Branches of Philosophy

Logic - the art directive of the acts of reason themselves

- This is necessary preparation for doing philosophy, as it teaches the
method of reasoning

Substantive Philosophy has two parts
1. Speculative (or Theoretical) Philosophy
This part of philosophy tells us something about being (or, the way
the world is). Its branches include studies of particular kinds of being of
physical beingthe philosophy of nature of human beingphilosophical
anthropology of divine beingphilosophical theology
2. Practical Philosophy
This part of philosophy tells us something about goodness (or, the
way we should act). Its branches include Ethicsthe second required
course at UST Political Philosophy

Three Conceptions of Philosophy
Philosophythe love of wisdomcan be understood in different ways.

(i) Philosophy as a Way of Life
Here, philosophy looks more like religion (though not like theology) a
view of the world as a whole and the individuals place in it1 especially
prominent in periods under heavy classical (or weak Christian) influence

PHILOSOPHY is grounded in an attitude of wonder, a disposition to ask
questions [cf. Epictetus] those who cannot feel this will never really
understand philosophy wonder could be constructive how could this
view be defended? scepticalis this view even right? where this view
could be conventional wisdom the ideas of an unconventional teacher
the teachings of the Church but Christian revelation changes things too
much centrality of theology for Christian intellectual thought what becomes
of philosophy?two solutions St Justin Martyrsphilosophy names a way
of life, but includes appeal to revelation St Thomas Aquinasphilosophy
does not include revelation perhaps an important activity or discipline not a
way of life

(ii) Philosophy as Logical or Conceptual Analysis
what do we mean by ?
e.g., will, mind, freedom, causality, thought, perception this is
important, but it can be taken too far [cf. Price]
(iii) Philosophy as a Body of Knowledge
philosophy as the love of wisdom wisdom as knowledge of the most
important things especially about God & man (the soul, ethics) philosophy
as one branch of human knowledge historically, philosophy as intellectual
activity in general contemporary division of the sciences (on basis of
method) based on revelationtheology
(NB: theology can also be defined in terms of content this requires
distinction between natural (philosophical) & sacred theology) based on
natural reason alone independent of experiencemathematics based on
experience common experiencephilosophy special experiencethe
sciences implications of the division for this course philosophy & theology
here, a respect for revelation, but no reliance on it to furnish premises
philosophy & the sciencesattention to the results of special investigative
techniques, but not use of them philosophy as the point of contact between
diverse disciplines relevance of theology to cosmology & vice versa
synthesis of various disciplines [cf. Broad, Whitehead] residual discipline
William James pessimismphilosophy as a collective name for questions
which have not yet been answered to the satisfaction of all who have asked
them contrast Perrys optimism

Method
The philosophical method includes two activities
1. The induction of principles
2. The construction of arguments
It is not theological, i.e, based on revelation (Scripture, Tradition, or the
magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church) Nor is it scientific (in the
new sense of the word), i.e., grounded in experimental inquiry or special
observational techniques But it can offer a systematic body of knowledge

Philosophy & The Student
There are two distinct levels of understanding in philosophy
First is the doxographical, or opinion-describing level knowing what
various authors said, and knowing why they said it
Second is the epistemocentric evaluating the arguments, and developing
arguments oneself Two things are important to remember in doing
philosophy

First, the truth of a claim does not mean
(a) that any particular argument for it is sound
(b) that there is any known philosophical defense of it
(c) that any philosophical defense of it can be made at all
Second, the falsity of a conclusion does mean that there is something
wrong with the argument; it is important to figure out what the problem is
(e.g., which of the premises are false)

The SubjectMan
What is the subject of this courseman vs. person? And how do these
conceptsdiffer?

Man is the name of one of the things that we find in the world alongside
animals, plants, minerals, machines, &c. By observation and introspection,
we can define man as a rational animal

