Platonism
Platonism is the philosophy of Plato or the name of other philosophical systems considered closely derived from it. In a narrower sense the term might indicate the doctrine of Platonic realism.Philosophy
The central concept is the Theory of Forms. The only true being is founded upon the forms, the eternal, unchangeable, perfect types, of which particular objects of sense are imperfect copies. The multitude of objects of sense, being involved in perpetual change, are thereby deprived of all genuine existence. The number of the forms is defined by the number of universal concepts which can be derived from the particular objects of sense.Book VI of the Republic identifies the highest form as the Form of the Good, the cause of all other Ideas, and that on which the being and knowing of all other Forms is contingent. Conceptions derived from the impressions of sense can never give us the knowledge of true being; i.e. of the forms. It can only be obtained by the soul's activity within itself, apart from the troubles and disturbances of sense; that is to say, by the exercise of reason. Dialectic, as the instrument in this process, leading us to knowledge of the forms, and finally to the highest form of the Good, is the first of sciences. Later Neoplatonism, beginning with Plotinus, identified the Good of the Republic with the so-called transcendent, absolute One of the first hypothesis of the Parmenides (137c-142a).
Platonist ethics is based on the Form of the Good. Virtue is knowledge, the recognition of the supreme form of the Good. And since in this cognition the three parts of the soul, reason, spirit, and appetite, all have their share, we get the three virtues, Wisdom, Courage, and Moderation. The bond which unites the other virtues is the virtue of Justice, by which each part of the soul is confined to the performance of its proper function.
Platonism had a profound effect on Western thought. In many interpretation of the Timaeus Platonism[1], like Aristotelianism, poses an eternal universe, as opposed to the nearby Judaic tradition that the universe had been created in historical time, with its continuous history recorded. Unlike Aristotelianism, Platonism describes idea as prior to matter and identifies the person with the soul. Many Platonic notions secured a permanent place in Latin Christianity.[2]
History
The Academy
Platonism was originally expressed in the dialogues of Plato, in which the figure of Socrates is used to expound certain doctrines, that may or may not be similar to the thought of the historical Socrates, Plato's master. Plato delivered his lectures at the Academy, a precinct containing a sacred grove outside the walls of Athens. The school continued there long after. There were three periods: the Old, Middle, and New Academy. The chief figures in the Old Academy were Speusippus (Plato's nephew), who succeeded him as the head of the school (until 339 BC), and Xenocrates (till 314 BC). Both of them sought to fuse Pythagorean speculations on number with Plato's theory of forms.Around 266 BC, Arcesilaus became head of the school. Under Arcesilaus the Academy strongly emphasized Skepticism. This phase is known as the Middle Academy. It was characterized by its attacks on the Stoics and their assertion of the certainty of truth and our knowledge of it. The New Academy began with Carneades in 155 BC, the fourth head in succession from Arcesilaus. It was still largely skeptical, denying the possibility of knowing an absolute truth; both Arcesilaus and Carneades believed that they were maintaining a genuine tenet of Plato.
Middle Platonism
Around 90 BC, Antiochus of Ascalon rejected skepticism, making way for the period known as Middle Platonism, in which Platonism was fused with certain Peripatetic and many Stoic dogmas. In Middle Platonism, the Platonic Forms were not transcendent but immanent to rational minds, and the physical world was a living, ensouled being, the World-Soul. Pre-eminence in this period belongs to Plutarch. The eclectic nature of Platonism during this time is shown by its incorporation into Pythagoreanism (Numenius of Apamea) and into Jewish philosophy (Philo of Alexandria).Neoplatonism
In the third century, Plotinus recast Plato's system, establishing Neoplatonism, in which Middle Platonism was fused with oriental mysticism. At the summit of existence stands the One or the Good, as the source of all things. It generates from itself, as if from the reflection of its own being, reason, the nous, - wherein is contained the infinite store of ideas. The world-soul, the copy of the nous, is generated by and contained in it, as the nous is in the One, and, by informing matter in itself nonexistent, constitutes bodies whose existence is contained in the world-soul. Nature therefore is a whole, endowed with life and soul. Soul, being chained to matter, longs to escape from the bondage of the body and return to its original source. In virtue and philosophical thought it has the power to elevate itself above the reason into a state of ecstasy, where it can behold, or ascend up to, that one good primary Being whom reason cannot know. To attain this union with the Good, or God, is the true function of human beings.Plotinus' disciple, Porphyry, followed by Iamblichus, developed the system in conscious opposition to Christianity. The Platonic Academy was re-established during this time period; its most renowned head was Proclus (died 485), a celebrated commentator on Plato's writings. The Academy persisted until Roman emperor Justinian closed it in 529.
Christianity and Platonism
Many Western churchmen, including Augustine of Hippo, have been influenced by Platonism
Platonism influenced Christianity first through Clement of Alexandria and Origen.[3] Augustine was heavily influenced by Platonism as well, mostly through Victorinus Afer.[3] Platonism was considered authoritative in the Middle Ages, and many Platonic notions are now permanent elements of Catholic/Protestant Christianity.[3] Like pagans had before them, Christians understood Platonic forms as God's thoughts.[3] Platonism also influenced both Eastern and Western mysticism.[3] Meanwhile, Platonism influenced various philosophers.[3] When Aristotle became more renowned than Plato in the 13th century, Aquinas's philosophy was still fundamentally Platonic.[3]
With the Renaissance, scholars became more interested in Plato himself. In 16th, 17th century, and 19th century England, Plato's ideas influenced many religious thinkers. Orthodox Protestantism on continental Europe, however, distrusts natural reason and has often been critical of Platonism.
Absolutism
The term ‘absolutism’ has both a moral and political connotation. In terms of morality, ‘absolutism’ refers to at least two distinct doctrines. Firstly, absolutism may refer to the claim that there exists a universally valid moral system, which applies to everyone whether they realize it or not. In this sense, absolutism is opposed to moral relativism, which denies the existence of universally applicable moral principles. Secondly, absolutism may refer to the claim that moral rules or principles do not admit any exceptions. Immanuel Kant, for instance, is an absolutist (in this sense) with respect to lying, because he held that it is never permissible to lie. This variety of absolutist need not maintain that all moral principles are absolute. Most contemporary defenders of absolutism would not hold that lying is always impermissible but may maintain this of (e.g., torture).
In terms of politics, ‘absolutism’ refers to a type of government in which the ruler’s power is absolute, that is, not subject to any legal constraints. The European monarchies, especially those of France, Spain, and Russia, between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries provide perhaps the clearest examples of absolute rule, although forms of absolutism have existed in most parts of the world. It was not until the end of the eighteenth century that the prevalence of absolute rule in Europe began to wane.
The word ‘absolutism’ does not have an entirely uniform meaning within contemporary moral and political writings. This article outlines three central uses of the term, which may serve as an introduction to the topic.
