1 Aristotle (384 – 322 BC)
- student of Plato (427 – 347 BC),
- teacher of Alexander the Great
2 Philosophy of Aristotle
- Universalist: studied and taught all subjects available at the time, on logic, on physics and science (physics, meteoroloy, on the heaven, on the soul, on the sleep, on memory, on animals etc.), on philosophy (Metaphysics, Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric, Poetics and others)
- Philosophical Framework:
i) Shares with the early Wittgenstein the "empirical" starting point
ii) But he perceives (all) things as goal-directed (teleological) and draws further conclusion from this experience that leads to his conception of ethics (unlike the early Wittgenstein).
3 Nicomachean Ethics: Overview
3.1 Naming: Dedicated or edited by his son Nicomachus
3.2 Structure: The Nicomachean Ethics consists out of ten books. It can roughly be divided in three parts:
a) general ethics (book 1): the study of the good/highest good
b) virtues (book 2-4): the golden means, moral virtues
c) ethics in the context of society (book 5-10): justice, intellectual virtues, friendship, politics
Monday, July 28, 2008
Seven General Points about Philosophy
1 How does Philosophy get started?
With questions. Being astonished. Not taking things for granted.
2 Philosophy is a systematization of question
3 Interdependence of Philosophizing and History of Philosophy
Need for both aspects: The questioning, critizising, asking your own questions and the study of the history of philosophy, exact reading of philosophical texts.
4 Systematization of Philosophy with Immanuel Kant
Every philosopher will give another account of organizing the field of philosophy. Kant's systematization provides a short and clear account:
i) What can I know? - Epistemology
ii) What should I do? - Ethics, Social and Political Philosophy
iii) What may I hope for? - Philosophy of Religion
iv) What is man? - Anthropology
For Kant, answering the first three question will answer the fourth one. In the Ateneo syllabus question iv) is tackled before ii) and iii)
What might be the explanation for that?
5 Method of Philosophy - Analysis of Concepts
6 Philosophy arises from the "Lebenswelt"
Philosophy, as well as science in general, arises from concrete questions in a particular historical, cultural and social context. Although aiming at universal truth, the perspective of the question is embedded in a certain culture. This has to be kept in mind when reading philosophy.(E.g. the rise of bioethics in the Western World from the 70s onwards would be an example of the cultural relatedness of science )
7 "Sapere Aude!" (Kant) - Dare to know!
Kant writes in "Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?":
"Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own understanding.”
With questions. Being astonished. Not taking things for granted.
2 Philosophy is a systematization of question
3 Interdependence of Philosophizing and History of Philosophy
Need for both aspects: The questioning, critizising, asking your own questions and the study of the history of philosophy, exact reading of philosophical texts.
4 Systematization of Philosophy with Immanuel Kant
Every philosopher will give another account of organizing the field of philosophy. Kant's systematization provides a short and clear account:
i) What can I know? - Epistemology
ii) What should I do? - Ethics, Social and Political Philosophy
iii) What may I hope for? - Philosophy of Religion
iv) What is man? - Anthropology
For Kant, answering the first three question will answer the fourth one. In the Ateneo syllabus question iv) is tackled before ii) and iii)
What might be the explanation for that?
5 Method of Philosophy - Analysis of Concepts
6 Philosophy arises from the "Lebenswelt"
Philosophy, as well as science in general, arises from concrete questions in a particular historical, cultural and social context. Although aiming at universal truth, the perspective of the question is embedded in a certain culture. This has to be kept in mind when reading philosophy.(E.g. the rise of bioethics in the Western World from the 70s onwards would be an example of the cultural relatedness of science )
7 "Sapere Aude!" (Kant) - Dare to know!
Kant writes in "Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?":
"Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own understanding.”
Friday, July 4, 2008
Questioning Wittgenstein
1 Concept of Science
The problem of Wittgenstein is his concept of science. What can be said by means of the picture theory is very limited. Even sentences of logic cannot be accommodated. Should science (and especially philosophy) not try to explain the phenomenons of our life rather then say something about a limited area of our life?