Person is a newer, and distinguishable, term. It must be distinguished from
the term man because it is possible to think of things other than men that
are persons. In theology, God and the angels are persons
In science fiction, some space aliens might be recognized as persons;
others not. The term developed historically. It came from the Greek
theatrical term tooetovthe mask worn by an actor.
The Latin term persona which translated it came to name the character
himself (cf. Lat. dramatis personae). Then it came to name a character on
the stage of life (an individual). It was theologically necessary to
elaboration of two difficult Christian doctrines. the Trinitythe doctrine that
there are three persons in one God the Incarnation the doctrine that
Jesus is one person with two natures (divine & human)
The classical definitions were offered by Boethiusan individual
substance of a rational nature Thomas Aquinasa substance that is
complete (hence, the human soul is not a person),
subsistent by itself (hence, Christs human nature is not a person),
seperate from others (hence, the divine essence itself is not a person,
in contrast to the three Persons in God),
& of a rational nature Why single out persons? Persons have a special
dignity (in contrast to things). This is a theme that will be developed in the
ethics course The course will address two kinds of question
Natural questions the question of immortality
the nature of human actionfree or caused? Historico-conceptual
questions the concepts of soul & mind; their relation to above questions
Two basic approaches are possible An existential approach, focussed on
death & freedom.
This leads directly to ethics
An ontological approach, focussed on kinds of things there are in the world
How is man similar to & different from other kinds of things?
This can include the questions Are we free? Are we immortal? Are we
distinctive in this respect?
It answers these questions in the context of a systematic account of the
world and its contents
This approach will be the focus of the course
The ontological approach (in detail)
What kind of a being is man?
How are living things distinct from the non-living?
Man, when deprived of his specifically human traits, can be reduced
to a machine, as Ren Descartes pointed out in the 17th century
Louis Mumford1
Can a machine think? Of course. After all, were machines and we
think, dont we?Claude Shannon
The cumulative results [of biochemical research since 1950] show
with piercing clarity that life is based on machinesmachines
made of molecules. Highly sophisticated molecular machines
control every cellular process.Michael Behe2
How is man distinct from other kinds of living beings?
Recent science shows that, even more than you might suppose,
people are animals.The Economist3
A range of answers on the distinction between man, animal and machine
has been offered
three kinds of thing Aristotle
Aquinas
Adler
two kindsanimal as machine Descartes
two kindsman as an animal Darwin
one kind (machines) Democritus Crane
A second problem is the nature of the diversity of individuals within a
common human nature
In what ways are all men the same
In what ways do individuals differ? What is the role of nature (genetics,
plus ) & of nurture (culture) in this diversity?
Platos Anthropology
1. Biographical Background
Socrates (469399)
The Historical SocratesIt is not easy to distinguish the historical Socrates
from Socrates the literary character who presents Platos ideas in some of
the dialogues. We have four basic sources, each with its own limitations
Aristophanesthe Athenian satirist who makes fun of philosophers in
general in his play, The Clouds. He names the main character Socrates
Xenophonthe brilliant general and friend of Socrates, who wrote a
number of Socratic dialogues. But Xenephon was not a philosopher
himself and he presents a much less interesting character than does
Plato.
PlatoSocrates most brilliant pupil, who presents an interesting
Socrates, but who himself seems to be too much a philosopher to
be a reliable biographer. The consensus among scholars is that the
trial & death seriesEuthyphro, Apology, Crito, and parts of
Phdoare probably generally accurate and that some other early
dialogse.g., Charmides (on temperance), Laches (on courage),
Lysis (on friendship), & Republic I (on justice)show the typical
activity of Socrates. Other dialogues, however, seem to use
Socrates merely as a spokesman for Platos ideas
AristotlePlatos pupil, who did not know Socrates, but was close
enough & interested enough to be reliable.
biographical sketch
born in Athens in 469
by professiona sculptor, poor by choice
by vocation
a philosopher, a lover of wisdom, concerned with life of the mind
Euthyphro and similar dialogues show him at his typical activity;
Apology gives his account of why he thinks such activity is important.
executed for impiety in 399
Plato (429-347 BC)
Lecture #15: Platos Anthropology Page 2
life
He was born in Athens in 429
He was a disciple of Socrates until Socrates death in 399
He establilshed his own school The Academy in 367. Aristotle came to
sutdy there.
works
His early dialogs show Socratic inquiry
