In Ancient Greece, Protagoras held the view that “Man is the measure of all things”; he is taking the relativist view that any claim to knowledge or any judgement in the world is relative to our point of view. He is saying that all the moral values we have and truths are ultimately subjective, we depend on ourselves to come up with definitions as there is no such thing as absolute moral ideals or objective knowledge.
For example, Is it acceptable to slaughter cows? The butcher and those that work with leather would say yes, Those that practice Hinduism or advocate animal rights would say no. Who is correct here? The relativist would say they all are, in accordance with their established beliefs. There is no universal law in nature that says we should act a certain way.
Tags: Ancient, Ethics, Epistemology
Pascal shuns the imagination as a ‘deceptive power’ - alongside custom and vanity. Imagination leads to a false perception of truth; it distorts our perception of how things really are, changing the qualities. Pascal takes the example of the artist: “The vanity of painting, which excites admiration through its resemblance to things the originals of which we do not admire!” Pascal considers painting one of the many forms of vanity inspired by the imagination.
Pascal considers custom deceptive because it makes us believe in things that have historically thought to be the case. Moreover, where it is custom in one place, may not be custom at all in another. 'neither angel nor beast' , a creature of 'grandeur' and 'wretchedness', deluded by vanity, custom and imagination, the 'glory and refuse of the universe' Further emphasising the duality of the human condition: "But even if the universe were to crush him, man would still be nobler than his killer, since he knows that he is dying whereas the universe knows nothing of its advantage over him"
Tags: Self
Phenomenology is a field of philosophy that tries to describe what our experience of the world is, from our perspective. It comes up with theories on how our consciousness interacts with the world. By understanding our relationship with the world, we can get closer to understanding things like our existence, what knowledge is, what ethics we should live by and so on.
So to answer questions about knowledge and ethics, some phenomenologists believe that we need to understand our existence first, some believe that we need to understand consciousness itself and some believe that we must acknowledge our freedom before we begin to understand anything else.
Levinas believes that these starting points are incorrect, because they are self-centered; looking to the self is an insufficient starting point in trying to understand how we interact with the world. What he instead suggests is looking at our relationship with others, as a starting point for developing any branch of philosophy. It’s the ethical responsibility towards the other that is the first philosophy to adopt.
So why this ethical responsibility?
When we encounter the other person, it is the most fundamental experience. There’s something that stirs deep inside when we look at the face of another, an ethical demand to be responsible, to not harm that person. This feeling is inherent, it’s automatic, it comes before any philosophical theory.
Before we come up with any theory of knowledge, the relationship between humans comes first.
Kant attempts to establish a moral philosophy on how humans should live and how our actions are determined. He says that this can be established through reason. Empiricists such as Hume stated that reason cannot tell us what is right or wrong, it can yield no practical solution; we are a slave to our passions and nothing more.
The theory starts with the question “what is morality?” and “where does morality come from?”. Kant answers that it comes from the “good will” which is a person’s capacity to act out their intentions. So our moral theory begins by looking inwardly at ourselves and doing so by applying the faculty of reason. To put it simply, using reason allows us to ask if an action is good for me and good for others, narrowing down what is a good universal moral theory.
So if our moral theory comes from ourselves, then we have a duty to uphold it, there is nothing external that tells us what our morals should look like (so this excludes the idea of God as the law giver or looking outwards to external events such as making judgments based on consequences).
From this, Kant brings forward that this moral theory must be unconditional i.e. it must be good in every circumstance for every person. So how do we conclude what is a good moral value? Cue the categorical imperative which is as follows:
“act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”
Or
“Can my moral principle that I choose to live by, work if everyone else followed it all the time”
For example I believe in the moral principle that everyone should tell the truth. If everyone followed this rule, can any bad come out of this? Are there any contradictions that mean that this principle is no longer good?
There is one other condition to consider when assessing our moral values: that it should not be subjective to the person. You must do away with your personal beliefs, happiness, sympathies, love or hate for others. It must be an objective value.
The stoics take on the same ideas as the Cynics (defying social convention and living in accordance with nature), the 2 main rules the stoics follow: detachment from external circumstances and living in harmony with nature. Though defying convention was part of the Stoic fabric, it was adhered to in a more conservative fashion than their Cynic counterparts.
They sought the highest good which is virtue apatheia - A way of living that isn’t burdened by emotions. Achieving apatheia is having rational control of the emotions. The Stoics saw the passions as confused ideas that required reasoning to formulate them into distinct and clear ideas
How does this translate in practice? Reason gives you the ability to handle circumstances beyond your control, you gain a rational detachment to achieve the best possible situation for yourself. Cicero gives the following example, albeit, an extreme one: A virtuous man even while being tortured on the rack, his body mutilated and searing with pain, and isolated from all his family and friends, is maximally happy.
In terms of epistemology, The Stoics also take an empiricist approach and say that all that exists is particulars - there are no immaterial forces, anything we can learn from is material. Just like Hume, the Stoics deny innate ideas and contend that the mind is “tabula rasa”: a blank slate.
Tags: Ancient, Epistemology, Self, Social
The sessions listed here are a summary and notes of the subjects discussed in each session