Meta-ethical absolutism
“Absolutism” (or 'moral absolutism') refers, firstly, to a doctrine about the nature of morality (meta-ethics), according to which there are true or justifiable moral principles that have application to everyone, or at least, all moral agents (excluding infants and the mentally impaired for example). In other words, there are moral rules that apply to all people, including those who do not acknowledge these principles but live their lives in accordance with other, false, principles. Moral absolutism in this sense is committed to the existence of universal moral principles and for this reason is sometimes called universalism.Moral absolutism in our first sense is opposed to moral relativism, which denies that there are any moral principles that have universal application. Rather, according to the relativist, moral principles apply locally, that is, only to the groups of people who accept them. In understanding the dispute between absolutism and relativism, it is important to distinguish the question of ‘’universal applicability’’ from ‘’universal acceptance.’’ The relativist does not deny that is possible (or even actual) that could be moral principles accepted by everyone. What he denies is that these principles would also apply to people who did not accept them. For example, suppose that as a result of globalization, everyone in the world came to ‘’accept’’ (roughly) the western moral code. (This is the moral code shaped by the influences of Judaism and Christianity and held by most people living in Europe and North America.) This would not imply the existence of any universal and absolute moral code for it would not imply that this code applied to others, such as future humans, who did not endorse this way of ethical thinking. So the relativist would argue that a moral code could be universally accepted, without being universally valid, and hence fail to be absolute.
Moral absolutism presupposes objectivism—the doctrine that moral principles are true, or justified, independently of anyone’s belief that they are true or justified. This is because conventional moral codes could not have any universal validity—for they are true only insofar as they are believed to be true. Secondly, although moral absolutism is committed to their being a universally valid set of moral principles, it is not committed to saying that anyone currently knows this universal moral code. So although a moral absolutist maintains that there is one and only one proper moral code and that everyone ought to live by it, he need not maintain that the code is known. However, it presumably must be knowable, and once it is discovered all are morally obliged to live by it. The reader is cautioned, however, that absolutists often write as though they do know some of these principles, and at least one contemporary writer characterizes absolutism in terms of ‘’knowledge’’ of an absolute moral code (see Cook 1999).
Many normative theories that would typically be discussed in an introductory ethics class count as species of absolutism in our first sense. For example, utilitarianism presents a theory of morality according to which actions are right just in case they produce more overall welfare than available alternatives. This is an absolute account of morality, for it implies that there is, in all circumstances, one correct answer as to what it is right to do. This applies to everyone, even to those who did not know about or accept the utilitarian principle. Similarly, Kant’s theory is also a species of absolutism for it holds that moral right and wrong are all ultimately determined by a basic principle of practical reason—the categorical imperative—and hence applicable to all rational agents. Utilitarianism and Kantianism are both forms of monism, the view that there is ultimately only one absolute and basic moral principle. However, not all forms of absolutism make this assumption. W.D. Ross’s theory, for example, endorses a plurality of absolute moral principles, none of which are any more basic than any other (see intuitionism). This is still an absolutist account of morality in our first sense, that is the sense opposed to relativism, because it claims universal applicability. W. D. Ross’s prima facie duties prescribe, for example, that it is always prima facie wrong to break a promise. (See also ethics, normative ethics)
Moral absolutism
“Absolutism” (or 'moral absolutism) refers also to a particular type of ethical theory, that is, a normative theory according to which some actions (action-types) are absolutely forbidden. Absolutism in this sense says, for example, that it is always wrong to kill, or always wrong to lie, or always wrong to tortue another. It is important to notice, however, that absolutism is not a theory of ‘’which’’ actions are absolutely prohibited or required but only a theory that there ‘’are’’ some actions absolutely outlawed in this way. Absolutism upholds only the formal requirement that some moral principles admit of no exceptions—that there are some moral principles it is always wrong to break. This implies that it is possible to be an absolutist about any action-type whatsoever, although most absolutists argue for their position by means of torture, killing of the innocent, and so on.Moral absolutism in this second sense is often held as opposed to consequentialism. Consequentialism is a theory according to which actions are right just in case they promote overall value in comparison with other alternatives. The upshot of this account is that no particular action (or action-type) could be absolutely wrong. For example, torturing a small child may produce more value (or less disvalue) than the killing of an entire nation. Therefore, for a consequentialist, torturing a small child in order to save a country is permissible, if indeed not positively required. By contrast, moral absolutism holds that some actions are absolutely wrong; they could never be right no matter what consequences of failing to do them might be. So, an absolutist would say that it is morally wrong to torture a child in order to save an entire nation. Absolutism says that some actions are wrong whatever the consequences. Or again, moral absolutism about lying would say that the lying is always wrong, whatever the consequences. Consequentialism is sometimes construed as one type of absolutist moral theory: for instance, it is absolutely wrong not to act in such a way that promotes overall value.
Which actions or types of action are traditionally regarded as absolutely wrong? Historically, philosphers have been absolutists with regarded to many types of actions such as lying, adutery, and sodomy. However, in a contemporary setting, torture and executing the innocent are two of the actions most commonly held to be absolute prohibitions. And these are also the most plausible sort of cases. In fact, the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1987) upholds an absolutism of this form. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture" (Article 2). This resolution says that no matter what the expected consequences of torture may be—for example, preventing New York City from being bombed by terrorists—torture is impermissible. It would be morally wrong to torture a terrorist in order to find out where a bomb was being hidden, even if the consequences of not doing so would be quite catastophic.
Given its emphasis on moral principles, and opposition to consequentialism, it may seem unclear how absolutism differs from deontology. The answer is that absolutism is a species of deontology. Absolutism endorses two claims: (1) some actions are intrinsically right or wrong; (2) the consequences of an action of this sort (e.g., lying) can never override its intrinsic rightness or wrongness. By contrast, a deontological ethical theory is committed to (1) but not to (2). All absolutist theories are therefore deontological, but not all deontological theories are absolutist.
Although deontological ethical theories are not necessarily absolutist, some important deontologists have been. Kant’s infamous discussion of the inquiring murderer suggests that he held that the deontological constraint on lying is absolute. In his infamous essay, ‘On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives’, Kant argues against the permissibility of lying even to a man whom one knows to be in the process of attempting a murder, going about looking for his victim. Kant saus that ‘to be truthful (honest) in all deliberations … is a sacred and absolutely commanding decree of reason, limited by no expediency.’ Kant is therefore an absolutist, for he would argue against lying under any conditions. This is what makes him an absolutist: lying is forbidden in every situation; it is never permissible to lie.
Similarly, an important contemporary deontologist, Charles Fried, endorses absolutism in the following passage: “Ordinary moral understanding, as well as many major traditions of Western moral theory, recognize that there are some things which a moral man will not do, no matter what…It is part of the idea that lying or murder are wrong, not just bad, that these are things you must not do–no matter what. They are not mere negatives that enter into a calculus to be outweighed by the good you might do or the greater harm you might avoid. Thus the norms which express deontological judgments–for example, Do not commit murder–may be said to be absolute. They do not say: ‘Avoid lying, other things being equal’, but ‘Do not lie, period’.” (Fried 1978) (See also Elizabeth Anscombe.)
