A History of Western Philosophy (Bertrand Russell)

13th Century (culmination and synthesis, Pope Innocent II, Frederick II, heretics, St. Francis, St. Dominic)

-14th century was the culmination and synthesis of much work completed in the 13th century; great men: Innocent III, Saint Francis, Frederick II, Thomas Aquinas; great achievements: Gothic cathedrals, beginnings of constitutional government (Magna Carta, House of Commons), romantic literature -Pope Innocent III: very powerful and influential pope, on Christian humility, launched crusades against muslims and got kingdoms to bow down to his power; he tried to re-unite the western and eastern churches but did not succeed; he believed in power over sanctity (church reform established moral prestige of church - whether deserved or not - so he didn't bother with need to be holy...) -Frederick II: Holy Roman Emperor; very worldly individual (spoke 6 languages), friendly to Muslims, and was excommunicated for not launching a crusade; eventually he did launch a crusade into Jerusalem and convinced Muslims of the importance of Jerusalem to Christianity (though it wasn't important strategically) and they gave it to him; this angered the pope who thought fighting the infidels, not negotiating, was the only way forward...); Frederick was crowned in Jerusalem and peace b/w emperor and pope eventually restored; he then went on to establish a legal code in Sicily, university in Naples, he minted gold coins, established freer trade, absolished internal customs, and summoned elected reps from cities to his council; he was then excommunicated by the pope again when he conflicted w/ Lombard League (on side of pope); lots of war after that, Italy was really divided, Pope eventually victorious -heretical sects emerged, the largest being the Cathari; they were disgusted by the wealth of the clergy and dedicated selves to culture of poverty; they favored personal holiness (preview of Reformation...); many commoners were shocked at the wealth of the church and the difference between profession and behavior of clergy (wide gap...lots of immoral priests); Cathari believed the New Testament contained the true God and the Old Testament Jehovah was wicked) -Sain Francis of Assisi: famous for kissing a leper, devoted his life to good works and preaching; engaged in life of poverty, withheld worldly goods and possessions and subsisted on bread; didn't even have a home...relied on the generosity of his followers (and expected same of his followers; believed in happiness, universal love, and was a great poet; upon his death the Franciscan order changed and became more corrupt - they recruited sergeants to hunt down heretics and even participated in Inquisition, and those loyal to Francis declared heretical and burnt...bitter outcome for good man -St. Dominic: devoted his life to orthodoxy, combatted heresy, and adopted poverty as way to achieve this; active in the Inquisition and devoted to learning (no manual labor, would take away time from study...)

Aristotle's Ethics (rational/irrational soul, virtues, golden mean, magnanimous mean, happiness, final causes)

-Aristotle believed that there is a rational and irrational soul and happiness is an activity of the soul; there are intellectual virtues (teaching) and moral virtues (habits), as well as a "golden mean" for virtues b/w two extremes (but does this always work? aren't there some black/white examples like honesty?) -Aristotle also believed in the "magnanimous man" the proud man, usually a philosopher, who had a higher station in life...there can't be many, so this is seen as a justification for monarchy, and even slavery, one must "know their place", understand their merit...can only be a few (philosophers) at top -happiness = the good and virtuous activity, which equates to contemplation, using/expanding reason which requires leisure (again, only open to certain segment of society) -Aristotle's metaphysics believes in final causes, and purpose governs development in universe (God); he basically accepts inequality (slavery, inequality of women) and demonstrates a lack of empathy towards others, believing politics more important than ethics; Plato, Nietzsche in agreement...Christianity, Kant, democracy are NOT

Aristotle's Physics (animals and heavenly bodies, Will, nature and potential, time, four major elements w/ fifth)