2 Criticizing Wittgenstein from his later philosophy
Is perhaps the scientific language not the only language which has meaning? The later Wittgenstein argues that there is a plurality of languages (or language games, as he calls it), that are equally valid: “The speaking of language is part of an activity, or of a form of life. [There is a] multiplicity of language games ...: Giving orders, and obeying them. Describing the appearance of an object ... Reporting an event. Speculating about an event. Forming and testing a hypothesis... Making up a story; and reading it. Play-acting... Asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying.
It is interesting to compare the multiplicity of the tools in language and of the ways they are used ... with what logicians have said about the structure of language. (Including the author of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.” (Philosophical Investigations, §23) All these language games follow their own logic and their own rules.
3 What is the task of philosophy?
We have to decide between a philosophical theory on logicist or empiricist premises and our every day understanding of moral language. Should we deconstruct and deny an important aspect of our life? Or should we try to explain the phenomenons that surround us and decide our life? (The question would also be what are we doing in the “philosophy of the human person”? We try to give an account of the phenomenons that surround us.)
For further discussion please consult also the Entry on Wittgenstein in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (See link list)
The problem of Wittgenstein is his concept of science. What can be said by means of the picture theory is very limited. Even sentences of logic cannot be accommodated. Should science (and especially philosophy) not try to explain the phenomenons of our life rather then say something about a limited area of our life?
2 Criticizing Wittgenstein from his later philosophy
Is perhaps the scientific language not the only language which has meaning? The later Wittgenstein argues that there is a plurality of languages (or language games, as he calls it), that are equally valid: “The speaking of language is part of an activity, or of a form of life. [There is a] multiplicity of language games ...: Giving orders, and obeying them. Describing the appearance of an object ... Reporting an event. Speculating about an event. Forming and testing a hypothesis... Making up a story; and reading it. Play-acting... Asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying.
It is interesting to compare the multiplicity of the tools in language and of the ways they are used ... with what logicians have said about the structure of language. (Including the author of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.” (Philosophical Investigations, §23) All these language games follow their own logic and their own rules.
3 What is the task of philosophy?
We have to decide between a philosophical theory on logicist or empiricist premises and our every day understanding of moral language. Should we deconstruct and deny an important aspect of our life? Or should we try to explain the phenomenons that surround us and decide our life? (The question would also be what are we doing in the “philosophy of the human person”? We try to give an account of the phenomenons that surround us.)
For further discussion please consult also the Entry on Wittgenstein in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (See link list)
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Wittgenstein’s “Lecture on Ethics”
1 Broad concept of Ethics:
Including “what is good”, “what is valuable”, “the meaning of life”, the area of aesthetics etc. (Note: this is not the common understanding of what ethics is.)
2 Distinction between the relative (trivial) and absolute (ethical) sense of a word:
Relative: “good”, “right” etc. for a certain purpose (good tennis player, right road)
Absolute: “good person” (e.g. “but you should behave better”)
a) Relative sense of a word is a description of a certain state of affairs, absolute sense of a word is something else: it is a normative judgment or a prescription. We try to say something that goes “beyond the world”: These propositions have therefore no meaning, according to Wittgenstein.
b) Another way of understanding: relative sense of the word is conditional (this is the right road if you want to go to Manila in the shortest time), absolute sense of the word is unconditional (you ought to behave better). The distinction can be compared to the Kant’s distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperative.
3 The “World-Book”:
Another way suggested by Wittgenstein to get aware of the difference (between “relative” and “absolute”) is his thought experience of a world book: Imagine an omniscient person who knows all the movement of all bodies, all state of minds, all facts. He would write everything in a book; “this book would contain the whole description of the world [but] nothing that we would call an ethical judgment.” (p. 3) Even the description of a murder, with all its details, but we would still not find an ethical proposition.
4 Even though that there can be no ethical statement, we make such experiences:
Three examples: a) “I wonder at the existence of the world”, b) “I feel absolutely safe”, c) the concept of “miracle”. In all three examples, it is a misuse of language: a) “wonder” is always about something that might not be the case (an unusually big dog, a house that was there and now has been demolished etc.), b) safe is always relative (e.g. in my room, I’m safe, because no truck can run over me) and c) the word “miracle” does not belong to (scientific) language.
5 Ethical and religious expression just similes?
The use of good, right, valuable etc. in the absolute sense, seem just to be meant as similes. But then, it should be possible to drop the similes, and describe the state of affair on the basis of facts – but there are no such facts. (p. 6)
6 Ethics as a need of human beings
“My whole tendency and, I believe, the tendency of all men who ever tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run against the boundaries of language. This running against the walls of our cage is perfectly, absolutely hopeless. (...) But it is a document of a tendency in the human mind which I personally cannot help respecting deeply and I would not for my life ridicule it.”
Including “what is good”, “what is valuable”, “the meaning of life”, the area of aesthetics etc. (Note: this is not the common understanding of what ethics is.)
2 Distinction between the relative (trivial) and absolute (ethical) sense of a word:
Relative: “good”, “right” etc. for a certain purpose (good tennis player, right road)
Absolute: “good person” (e.g. “but you should behave better”)
a) Relative sense of a word is a description of a certain state of affairs, absolute sense of a word is something else: it is a normative judgment or a prescription. We try to say something that goes “beyond the world”: These propositions have therefore no meaning, according to Wittgenstein.
b) Another way of understanding: relative sense of the word is conditional (this is the right road if you want to go to Manila in the shortest time), absolute sense of the word is unconditional (you ought to behave better). The distinction can be compared to the Kant’s distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperative.
3 The “World-Book”:
Another way suggested by Wittgenstein to get aware of the difference (between “relative” and “absolute”) is his thought experience of a world book: Imagine an omniscient person who knows all the movement of all bodies, all state of minds, all facts. He would write everything in a book; “this book would contain the whole description of the world [but] nothing that we would call an ethical judgment.” (p. 3) Even the description of a murder, with all its details, but we would still not find an ethical proposition.
4 Even though that there can be no ethical statement, we make such experiences:
Three examples: a) “I wonder at the existence of the world”, b) “I feel absolutely safe”, c) the concept of “miracle”. In all three examples, it is a misuse of language: a) “wonder” is always about something that might not be the case (an unusually big dog, a house that was there and now has been demolished etc.), b) safe is always relative (e.g. in my room, I’m safe, because no truck can run over me) and c) the word “miracle” does not belong to (scientific) language.
5 Ethical and religious expression just similes?
The use of good, right, valuable etc. in the absolute sense, seem just to be meant as similes. But then, it should be possible to drop the similes, and describe the state of affair on the basis of facts – but there are no such facts. (p. 6)
6 Ethics as a need of human beings
“My whole tendency and, I believe, the tendency of all men who ever tried to write or talk Ethics or Religion was to run against the boundaries of language. This running against the walls of our cage is perfectly, absolutely hopeless. (...) But it is a document of a tendency in the human mind which I personally cannot help respecting deeply and I would not for my life ridicule it.”
Monday, June 23, 2008
Wittgenstein's Tractatus
1 Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 – 1951), Austrian philosopher, student of Bertrand Russell, initiator of the philosophy of language. Underlying assumption of his philosophy: Philosophical problems arise through the misuse of language. Therefore, an account of the proper use of language is required in order to get rid of these problems.
2 Key ideas of his “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”
The aim of the Tractatus is to find out what can be said and what cannot be said. To draw a line between sense and nonsense. In order to show that, Wittgenstein develops a theory of meaning, which explains how propositions (=what is meant by a sentence) get their meaning (namely by virtue of being representations).
2.1 Wittgenstein’s conviction about the “Tractatus”:
“On the other hand the truth of the thoughts communicated here seems to me unassailable and definitive. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the problems have in essentials been finally solved. And if I am not mistaken in this, then the value of this work secondly consists in the fact that it shows how little has been done when these problems have been solved.” (Preface)
2.2 The starting point of the Tractatus:
“1 The world is all that is the case”. Wittgenstein’s main task is then to explain, what he intends to say with this statement. He emphasizes that world consists out of facts, rather than objects: “2 What is the case – a fact – is the existence of states of affairs.” A state of affair is a combination of objects.
2.3 Picture Theory of Propositions:
This theory tries to explain how language works. Sentences depict reality in the same way as an arrangement of toys might simulate reality (Paris court case): A proposition is a picture of reality. The picture theory can also explain, why sentences are either true or false: True, if the proposition is in correspondence with a state of affairs in reality; false, if there is no correspondence.
2.4 The limits of the world are the limits of language
The picture theory implies that we can only say something about empirical facts. There is a limit to what can be said: “The book will, therefore, draw a limit to thinking, or rather - not to thinking, but to the expression of thoughts; for, in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to think both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).” (Preface) What is beyond the empirical world, cannot be articulated (“7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”)
2.5 Difference of “saying” and “showing”
With language, we can say something about the empirical world, about what is the case in the empirical world (“1 The world is everything that is the case”). What is beyond, cannot be said, it can only be shown (e.g. the area of religion, of ethics, of the meaning of life, of logic). We somehow are aware of the boundary of our world and our language and have a inkling that something is beyond. (Note: there is a difference between logic and ethics; whereas propositions of logic, which determines what is sense and nonsense, is “senseless” (4.0312 That the logic of the facts cannot be represented), propositions of ethics is “nonsense”, i.e. not depicting any fact.)
2.6 The limits of the Tractatus itself
Wittgenstein is aware of the fact that he tried to say something, which actually only can be shown:
”6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)”
2 Key ideas of his “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”
The aim of the Tractatus is to find out what can be said and what cannot be said. To draw a line between sense and nonsense. In order to show that, Wittgenstein develops a theory of meaning, which explains how propositions (=what is meant by a sentence) get their meaning (namely by virtue of being representations).
2.1 Wittgenstein’s conviction about the “Tractatus”:
“On the other hand the truth of the thoughts communicated here seems to me unassailable and definitive. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the problems have in essentials been finally solved. And if I am not mistaken in this, then the value of this work secondly consists in the fact that it shows how little has been done when these problems have been solved.” (Preface)
2.2 The starting point of the Tractatus:
“1 The world is all that is the case”. Wittgenstein’s main task is then to explain, what he intends to say with this statement. He emphasizes that world consists out of facts, rather than objects: “2 What is the case – a fact – is the existence of states of affairs.” A state of affair is a combination of objects.
2.3 Picture Theory of Propositions:
This theory tries to explain how language works. Sentences depict reality in the same way as an arrangement of toys might simulate reality (Paris court case): A proposition is a picture of reality. The picture theory can also explain, why sentences are either true or false: True, if the proposition is in correspondence with a state of affairs in reality; false, if there is no correspondence.
2.4 The limits of the world are the limits of language
The picture theory implies that we can only say something about empirical facts. There is a limit to what can be said: “The book will, therefore, draw a limit to thinking, or rather - not to thinking, but to the expression of thoughts; for, in order to draw a limit to thinking we should have to be able to think both sides of this limit (we should therefore have to be able to think what cannot be thought).” (Preface) What is beyond the empirical world, cannot be articulated (“7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”)
2.5 Difference of “saying” and “showing”
With language, we can say something about the empirical world, about what is the case in the empirical world (“1 The world is everything that is the case”). What is beyond, cannot be said, it can only be shown (e.g. the area of religion, of ethics, of the meaning of life, of logic). We somehow are aware of the boundary of our world and our language and have a inkling that something is beyond. (Note: there is a difference between logic and ethics; whereas propositions of logic, which determines what is sense and nonsense, is “senseless” (4.0312 That the logic of the facts cannot be represented), propositions of ethics is “nonsense”, i.e. not depicting any fact.)
2.6 The limits of the Tractatus itself
Wittgenstein is aware of the fact that he tried to say something, which actually only can be shown:
”6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)