Non-absolutist deontologists, such as W.D. Ross hold that one may in exceptional circumstances break deontological constraints. Ross distinguishes between prima facie duties and what he calls duties proper. The concept of a prima facie duty is the concept of a duty, which though it is a significant reason for not doing something, is not absolute, but must be weighed up against other duties. A duty proper refers to the action that must be done when all the prima facie duties have been considered and weighed. To illustrate, Ross thinks that we have duties to keep our promises, and duties of benevolence: these are, then, prima facie duties. Insofar as these prima facie duties come into conflict (and one cannot keep a promise and act with benevolence), one must decide on the basis of contextual details, which of these duties is most pressing. The action which is judged to be, all things considered, the right thing to do, is the duty proper. Ross’s theory is an example of a moderate deontology, that is, deontology without absolutism.
Political Absolutism
In it political sense, ‘absolutism’ is a theory of legislative authority. It holds that the ruler, usually the king, has exclusive legal authority, and consequently that the laws of state are nothing other than expressions of his will (see voluntarism). Only divine and natural laws limit the king’s power, which in it practical implication, amounts to almost no limitation at all. In the terminology of Roman law, the king is legibus solutus (‘unfettered legislator’). The European monarchies, especially those of France, Spain, and Russia, between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries provide clear examples of absolutist states, although many others, such as the dynasties of China and Japan, also qualify. It was not until the end of the eighteenth century that the prevalence of absolute rule in Europe began to wane.In its most extreme form, absolutism interprets the power of the king, and his right to rule, as derived directly from God. This is known as the Divine Right of Kings (see Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet). On this view, the monarch derives his authority as ruler directly from God, and not from the will of his subjects, the nobility, or any other human authority. According to a second form of absolutism, royal legislative authority derives from a contract between ruler and subjects, in which the people irreversibly transfer power to him (see Thomas Hobbes). Once power has been transferred in this way, the people are no longer entitled to replace their ruler, although they might legitimately resist him in certain extreme circumstances. Probably the most moderate form of absolutism originates in the writings of the Jesuit jurist and theologian Francisco Suárez, who argued that the authority of the ruler derives the people’s delegating power to him. This differs from the second form of absolutism since the transfer of power is not irreversible: the people could legitimately, in some circumstances, reclaim the authority they had delegated. (See also Social Contract theory)
Hedonism
Hedonism is a school of philosophy which argues that pleasure has an ultimate importance and is the most important pursuit of humanity.Etymology
The name derives from the Greek word for "delight" (ἡδονισμός hēdonismos from ἡδονή hēdonē "pleasure", a cognate of English sweet + suffix -ισμός -ismos "ism").Basic concepts
The basic idea behind hedonistic thought is that pleasure is the only thing that is good for a person; indeed: the only good. This is often used as a justification for evaluating actions in terms of how much pleasure and how little pain (i.e. suffering) they produce. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize this net pleasure (pleasure minus pain). The nineteenth-century British philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham defended the ethical theory of utilitarianism, according to which we should perform whichever action maximizes the aggregate good. Conjoining hedonism, as a view as to what is good for people, to utilitarianism has the result that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest total amount of happiness. Though consistent in their pursuit of happiness, Bentham and Mill’s versions of hedonism differ. There are two somewhat basic schools of thought on hedonism:[1]- One school, grouped around Jeremy Bentham, defends a quantitative approach. Bentham believed that the value of a pleasure could be quantitatively understood. Essentially, he believed the value of a pleasure to be its intensity multiplied by its duration - so it was not just the number of pleasures, but their intensity and how long they lasted that must be taken into account.
- Other proponents, like John Stuart Mill, argue a qualitative approach. Mill believed that there can be different levels of pleasure - higher quality pleasure is better than lower quality pleasure. Mill also argues that simpler beings (he often references pigs) have an easier access to the simpler pleasures; since they do not see other aspects of life, they can simply indulge in their lower pleasures. The more elaborate beings tend to spend more thought on other matters and hence lessen the time for simple pleasure. It is therefore more difficult for them to indulge in such "simple pleasures" in the same manner.
In the medical sciences, the inability to derive pleasure from experiences that are typically considered pleasurable is referred to as anhedonia.
Predecessors
Democritus seems to be the earliest philosopher on record to have categorically embraced a hedonistic philosophy; he called the supreme goal of life "contentment" or "cheerfulness", claiming that "joy and sorrow are the distinguishing mark of things beneficial and harmful" (DK 68 B 188).[2]Cyrenaicism (4th and 3rd centuries B.C.), founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, was one of the earliest Socratic schools, and emphasized one side only of the Socratic teaching. Taking Socrates' assertion that happiness is one of the ends of moral action, Aristippus maintained that pleasure was the supreme good. He found bodily gratifications, which he considered more intense, preferable to mental pleasures. They also denied that we should defer immediate gratification for the sake of long-term gain. In these respects they differ from the Epicureans.[3][4]
Epicureanism is considered by some to be a form of ancient hedonism. Epicurus identified pleasure with tranquillity and emphasized the reduction of desire over the immediate acquisition of pleasure. In this way, Epicureanism escapes the preceding objection: while pleasure and the highest good are equated, Epicurus claimed that the highest pleasure consists of a simple, moderate life spent with friends and in philosophical discussion.
Egoism (Psychological and Ethical Hedonism)
Hedonism can be conjoined with psychological egoism - the theory that humans are motivated only by their self interest - to make psychological hedonism: a purely descriptive claim which states that agents naturally seek pleasure. Hedonism can also be combined with ethical egoism - the claim that individuals should seek their own good - to make ethical hedonism the claim that we should act so as to produce our own pleasure.However, hedonism is not necessarily related to egoism. The utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill is sometimes classified as a type of hedonism, as it judges the morality of actions by their consequent contributions to the greater good and happiness of all. This is altruistic hedonism. Whereas some hedonistic doctrines propose doing whatever makes an individual happiest (over the long run), Mill promotes actions which make everyone happy. Compare individualism and collectivism.
It is true that Epicurus recommends for us to pursue our own pleasure, but he never suggests we should live a selfish life which impedes others from getting to that same objective.
Some of Sigmund Freud's theories of human motivation have been called psychological hedonism; his "life instinct" is essentially the observation that people will pursue pleasure. However, he introduces extra complexities with various other mechanisms, such as the "death instinct". The death instinct, Thanatos, can be equated to the desire for silence and peace, for calm and darkness, which causes them another form of happiness. It is also a death instinct, thus it can also be the desire for death. The fact that he leaves out the instinct to survive as a primary motivator, and that his hypotheses are notoriously invalidated by objective testing, casts doubt on this theory.
A modern proponent of hedonism with an ethical touch is the Swedish philosopher Torbjörn Tännsjö
Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle
Biographical Background Aristotle was born at Stagira in northern Greece in 384 b.c. His father, Nicomachus, was a physician at the court of Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great. In 367, Aristotle moved to Athens, which was the intellectual and cultural center of ancient Greece. He spent many years studying in Plato's Academy, surrounded by other philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians. Plato died in 347, and Aristotle left the Academy in that same year. There is speculation that he left because Plato had not chosen him as his successor. It is more likely, however, that anti-Macedonian sentiment was growing in Athens, and Aristotle was afraid of being persecuted for his associations with King Philip's court.
Over the next four years, Aristotle traveled throughout the eastern Aegean area, studying and teaching. During this time, he conducted a remarkable array of experiments and observations in the biological sciences. In 343, he was summoned back north to Macedonia to be the personal tutor to the young Alexander the Great. While we know very little about Aristotle's influence on Alexander, there has been a great deal of speculation and mythologizing about the relationship between these two eminent figures.
As the Macedonians extended their empire over Greece, it became safe for Aristotle to return to Athens. In 334, he established his own philosophical school at the Lyceum, where he taught for the next eleven years. His lectures covered almost every area of study, including physics, metaphysics, ethics, psychology, politics, and poetry. His pioneering work in logic and biology was not improved upon for two thousand years.
In 323, Alexander the Great died, and Aristotle left Athens, fearing another upsurge of anti-Macedonian sentiment. Alluding to the trial and execution of Socrates some seventy-six years earlier, Aristotle reportedly claimed that he did not wish the Athenians to “sin a second time against philosophy.” A year later, he died in Chalcis in Euboea.
Though Aristotle published many admired works in his lifetime, none have survived to the present day. Those works that we do have consist mostly of lecture notes from his courses at the Lyceum. That these works were never intended for publication explains why they are generally dry and hard to follow. The Nicomachean Ethics was likely either edited by or dedicated to Aristotle's son, Nicomachus.
Historical Context
The Greek world of Aristotle's time was made up of small city-states, each with its own autonomous government. The city-state consisted of slaves, noncitizen manual laborers, children, women, aliens, and citizens. The citizens were adult males, most of whom had been born to citizen parents. The citizens governed the city, while the slaves, laborers, and women did all the work to provide the necessary food, shelter, and equipment. Because they were freed from the necessity of meeting day-to-day needs, citizens enjoyed a great deal of freedom and luxury. The leisure they enjoyed was highly valued and made possible one of the greatest periods of intellectual energy in human history. That this system was exploitative is hardly debatable, but it also produced an incredible array of philosophy, drama, art, and architecture. Aristotle's students were young citizens whose tuition was meant to prepare them for a life of civic duty.
There were few enough citizens that everyone in a given city would at least recognize, if not know, one another, and all citizens were expected to take part in public office. Unlike our modern system of representative democracy, where we simply elect officials to speak for us, all Greek citizens were expected to voice their own opinions in large deliberative and judicial assemblies. There was a strong bond of kinship created in citizenship, as the same people lived together, governed together, served in the army together, and enjoyed leisure time together.
The age of the city-state came to a close within Aristotle's lifetime, however, due to the efforts of his most famous pupil, Alexander the Great. Alexander came to power in the northern kingdom of Macedonia and within a decade had established one of the largest empires the world has ever seen. When Alexander died, Greece once more became fragmented, but the fierce independence of the city-states was a thing of the past. Greek culture was on the decline, and within a few hundred years, it would be swallowed up by the burgeoning Roman Empire.
Philosophical Context
As the successor of Socrates and Plato, Aristotle was the last of the great Greek philosophers. Philosophy first flourished in Greece sometime in the early sixth century b.c. as inquisitive thinkers began developing rational methods for investigating the mysteries of nature and mathematics. These pre-Socratic thinkers were as much scientists and mathematicians as they were philosophers.
While there is significant pre-Socratic influence in Aristotle's work, primarily in the sciences and metaphysics, his most significant influence was undoubtedly Plato (427–347 b.c.). Plato's philosophy was centered on his famous Theory of Forms, or Theory of Ideas. The theory is based on the observation that there must be some universal quality that all things classed under a single name share in common. For instance, a flower is beautiful in a very different way from a human, but both the flower and the human must share something in common if we are to call them both “beautiful.” Plato's answer is that they share in common the “Form of Beauty,” which is itself invisible, unchanging, and eternal. Anything that we perceive in this world as beautiful is beautiful because it participates in some way in the Form of Beauty. But while beautiful flowers will wilt and beautiful humans will grow old and die, the Form of Beauty is everlasting and unchanging. Plato theorizes that our world of sensible experience, with its changes and disappointments, is but a poor reflection of the ideal world of pure Forms that underlies our experience. The goal of philosophy, then, is to train the mind to see beyond the veil of experience and to contemplate the true reality of Forms that lies behind it.
While Aristotle was undoubtedly influenced by Plato, this influence was mostly negative. Most of his works, including the Nicomachean Ethics, contain involved refutations of many of Plato's theories. Aristotle himself was an empirical scientist who felt that true wisdom comes from examining the objects of experience and not from trying to look beyond them. In the Ethics, he is primarily critical of Plato's Form of Good. According to Aristotle, there is not a single Form by virtue of which all good things are good. Instead, he discusses at length the multiplicity of the various virtues.
Aristotle's work in the Ethics is deeply informed by his own work in the sciences and metaphysics. Properly describing the breadth of Aristotle's impressive system is far beyond the scope of this Spark-Note, but Jonathan Barnes's Aristotle (2000) provides an excellent and brief introduction to Aristotelian philosophy.
In terms of impact on the Ethics, perhaps Aristotle's most significant concept is that of the teleology of nature. According to Aristotle, nature works toward a telos, or end goal. His biological work aims constantly at the question of what purpose different aspects of plants and animals serve. He classifies humans as “rational animals,” meaning that our telos is rational. In other words, our function in life is to realize our full potential as rational beings. If we are not fully rational, we are falling short of our true nature.
This teleological view gives Aristotle's Ethics a clear sense of direction. Our goal in life is to achieve our true nature, and this true nature consists essentially of rationality. The purpose of a moral education, then, is to teach us how we may become perfectly rational and immune to the temptations of our lower animalistic parts.
Ethics is just one of a number of fields that Aristotle classifies as “practical science.” Unlike the natural sciences, which examine the world around us, these sciences deal with the practical aspects of human society and how best to arrange this society. The practical sciences are all closely connected, and Aristotle frequently expounds on the connection between the good life for the individual and the kind of state that could make this good life possible. Hence, Aristotle's Politics is an important companion and sequel to his Ethics.
While the Nicomachean Ethics is Aristotle's most popular work on ethics, there is a second work called the Eudemian Ethics, which is far less widely read. Most scholars agree that the Eudemian Ethics was written earlier in Aristotle's career and represents a less mature view. Books V, VI, and VII of the Nicomachean Ethics are also found in the Eudemian Ethics.
