pengadilan-pengadilan agar

memperhatikan kenyataan kelompok-kelompok sosial yang khusus dan

tata tertibnya masing-masing. Didalam karya-karyanya secara tegas

diperlihatkannya kenisbian sosiologis dari tehnik-tehnik hukum, kategori-

kategori hukum dan konsep-konsep hukum.Pound tidak sadar bahwa

orang dapat memiliki perhatian dengan nilai-nilai yang menjelma dalam

fakta-fakta special dan tetap tak menyatakan baik buruknya.Dari semua ini

timbul suatu tendensi yang dogmatis serta bersifat menyusilakan yang secara

langsung mengancam pendirian metode dalam sosiologi hukum.Sebagai

akibat dari orientasi teleologisnya ini dapatlah dicatat penolakan Pound

untuk menangalkan kepercayaan kepada harus Negara terlebih dahulu, dan

keunggulan priori Negara atas kelompok-kelompok lainnya.

Pandangan Roscoe Pound adalah hukum diselenggarakan untuk

memaksimalkan pemuasan kebutuhan dan kepentingan interest. Ia lebih

cenderung melihat kepentingan (bukan etika dan moral) dalam kehidupan

hukum. Ia mengatakan bahwa hukum ini diperlukan karena adanya berbagai

kepentingan dalam setiap bidang kehidupan. Adapun pokok pikiran Pound

adalah sebagai berikut:

a. Ia lebih menelaah akibat-akibat sosial yang actual dari adanya lembaga-

lembaga hukum dan doktrin-doktrin hukum (lebih pada fungsi hukum

daripada isi abstraknya).

b. Mengajukan studi sosiologis untuk mempersiapkan perundang- undangan dan menganggap hukum sebagai suatu lembaga sosial yang dapat diperbaiki oleh usaha-usaha yang bijaksana dalam menemukan cara-cara terbaik untuk  NmelanjutkNa dan membimbing usaha-usaha

yang seperti itu.

c. Untuk menciptakan efektivitas cara dalam membuat peraturan perundang-undangan dan member tekanan kepada hukum untuk mencapai tujuan-tujuan sosial (tidak ditekankan kepada sanksi). Pound lebih memandang hukum sebagai proses rekayasa sosial.

source: