Introduction to Philosophy - thehealingsite.us

1 1 Introduction to Philosophy By Dallas M. Roark, Professor of Philosophy (Emeritus) Emporia State University Copyright 1982 by Dallas M. Roark Revised edition, 2016. All rights reserved. Permission in writing must be obtained from the author before any part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system. 2 CONTENTS Chapter I 1 What is Philosophy ? Chapter II 15 How Do We Know? Chapter III 39 What Do We Know? Chapter IV 60 When Can We Say We Know? Chapter V 73 Knowledge and Method in Science, Philosophy , and Religion Chapter VI 97 Metaphysics: Definitions and Issues Chapter VII 114 Metaphysics: Origins Chapter VIII 134 Man.

2 Mystery and Wonder Chapter IX 158 Naturalism Chapter X 184 Idealism Chapter XI 205 Realism Chapter XII 224 Pragmatism Chapter XIII 245 Existential Philosophy Chapter XIV 268 Logical Empiricism Chapter XV 284 Philosophies of the East Chapter XVI 315 Post-Modernism Chapter XVII 322 Values--Ethics Chapter XVIII Belief in God (Some Aspects of a Philosophy of Religion) 337 Chapter XIX Some Ingredients of a Christian Philosophy 416 3 Chapter I What is Philosophy ? Part I. Definitions Defining Philosophy is as difficult as trying to define love. The word Philosophy is not much help.

3 Philosophy is a combination of two Greek words, philia sophia, meaning love of wisdom. In ancient times a lover of wisdom could be related to any area where intelligence was expressed. This could be in business, politics, human relations, or carpentry and other skills. Philosophy had a "wholeness" approach to life in antiquity. In contrast to this, some modern definitions restrict Philosophy to what can be known by science or the analysis of language. In today's world there is a popular use of the word Philosophy . Philosophy is a term applied to almost any area of life. Some questions may express this general attitude: what is your Philosophy of business? banking? driving a car? or your Philosophy of the use of money? If this popular misuse of the word were to prevail, one may admit that anyone who thinks seriously about any subject is a philosopher. If we do this, we are ignoring the academic disciplines, or study of Philosophy . If this very general definition is accepted, everyone becomes a philosopher.

4 It becomes true, paradoxically, that when everyone is a philosopher, no one is a philosopher. This becomes so loose a definition that Philosophy becomes meaningless as a definition. If this definition prevailed, it would mean that a philosopher is anyone who says he is a philosopher. Because of this inadequacy it becomes apparent that we have to look elsewhere for a definition of Philosophy . Because the original meaning of the word, Philosophy , does not give us much for specific content, we will turn to descriptive definitions. A descriptive definition of Philosophy is that it seeks to describe its functions, goals, and reasons for existence. In the following pages a number of these definitions will be set forth and examined. A word of warning is offered to the beginning student of Philosophy . The beginner may despair over diverse definitions. Students who come from a scientific background frequently expect concise, clear, and universally accepted definitions.

5 This will not be true in Philosophy and it is not universally true concerning all issues in any science or non-scientific study or discipline. The 4 diversity of opinion in Philosophy becomes a source of embarrassment for the beginner when asked to explain to parents or unknowing friends just what a course in Philosophy is all about. It might be expected that one of the oldest disciplines or subjects in academia should achieve some uniformity or opinion, but this is not the case. Yet in spite of diversity, Philosophy is important. Plato declared that Philosophy is a gift the gods have bestowed on This may reflect man's ability to reason about the world as well as man's life within it. Socrates' famous statement, "Know thyself," reflects this aim of Philosophy . Plato also warned against the neglect of Philosophy . He wrote that "land animals came from men who had no use for Philosophy .."2 In light of this it might help to threaten the reader with the warning: if you don't take Philosophy seriously, you will turn into a pumpkin!

6 But more seriously, men live by philosophies. Which one will it be? We now turn to consider several definitions of Philosophy . These will include the historical approach, Philosophy as criticism, Philosophy as the analysis of language, Philosophy as a program of change, Philosophy as a set of questions and answers, and Philosophy as a world-view. Along the way we will also analyze the definitions and attempt to reach some conclusions about this analysis. A. The Historical Approach Remember our question: what is Philosophy ? According to this approach Philosophy is really the study of historical figures who are considered philosophers. One may encounter the names of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Thales, Philo, Plotinus, Aquinas, Kant, Erigena, Hume, Marx, Hegel, Russell, Wittgenstein and many more. All are considered philosophers. What holds them together since they are so diverse in many of their views?

7 One answer lies in their common set of problems and concerns. Many were interested in the problems of the universe, its origin, what it is in its nature, the issue of man's existence, good and evil, politics, and other topics. (This may serve as a link to another definition to be considered later.) The argument for the historical approach is that no real understanding of Philosophy can be had unless one understands the past. Philosophy would be impoverished if it lost any of the names above. Some argue that knowing the history of Philosophy is required for a positive appreciation of Philosophy , and necessary if one is to make creative contributions to the advancement of Philosophy . This definition of Philosophy has its problems: (1) it tends to limit Philosophy to the great minds of the past and makes it an elitist movement, (2) it restricts Philosophy to an examination of past questions and answers only, (3) it is not really different from the study of history of ideas.

8 This would make Philosophy a sub-unit of history. (4) This definition would not describe the work of those philosophers (logical empiricists) who regard the Philosophy of the past as so much non-sense to be rejected. 5 The value of the historical approach is that it introduces the student to the great minds of the past and the confrontation one has with philosophic problems that are raised by thinking people in all ages. This is desirable in itself even though this is not the best definition of Philosophy . B. Philosophy is the Analysis of Language This is one of the more extreme definitions of Philosophy . This definition began as an emphasis in Philosophy at about the turn of the century. A growing revolt took place against the metaphysical systems in Philosophy . Metaphysical systems in Philosophy explained everything from the standpoint of a great idea like "mind" or "spirit." The reaction was primarily against the Philosophy of idealism which is a highly developed metaphysical Philosophy .

9 More of this will be forthcoming in the fifth definition. The analysis-of-language-emphasis rejected metaphysics and accepted the simple, but useful modern standard of scientific verification. Their central thesis is that only truths of logic and empirically verifiable statements are meaningful. What does scientific verification mean in this context? If you can validate or reproduce an experiment or whatever, you can say it is true. If there is no way to reproduce or validate the experiment in the context of science, there was then no claim for truth. How do verification and language work together? Try this example. How do you know when to take a statement as referring to a fact? We can use three sentences: (l) God is love, (2) Disneyland is in California, and (3) rape is wrong. These sentences are constructed in a similar manner. But only one is factual, , it can be scientifically verified. Thousands of people go yearly to Disneyland and anyone who doubts can go see for himself.

10 But you cannot scientifically verify that rape is wrong and that God is love. I can say factually that a person was raped and may even witness the event as a fact, but how can I verify the word "wrong?" God is not seen and love is not seen scientifically. Are these statements meaningful? The conclusion reached by analytic philosophers is that anything not verifiable is nonsense. All of the systems of the past that go beyond verification are to be rejected as nonsense. This means that the realm of values, religion, aesthetics, and much of Philosophy is regarded only as emotive statements. An emotive statement reflects only how a person "feels" about a topic. Declaring that rape is wrong is only to declare that I feel it is wrong. I may seek your agreement on the issue, but again it is not an objective truth, but two "feelings" combined. Other analytic philosophers moved beyond the limitations of the verification principle to the understanding of language itself.