Aristotle's influence on Western philosophy is difficult to exaggerate. While his works were lost to the West for many centuries, they were slowly transmitted back into Europe by Arab scholars during the Middle Ages. Thanks mostly to the influence of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Aristotelian philosophy became accepted almost as dogmatically as the Bible during the late Middle Ages. While modern philosophy broke significantly from the scholastic tradition of the Middle Ages, Aristotle's influence remains undiminished. In particular, his emphasis on scientific reasoning and experimentation has been a cornerstone of modern empiricist philosophy.
Stoicism
Stoicism was a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium in the early third century B.C. The stoics considered destructive emotions to be the result of errors in judgment, and that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection," would not have such emotions.[1] Stoics were concerned with the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in accord with nature. Because of this, the Stoics presented their philosophy as a way of life, and they thought that the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how he or she behaved.[2] Later Roman Stoics, such as Seneca and Epictetus, emphasized that because "virtue is sufficient for happiness," a sage was immune to misfortune. This belief is similar to the meaning of the phrase 'stoic calm', though the phrase does not include the "radical ethical" Stoic views that only a sage can be considered truly free, and that all moral corruptions are equally vicious.[3]Stoic doctrine was a popular and durable philosophy, with a following throughout Greece and the Roman Empire, from its founding until the closing of all philosophy schools in 529 AD by order of the Emperor Justinian I, who perceived their pagan character to be at odds with his Christian faith. [4][5]
Basic tenets
| “ | Philosophy does not promise to secure anything external for man, otherwise it would be admitting something that lies beyond its proper subject-matter. For as the material of the carpenter is wood, and that of statuary bronze, so the subject-matter of the art of living is each person's own life. | ” |
| —Epictetus[6] | ||
Stoicism teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions; the philosophy holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to understand the universal reason (logos). A primary aspect of Stoicism involves improving the individual’s ethical and moral well-being: "Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature."[7] This principle also applies to the realm of interpersonal relationships; "to be free from anger, envy, and jealousy",[8] and to accept even slaves as "equals of other men, because all alike are sons of God."[9]
The Stoic ethic espouses a deterministic perspective; in regards to those who lack Stoic virtue, Cleanthes once opined that the wicked man is "like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes."[7] A Stoic of virtue, by contrast, would amend his will to suit the world and remain, in the words of Epictetus, "sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in exile and happy, in disgrace and happy,"[8] thus positing a "completely autonomous" individual will, and at the same time a universe that is "a rigidly deterministic single whole".
Stoicism became the foremost popular philosophy among the educated elite in the Greco-Roman Empire,[10] to the point where, in the words of Gilbert Murray, "nearly all the successors of Alexander [...] professed themselves Stoics."[11]
History
Beginning at around 301 BC, Zeno taught philosophy at the Stoa Poikile (i.e., "the painted porch"), from which his philosophy got its name[12][13]. Unlike the other schools of philosophy, such as the Epicureans, Zeno chose to teach his philosophy in a public space, which was a colonnade overlooking the central gathering place of Athens, the Agora.Zeno's ideas developed from those of the Cynics, whose founding father, Antisthenes, had been a disciple of Socrates. Zeno's most influential follower was Chrysippus, who was responsible for the molding of what we now call Stoicism. Later Roman Stoics focused on promoting a life in harmony within the universe, over which one has no direct control.
Scholars usually divide the history of Stoicism into three phases:
- Early Stoa, from the founding of the school by Zeno to Antipater.
- Middle Stoa, including Panaetius and Posidonius.
- Late Stoa, including Musonius Rufus, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius.
Stoic logic
Diodorus Cronus, who was one of Zeno's teachers, is considered the philosopher who first introduced, and developed an approach and system of logic now known as propositional logic; which is an approach to logic base on statements, making it very different than Aristotle's term logic. Later, Chrysippus developed this approach to logic into the system that was Stoic logic. New interest in Stoic logic came in the 20th century, when important developments in logic were based on propositional logic. Susanne Bobzien wrote, "The many close similarities between Chrysippus' philosophical logic and that of Gottlob Frege are especially striking." [15] Bobzien also notes that "Chrysippus wrote over 300 books on logic, on virtually any topic logic today concerns itself with, including speech act theory, sentence analysis, singular and plural expressions, types of predicates, indexicals, existential propositions, sentential connectives, negations, disjunctions, conditionals, logical consequence, valid argument forms, theory of deduction, propositional logic, modal logic, tense logic, epistemic logic, logic of suppositions, logic of imperatives, ambiguity and logical paradoxes"[16].The Stoics believed in the certainty that knowledge can be attained through the use of reason. Truth can be distinguished from fallacy; even if, in practice, only an approximation can be made. According to the Stoics, the senses are constantly receiving sensations: pulsations which pass from objects through the senses to the mind, where they leave behind an impression (phantasia). The mind has the ability to judge (sunkatathesis) — approve or reject — an impression, enabling it to distinguish a true representation of reality from one which is false. Some impressions can be assented to immediately, but others can only achieve varying degrees of hesitant approval which can be labelled belief or opinion (doxa). It is only through the use of reason that we can achieve clear comprehension and conviction (katalepsis). Certain and true knowledge (episteme), achievable by the Stoic sage, can be attained only by verifying the conviction with the expertise of one's peers and the collective judgement of humankind.
Make for yourself a definition or description of the thing which is presented to you, so as to see distinctly what kind of a thing it is in its substance, in its nudity, in its complete entirety, and tell yourself its proper name, and the names of the things of which it has been compounded, and into which it will be resolved. For nothing is so productive of elevation of mind as to be able to examine methodically and truly every object which is presented to you in life, and always to look at things so as to see at the same time what kind of universe this is, and what kind of use everything performs in it, and what value everything has with reference to the whole.[17]
Stoic physics and cosmology
According to the Stoics, the universe is a material, reasoning substance, known as God or Nature, which the Stoics divided into two classes, the active and the passive. The passive substance is matter, which "lies sluggish, a substance ready for any use, but sure to remain unemployed if no one sets it in motion."[18] The active substance, which can be called Fate, or Universal Reason (Logos), is an intelligent aether or primordial fire, which acts on the passive matter:The universe itself is god and the universal outpouring of its soul; it is this same world's guiding principle, operating in mind and reason, together with the common nature of things and the totality which embraces all existence; then the foreordained might and necessity of the future; then fire and the principle of aether; then those elements whose natural state is one of flux and transition, such as water, earth, and air; then the sun, the moon, the stars; and the universal existence in which all things are contained.[19]
Everything is subject to the laws of Fate, for the Universe acts only according to its own nature, and the nature of the passive matter which it governs. The souls of people and animals are emanations from this primordial fire, and are, likewise, subject to Fate:
Constantly regard the universe as one living being, having one substance and one soul; and observe how all things have reference to one perception, the perception of this one living being; and how all things act with one movement; and how all things are the cooperating causes of all things which exist; observe too the continuous spinning of the thread and the structure of the web.[20]
Individual souls are perishable by nature, and can be "transmuted and diffused, assuming a fiery nature by being received into the Seminal Reason (logos spermatikos) of the Universe."[21] Since right Reason is the foundation of both humanity and the universe, it follows that the goal of life is to live according to Reason, that is, to live a life according to Nature.
Stoic ethics and virtues
The ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts in the past than they do today. The word 'stoic' has come to mean 'unemotional' or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from 'passion' by following 'reason.' The Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions, rather they sought to transform them by a resolute 'askēsis' which enables a person to develop clear judgment and inner calm [22]. Logic, reflection, and concentration were the methods of such self-discipline.Borrowing from the Cynics, the foundation of Stoic ethics is that good lies in the state of the soul itself; in wisdom and self-control. Stoic ethics stressed the rule: "Follow where reason leads." One must therefore strive to be free of the passions, bearing in mind that the ancient meaning of 'passion' was "anguish" or "suffering",[23] that is, "passively" reacting to external events — somewhat different from the modern use of the word. A distinction was made between pathos (plural pathe) which is normally translated as "passion", propathos or instinctive reaction (e.g. turning pale and trembling when confronted by physical danger) and eupathos, which is the mark of the Stoic sage (sophos). The eupatheia are feelings resulting from correct judgment in the same way as the passions result from incorrect judgment.
The idea was to be free of suffering through apatheia (Greek: ἀπάθεια) or peace of mind (literally,'without passion')[24], where peace of mind was understood in the ancient sense — being objective or having "clear judgment" and the maintenance of equanimity in the face of life's highs and lows.
For the Stoics, 'reason' meant not only using logic, but also understanding the processes of nature — the logos, or universal reason, inherent in all things. Living according to reason and virtue, they held, is to live in harmony with the divine order of the universe, in recognition of the common reason and essential value of all people. The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy are wisdom (Sophia), courage (Andreia), justice (Dikaiosyne), and temperance (Sophrosyne), a classification derived from the teachings of Plato.
Following Socrates, the Stoics held that unhappiness and evil are the results of ignorance. If someone is unkind, it is because they are unaware of their own universal reason. Likewise, if they are unhappy, it is because they have forgotten how nature actually functions. The solution to evil and unhappiness then, is the practice of Stoic philosophy — to examine one's own judgments and behaviour and determine where they have diverged from the universal reason of nature.
The doctrine of "things indifferent"
In philosophical terms, things which are indifferent are outside the application of moral law, that is without tendency to either promote or obstruct moral ends. Actions neither required nor forbidden by the moral law, or which do not affect morality, are called morally indifferent. The doctrine of things indifferent (ἀδιάφορα, adiaphora) arose in the Stoic school as a corollary of its diametric opposition of virtue and vice (καθήκοντα kathekon and ἁμαρτήματα hamartemata, respectively "convenient actions," or actions in accordance with nature, and mistakes). As a result of this dichotomy, a large class of objects were left unassigned and thus regarded as indifferent.Eventually three sub-classes of "things indifferent" developed: things to be preferred because they assisted life according to nature; things to be avoided because they hindered it; and things indifferent in the narrower sense.
The principle of adiaphora was also common to the Cynics and Sceptics. The conception of things indifferent is, according to Kant, extra-moral. The doctrine of things indifferent was revived during the Renaissance by Philip Melanchthon.
Spiritual exercise
Philosophy for a Stoic is not just a set of beliefs or ethical claims, it is a way of life involving constant practice and training (or askesis, see ascetic). Stoic philosophical and spiritual practices included logic, Socratic dialogue and self-dialogue, contemplation of death, training attention to remain in the present moment (similar to some forms of Eastern meditation), daily reflection on everyday problems and possible solutions, hypomnemata, and so on. Philosophy for a Stoic is an active process of constant practice and self-reminder.In Meditations, Marcus Aurelius defines several such practices. For example, in Book II, part 1:
Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All of these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him; for we have come into the world to work together...
Social philosophy
A distinctive feature of Stoicism is its cosmopolitanism. All people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should, according to the Stoics, live in brotherly love and readily help one another. In the Discourses, Epictetus comments on man's relationship with the world: "Each human being is primarily a citizen of his own commonwealth; but he is also a member of the great city of gods and men, where of the city political is only a copy."[25] This sentiment echoes that of Socrates, who said "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world."[26]They held that external differences such as rank and wealth are of no importance in social relationships. Thus, before the rise of Christianity, Stoics advocated the brotherhood of humanity and the natural equality of all human beings. Stoicism became the most influential school of the Greco–Roman world, and produced a number of remarkable writers and personalities, such as Cato the Younger and Epictetus.
In particular, they were noted for their urging of clemency toward slaves. Seneca exhorted, "Kindly remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with yourself breathes, lives, and dies."[27]
Stoicism and Christianity
Due to Stoicism being founded in the culture of ancient Greece, and in the context of ancient Greek religion, and historically prior to Christianity, Stoicism was naturally regarded by the Fathers of the Church as a 'pagan philosophy'.[4][5] Nonetheless, some of the central philosophical concepts of Stoicism were employed by the early Christian writers. Examples include the terms "logos", "virtue", "Spirit", and "conscience".[28] But the parallels go well beyond the sharing (or borrowing) of terminology. Both Stoicism and Christianity assert an inner freedom in the face of the external world, a belief in human kinship with Nature (or God), and a sense of the innate depravity—or "persistent evil"—of humankind.[28] Both encourage askesis with respect to the passions and inferior emotions (viz. lust, envy and anger) so that the higher possibilities of one's humanity can be awakened and developed. The major difference between the two philosophies is Stoicism's pantheism where God is never fully transcendent but always immanent. God as the world-creating entity is personalised in Christian thought but Stoicism equates God with the totality of the universe. Also, Stoicism, unlike Christianity, posits no beginning or end to the universe, and no continued individual existence beyond death.[28] Even so, Stoic writings such as the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius have been highly regarded and widely read by Christians throughout the centuries. St. Ambrose of Milan was known for applying Stoic philosophy to his theology.The central Stoic idea of logos had an encounter with early Orthodox Christianity through Arius and his supporters. The ecumenical rejection of this belief was evidenced and deemed heretical at the Council at Nicea.[29] Stoicism influenced Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy, which was highly influential in the Middle Ages in its promotion of Christian morality via secular philosophy.[citation needed]
Cynicism
.Cynicism (Greek: Kυνισμός) originally comprised the various philosophies of a group of ancient Greeks called the Cynics, founded by Antisthenes in about the 4th century BC. The Cynics rejected all conventions, whether of religion, manners, housing, dress, or decency, advocating the pursuit of virtue in a simple and unmaterialistic lifestyle.
By the 19th century, emphasis on the negative aspects of Cynic philosophy led to a new and very different understanding of cynicism to mean an attitude of jaded negativity, and a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of other people. Modern cynicism, as a product of mass society, is a distrust toward ethical and social values, especially when there are high expectations concerning society, institutions and authorities which are unfulfilled. Cynicism can manifest itself by frustration, disillusionment and distrust in regard to organizations, authorities and other aspects of society, and can result from a negative evaluation of past experiences.
History of cynicism
The classical Greek and Roman Cynics regarded virtue as the only necessity for happiness, and saw virtue as entirely sufficient for attaining happiness. Classical Cynics followed this philosophy to the extent of neglecting everything not furthering their perfection of virtue and attainment of happiness, thus, the title Cynics, derived from the Greek word κύων, ("dog" in English) because they allegedly neglected society, hygiene, family, money, etc, in a manner reminiscent of dogs. They sought to free themselves from conventions; become self-sufficient; and live only in accordance with nature. They rejected any conventional notions of happiness involving money, power, or fame, to lead entirely virtuous, and thus happy, lives.[1]The ancient Cynics rejected conventional social values, and would criticise the types of behaviours, such as greed, which they viewed as causing suffering. Emphasis on this aspect of their teachings led, in the late 18th and early 19th century,[2] to the modern understanding of cynicism as "an attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others."[3] This modern definition of cynicism is in marked contrast to the ancient philosophy, which emphasized "virtue and moral freedom in liberation from desire."[4]
Toward modern cynicism
Nearly 2000 years after certain Greek philosophers first embraced classical cynicism, 17th and 18th century writers such as Shakespeare, Swift, and Voltaire, following in the traditions of Geoffrey Chaucer and François Rabelais, used irony, sarcasm, and satire to ridicule human conduct and revive cynicism. 19th- and 20th-century literary and cinema figures such as Mark Twain, Dorothy Parker, H.L. Mencken, and W.C. Fields used cynicism as way of communicating their low opinions of certain manifestations of human nature. Oscar Wilde described a cynic as "A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing". George Orwell defined cynicism as the direct opposite of fanaticism,[5] thus also implying agnosticism as its integral part. By 1930, Bertrand Russell — in the essay On Youthful Cynicism[6] — described the extent to which (in his view) cynicism had penetrated parts of Western mass consciousness, and noted particular areas partially deserving of cynicism: religion, country (patriotism), progress, beauty, truth. The first half of the 20th century, with its two World Wars, offered little hope to people wishing to embrace an idealism diametrically opposed to cynicism: seeing fellow-humans as trustworthy, well-intentioned, caring, decent, and honourable.Modern cynicism is an attitude of distrust toward ethical and social values and a rejection of the need to be socially involved. It has often been considered a disambiguation of the Greek philosophy.[7] It is a product of mass society,[8] but one where political engagement has no option but to be cynical.[9] Cynics can be self-righteous about the need to expose hypocrisy: to point out yawning gaps between our ideals and our practice.[10] According to Peter Sloterdijk, modern cynics can be understood as borderline melancholics, who can keep their symptoms of depression under control and yet retain the ability to work, whatever might happen.[11] Alfie Kohn argued that a person's cynicism stems from escaping responsibility, another belief sees cynicism as following sophistication in human psychological development.[12]
In 2005, researchers at Yale University found that children as young as eight years old could discount the statements of others as tarnished with "self-interest".
Types of cynicism
One can differentiate the following types of cynicism:Cynicism in the sense of "animosity"
Accusations of "cynicism" may originate in the negative perceptions and hostile attitudes of individuals concerning others. People who obtain high values on the hostility scale,[14] have low confidence in their fellow humans, and regard them as dishonest, antisocial, immoral and bad, sometimes even evil.Social cynicism
Social cynicism results from excessively high expectations concerning society, institutions and authorities. Unfulfilled expectations lead to disappointment, which releases feelings of disillusionment and betrayal.[15]Occupational cynicism
Occupational cynicism consists of cynical attitudes in relation to aspects of one's own work. This can lead to a loss of pride and respect concerning oneself in relation to one's own work.Organizational cynicism
Organizational Cynicism is an attitude rather than describing behavior.[16] Organizational cynicism manifests itself as a general or specific attitude, characterized by frustration, hopelessness, disillusionment and distrust in regard to economic organizations, managers and/or other aspects of work.[17]Dean et al. defined organizational cynicism as: A negative attitude toward one's employing organization, comprising three dimensions:
a) a belief that the organization lacks integrity.
b) negative affect toward the organization.
c) tendencies to disparaging and critical behaviors toward the organization that are consistent with these beliefs and affect [18]
Cynicism with organisational changes
Pessimism concerning the success of future organisational changes can result from (among other things) negative experiences of previous changes. The organisational-change cynic views people responsible for organisational changes as incompetent or unwilling.Christian ethics
Christian ethics in general has tended to stress the need for grace, mercy, and forgiveness because of human weakness. With divine assistance, the Christian is called to become increasingly virtuous in both thought and deed, see also the Evangelical counsels. Conversely, the Christian is also called to abstain from vice.Christian ethical principles are based on the teachings within the Holy Bible. While interpretations of some passages vary, Christian thought is fairly unanimous on the key points of ethics. They begin with the notion of inherent sinfulness, which requires essential atonement. Personal ethics are the means to avoid or correct sin. Christian ethics are founded upon the notion of personal freedom to choose and act righteously. Specific ethical behaviors originate in the Old Testament’s Ten Commandments, and are enriched by teachings in the Psalms and morals contained in historical accounts.
The New Testament on which Christianity diverges from Judaism added an eleventh ethical commandment: to “love your neighbor as you love yourself”, including loving your enemy. This notion of brotherly love comes from the belief that God so loved the world that he gave His son to sacrifice Himself for humanity. The ministry of Jesus Christ was intended to show people that token sacrifice and liturgical religious processes that supposedly make a person "better" are to be replaced by real interpersonal sacrifice to one another based on acceptance of salvation through Christ.
Christian ethics do not approach social change by pointing to conventions and norms that should be ended (such as slavery or women’s rights) but rather by personal ethical and spiritual conversion that would result in social change if enough people engaged in personal change. The idea is that eternal life is more important than your lot in life on earth. Key Biblical parables also teach the virtues of approaching life’s decisions through a sense of personal peace and suppression of worry, doubt and fear. Other tenets include maintaining personal integrity and the lack of hypocrisy, honesty and loyalty, mercy and forgiveness, rejection of materialism and the desire for wealth and power, and teaching others in your life through personal joy, happiness and Godly devotion.
There are several different schema of vice and virtue. Aquinas adopted the four cardinal virtues of Plato, justice, courage, temperance and prudence, and added to them the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity (from St.Paul, 1 Corinthians 13). Other schema include the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven virtues. For more see Christian philosophy and Biblical law in Christianity.