The dialogues from his middle period (Phdo, Republic) develop his
Theory
of Forms.
His late works confront problems of the theory of forms.
significance
He is the first philosopher for whom entire works are still extant & has had
an immense influence on later philosophers. Alfred North Whitehead
once said that all of later philosophy was a footnote to Plato.
interpretationThere are two distinct approaches
the literary
We know by now how carefully Plato selects the circumstances and
characters of a dialogue to fit the kind of arguments he wants to use. If he
chose at this time to make Socrates expound the doctrine of Forms and a
conception of the soul in a talk on the day of his death, with friends and
sympathizers ready to meet him half way, rather than in, say, paternal,
maieutic discussion with a young boy or argument with a Sophist, this
was because they were for him articles of semi-religious belief: he is
convinced of their truth, but not yet ready to offer full dialectical proof.1
the philosophical
attempting to reconstruct & evaluate the central arguments of the text
2. Connection the Assigned Readings
Socratesthe
biographical
thread
Euthyphro
Socrates at his
usual activity of
searching for real
definitions, here
inquiring into the
nature of piety
Apology
Socrates defense
of his search for
wisdom
CritoSocrates
justification of his
refusal to escape
from prison
PhaedoSocrates
reflections on life
& death; the
account of his
death
1 W. K. C. Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, iv.364.
Lecture #15: Platos Anthropology Page 3
Platothe
philosophical
thread
The Allegory of the
Cave in Platos
Republicfrom
Socreates search
for real definitions
emerges Platos
Theory of Forms
(or Ideas)
The central
passages of Platos
Phaedofrom
Socrates reflections
on death
emerge Platos
arguments for the
immortality of the
soul
3. Platos Phaedo
Outline of the Phaedo
1. Dramatic Introduction .................................57a - 61e
2. Socrates on Body & Soul.............................62a - 70c
3. The Immortality of the Soul:
Socrates First Three Arguments .............70c - 84b
4. Objections of Simmias & Cebes..................84c - 88b
5. Warning against Misology...........................88c - 91c
6. Socrates Reply to Simmias.........................91c - 95a
7. Socrates Reply to Cebes.............................95a - 107b
8. A Myth........................................................107b - 114e
9. Death of Socrates ........................................114e - 118a
Two Platonic (not Socratic!) doctrines feature prominently in the dialogue
The Theory of Forms (or Ideas), developed in The Republic & in other
dialogues
The Immortality of the Soul
Lecture #15: Platos Anthropology Page 4
3. Platos Theory of Forms
Platos Theory of FormsOntology (a Theory of Being)
Background
Socrates search for real definitions led him to search for the the form
(cioo, form, idea) itself.
Plato hypostatizes the forms (hence, the Forms), attributing to them an
existence independent of the objects of our experience.
To understand Plato, think mathematics. Over the door of Platos Academy
stood the inscription Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here.
The fundamental contrast was between ordinary objects & the Forms. So,
between any individual circle and the form Circle, between any particular
piece of quartz and Quartz
This doctrine is developed in the Republic and used in the Phaedo
In the Republic, it is found in
(1) The Myth of the Sun
(2) The Divided Line
(3) The Myth of the Cave
In the Phdo, it is used
(1) in the account of philosophy as preparation for death, as an
epistemological doctrine with moral underpinnings
(2) in the argument from the doctrine of recollection to the immortality of
the soul, as an epistemological doctrine with metaphysical implications
(cf. also the Meno )
(3) in the final argument (against Cebes) for the immortality of the soul
The Content of the Theory
1. Words are the names of things
2. The Forms exist
cf. mathematicians existence claims about mathematical objects
e.g., that for every pair of numbers, there exists a number that is their
product
[we assume] the existence of a single existential nature or Form for
every set of things which we call by the same name.Parm. 132d
Platos dualismThere are two worlds
the sensible worldcontaining particular objects
the intelligible worldcontaining universal objects (the Forms),
universal in the sense that they name the Form that corresponds
to many particular objects
3. The forms are more real than ordinary objects (a gradational ontology)
Lecture #15: Platos Anthropology Page 5
The criterion of reality: What makes ordinary objects more real than their
shadows? or originals more real than their copies? There are two
possible answers
(1) greater permanence
(2) greater participation in whatever makes the thing a thing of its kind
The same relationship holds between
a triangle drawn on the board and a real triangle
or, a particular objects in the sensible world and the Form of that thing
4. Particular objects are related to the forms by participation (cuci),
but what does participation mean? This was a problem that Plato never
solved.
5. The forms are causally responsible for what happens in the sensible
world
Platos Theory of Forms Epistemology (a Theory of Knowledge)
The two worlds can be described with a focus on epistemology
The intelligible world is known but not seen
The forms are the (only) proper object of knowledge
The sensible world is seen but not known
There can be no knowledge of the sensible world
Argument
Any proposition that is known must always be true
claims about the sensible world are not always true
since the sensible world is always changing
So, no claims about the sensible world are known
There are three ways of coming to know about the world of the forms
recollection (ovovqoi)recovery of knowledge by acquaintance in a
previous existence
dialectic (talking-through)cf. flow of dialogue in Euthyphro, &c.,
working ones way back from hypothesis to basic principle
love (co) (the Symposium)
Lecture #15: Platos Anthropology Page 6
4. Platos Anthroplogy
(1) Man is composed of body (ooo) & soul (u_q)
These are two distinct kinds of substance. Hence, Plato is sometimes
called a
dualist.
(2) Platos Theory of the Soul
[ontology]
(a) The soul is a non-material thing
(b) The soul is capable of independent existence and functioning
(i) It exists before the body does. This is based on his doctrine that
learning is recollection.
(ii) It survives the death & destruction of the body. This is the doctrine of
immortality, though Cebes forces distinction between survival of one
death & immortality in the sense of survival of all deaths and
perpetual existence
[epistemology]
(c) The soul is the part whereby real knowledge (i.e., knowledge of the
Forms) is possible. This is the central function of the soul in the Phdo.
The Republic acknowledges more functions of the soul. This account of
knowledge is elaborated in the Allegory of the Cave.
[anthropology]
(d) The soul is the real person.
(3) Platos Theory of the Body
[ontology]
(a) The body is a material thing
(b) The body is capable of independent existence, but not functioning
existing after death, but first as inert, then as decomposing
[epistemology]
(c) The body is an impediment to attainment of real knowledge
[anthropology]
(d) The body is not the real person
(e) Indeed, the body is a prison (to ooo oqo) [62b]
(4) Theory of Death
(a) Death is the separation of body & soul (by definition), but that does not
cause either to cease to exist (cf. 2b & 3b). It does not even cause the soul
to
cease functioning.
(b) Death is not end of personal existence [64c] (from 2b & 2d)
(i) The soul survives after death
Lecture #15: Platos Anthropology Page 7
(ii) The soul will later be put into another body. This is the doctrine of the
transmigration of souls.
(c) Death is a good thing. This follows from 2b & 3c.
Lecture #15: Platos Anthropology Page 8
4. Christianity & Platonism
Platonism has a certain appeal to Christians, probably because of its
insistence on
the spiritual aspect of human existence. The apparent similarity can be
summarized in four points.
1. Christianity & Platonism share a concern for a life characterized by moral
virtue
2. Both see life on earth as part (& not the best part) of human existence
(cf. the doctrine that the Beatific Vision is the ultimate human good)
3. Both seem to present the body as an impediment to the good life.
The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak2
4. Christianity & Platonism share a positive attitude towards death
cf. St. Ambrose [in the handout]
But this similarity is only apparent
1. The similarities on the first two points is compatible with real and
significant
differences. We have a common enemy, but not a common doctrine.
St Augustine wrote I found [in some books of the Platonists] [something
similar to a Christian doctrine] but I did not find [this particular important
element] with respect to a number of Christian doctrines.3 [See the
handout]
2. The New Testament passages do not contrast body vs. soul. [See the C.
S.
Lewis passage in the handout]
3. The accounts of death are different.
a. Platonism & Christianity differ in their evaluation of death:
i. For Platonism, death is a liberation from the prison of the body
ii. For Christianity:
Death is the penalty for (the wages of) sin. 4 Since penalties are bad
things, death is seen as a bad thing, even if it has good aspects.
At best death is a remedy good only because, having sinned, we need
it. [See the continuation of St. Ambrose passage on handout.]
b. Platonisms doctrines of pre-existence and reincarnation are inconsistent
with Christian anthropology
4. Platonism & Christianity show real differences on relation of body, soul,
and
person
2 Matt 26:41.
3 St Augustine, Confessions 7.9
4 Catechism 400403, 10068. Gen 2:17, 3:19; Rom 5:12.
Lecture #15: Platos Anthropology Page 9
a. Two features of Platonist doctrine(1) the insufficient unity of body &
soul & (2) the identification of soul & man,
i. make the Incarnation unnecessarywhy assume a human body if the
body did not need to be saved?
ii. make general resurrection (of the body) bad, not goodChristian
doctrine is that every human being will get his body back on the last
day5
b. Platonisms doctrine of pre-existence and reincarnation are inconsistent
with Christianity
5