Baruch Spinoza
Baruch Spinoza | |
Western Philosophy 17th-century philosophy | |
Full name | Baruch de Spinoza |
Born | November 24, 1632(1632-11-24) Amsterdam, Netherlands |
Died | February 21, 1677 (aged 44) The Hague, Netherlands |
School/tradition | Rationalism, founder of Spinozism |
Main interests | Ethics, Epistemology, Metaphysics |
Notable ideas | Pantheism, Deism, neutral monism, intellectual and religious freedom / separation of church and state, Criticism of Mosaic authorship of certain books of the Hebrew Bible, Political society derived from power, not contract |
| Influenced by[show] | |
| Influenced[show] | |
Biography
Baruch or Benedict de Spinoza (Hebrew: ברוך שפינוזה, Portuguese: Bento de Espinosa, Latin: Benedictus de Spinoza) (November 24, 1632 – February 21, 1677) was a Dutch philosopher of Portuguese Jewish origin. Revealing considerable scientific aptitude, the breadth and importance of Spinoza's work was not fully realized until years after his death. Today, he is considered one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy, laying the groundwork for the 18th century Enlightenment and modern biblical criticism. By virtue of his magnum opus, the posthumous Ethics, in which he opposed Descartes' mind–body dualism, Spinoza is considered to be one of Western philosophy's most important philosophers. Philosopher and historian Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said of all modern philosophers, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."[1] All of Spinoza's works were listed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) by the Roman Catholic Church.Spinoza lived quietly as a lens grinder, turning down rewards and honors throughout his life, including prestigious teaching positions, and gave his family inheritance to his sister. Spinoza's moral character and philosophical accomplishments prompted 20th century philosopher Gilles Deleuze to name him "the 'prince' of philosophers."[2] Spinoza died at the age of 44 of a lung illness, perhaps tuberculosis or silicosis exacerbated by fine glass dust inhaled while tending to his trade. Spinoza is buried in the churchyard of the Nieuwe Kerk on Spui in The Hague.
Philosophy
Substance, Attributes and Modes
Spinoza's system imparted order and unity to the tradition of radical thought, offering powerful weapons for prevailing against "received authority." As a youth he first subscribed to Descartes's dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, but later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being a single identity. He contended that everything that exists in Nature (i.e., everything in the Universe) is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "that which stands beneath" rather than "matter") that is the basis of the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect is only understood in part. That humans presume themselves to have free will, he argues, is a result of their awareness of appetites while being unable to understand the reasons why they want and act as they do.Spinoza contends that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") is a being of infinitely many attributes, of which thought and extension are two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as one and the same. The universal substance consists of both body and mind, there being no difference between these aspects. This formulation is a historically significant solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and has no personality.
In addition to substance, the other two fundamental concepts Spinoza presents, and develops in the Ethics are attribute – that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance, and mode – the modifications of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself.
Spinoza was a thoroughgoing determinist who held that absolutely everything that happens occurs through the operation of necessity. For him, even human behaviour is fully determined, with freedom being our capacity to know we are determined and to understand why we act as we do. So freedom is not the possibility to say "no" to what happens to us but the possibility to say "yes" and fully understand why things should necessarily happen that way. By forming more "adequate" ideas about what we do and our emotions or affections, we become the adequate cause of our effects (internal or external), which entails an increase in activity (versus passivity). This means that we become both more free and more like God, as Spinoza argues in the Scholium to Prop. 49, Part II. However, Spinoza also held that everything must necessarily happen the way that it does. Therefore, humans have no free will. They believe, however, that their will is free. In his letter to G. H. Schaller (Letter 62), he wrote: "men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined."[9]
Spinoza's philosophy has much in common with Stoicism in as much as both philosophies sought to fulfill a therapeutic role by instructing people how to attain happiness (or eudaimonia, for the Stoics). However, Spinoza differed sharply from the Stoics in one important respect: he utterly rejected their contention that reason could defeat emotion. On the contrary, he contended, an emotion can only be displaced or overcome by a stronger emotion. For him, the crucial distinction was between active and passive emotions, the former being those that are rationally understood and the latter those that are not. He also held that knowledge of true causes of passive emotion can transform it to an active emotion, thus anticipating one of the key ideas of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis.[10]
Some of Spinoza's philosophical positions are:
- The natural world is infinite.
- Good and evil are related to human pleasure and pain.
- Everything done by humans and other animals is excellent and divine.
- All rights are derived from the State.
- Animals can be used in any way by people for the benefit of the human race, according to a rational consideration of the benefit as well as the animal's status in nature.[11][12]
Ethical philosophy
Encapsulated at the start in his Treatise on the Improvement of the Understanding (Tractatus de intellectus emendatione) is the core of Spinoza's ethical philosophy, what he held to be the true and final good. Spinoza held good and evil to be relative concepts, claiming that nothing is intrinsically good or bad except relative to a particular individual. Things that had classically been seen as good or evil, Spinoza argued, were simply good or bad for humans. Spinoza believes in a deterministic universe in which "All things in nature proceed from certain necessity and with the utmost perfection." Nothing happens by chance in Spinoza's world, and nothing is contingent.In the universe anything that happens comes from the essential nature of objects, or of God/Nature. According to Spinoza, reality is perfection. If circumstances are seen as unfortunate it is only because of our inadequate conception of reality. While elements of the chain of cause and effect are not beyond the understanding of human reason, human grasp of the infinitely complex whole is limited because of the limits of science to empirically take account of the whole sequence. Spinoza also asserted that sense perception, though practical and useful for rhetoric, is inadequate for discovering universal truth; Spinoza's mathematical and logical approach to metaphysics, and therefore ethics, concluded that emotion is formed from inadequate understanding. His concept of "conatus" states that human beings' natural inclination is to strive toward preserving an essential being and an assertion that virtue/human power is defined by success in this preservation of being by the guidance of reason as one's central ethical doctrine. According to Spinoza, the highest virtue is the intellectual love or knowledge of God/Nature/Universe.
In the final part of the "Ethics" his concern with the meaning of "true blessedness" and his unique approach to and explanation of how emotions must be detached from external cause in order to master them presages 20th-century psychological techniques. His concept of three types of knowledge - opinion, reason, intuition - and assertion that intuitive knowledge provides the greatest satisfaction of mind, leads to his proposition that the more we are conscious of ourselves and Nature/Universe, the more perfect and blessed we are (in reality) and that only intuitive knowledge is eternal. His unique contribution to understanding the workings of mind is extraordinary, even during this time of radical philosophical developments, in that his views provide a bridge between religions' mystical past and psychology of the present day.
Given Spinoza's insistence on a completely ordered world where "necessity" reigns, Good and Evil have no absolute meaning. Human catastrophes, social injustices, etc. are merely apparent. The world as it exists looks imperfect only because of our limited perception
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Utility, the good to be maximized, has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain), although preference utilitarians like Peter Singer define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance.Utilitarianism is described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". Therefore, it is also known as "the greatest happiness principle". Utilitarianism can thus be characterised as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which do not regard the consequences of an act as the sole determinant of its moral worth) and virtue ethics (which focuses on character), as well as with other varieties of consequentialism. Adherents of these opposing views have extensively criticised the utilitarian view, but utilitarians have been similarly critical of other schools of thought. And like any ethical theory, the application of utilitarianism is heavily dependent on the moral agent's full range of wisdom, experience, social skills, and life skills.
In general, the term utilitarian refers to a somewhat narrow economic or pragmatic viewpoint. Philosophical utilitarianism, however, is much broader.
REFERENCES:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolutism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics
No comments:
Post a Comment