-Aristotle grounded his theory in animals and heavenly bodies, not machines/mechanics as we would think of today; sun/moon were seen as gods, and if not supreme, there was divine being Will that governs all; physics = "nature" and nature is the completion / realization of the potential of a given thing, the essence (i.e. acorn has "potential" to be oak tree) -time is uncreated, has no origin (Christians would eventually disagree, who see a true beginning), and the earth is at center of universe, w/ everything above moon as indestructible and everything below moon subject to degeneration and decay (obviously we now know that's not true) -four major elements = earth, air, fire, water - w/ fifth, heavenly bodies, everything was in motion (but lacked understanding of gravitation, as his theory disobeyed Newton's first law [maintaining motion in same direction until acted upon]; for Aristotle's theory to apply (circular motion) he'd have to account for force toward center

The Utilitarians (association principle, greatest-happiness principle, job of legislator, Bentham, Mill, ethics, transition to socialism and Darinwinism)

-Bentham and utilitarianism: 1) association principle (deterministic account of mental occurrences, similar to Pavlov's "conditional reflex" w/ difference being b/w physiological and mental), 2) greatest-happiness principle (good = pleasure/happiness, bad = pain so one state of affairs is better than another if it involves a greater balance of pleasure over pain) -good = happiness in general, but each individual always pursues own happiness, so job of legislator is to balance public and private interests (justification for criminal law is to make interests of individual - abstaining from theft - coincide with community); civil law has four aims: subsistence, abundance, security, equality (liberty not mentioned...cared little for it, as well as "rights of man", preferred benevolent autocrat to maintain order) -later on he become part of "Philosophical Radicals," advocating for female vote, complete equality (i.e. equal division of wealth among kids), no monarchy or hereditary aristocracy, rejected religion and belief in God, rejected imperialism and colonization -James Mill (discipline of Bentham): pleasure is only good, pain is only evil, but valued moderate pleasure the most (like Epicurus); opposed to Romanticism, believed gov should be led by reason and men's opinions determined by weight of evidence; his son John Stuart Mill carried the torch after his dad -question re: Bentham's system: if every man pursues own pleasure, how does legislative body pursue general happiness? (his optimism seems unwarranted); John Stuart Mill said "pleasure is the only thing desired; therefore pleasure is the only thing desirable (but can we infer what is desirable from what is desired? presupposed an ethical theory...author thinks that's fallacious) -ethics has two-fold purpose: 1) to find a criterion by which to distinguish good and bad desires, 2) by means of praise and blame, to promote good desires and discourage such as are bad -Philosophical Radicals were transitional and gave birth to Socialists (exchange value of commodity entirely due to the labor expended producing it, so reward ought to go to labor...landowner/capitalists engaged in extortion; also, laborers were powerless against machine production) and Darwinism (application to the whole of animal and vegetable life of Malthus's theory of population, integral part of of politics and economics of Benthamites...a global free competition in which victory went to animals that most resembled successful capitalists), BUT could "hit below the belt" (use war, revolt to "win" in capitalism) with Darwinism which was not allowable under Bentham's system

Mohammedan Culture & Philosophy (attacks on the east, Hegira, toleration, goal of Islam, Arab empire, philosophy)

-Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine empire, capital Constantinople) survived until 1453 (~1000 years longer than the West) and Mohammedans launched attacks on the East -Hegira (pilgrimage from Mecca to Medina) occurred in 622 and Arabs launched conquests from that point forward; however, they tolerated all Christian sects as long as they paid tributes (which made conquest easier) -Islam was simple monotheism w/ no elaborate trinity or incarnation (the prophet Mohammed was not considered divine); goal was to conquer world but not persecute people (any "people of the book," regardless of book, were allowed to live their life) -Arab empire was a monarchy under a caliph (elective rather than hereditary at the beginning), and Arab focus was on wealth, but Persians began to focus on something more deeply religious (Shia split) -unlike Roman empire, Arabs maintained roads well for commerce, and they were skilled agriculturists and developed great irrigation systems (scarce water in the desert...); eventually the empire broke up - Spain, North Africa, Egypt, Persia -Aristotle was held in higher esteem than Plato; Avicenna was a known philosopher who thought genera (universals) come before, in, and after things (god must think of a cat first, all cats have some "catness" in them, and when we see cats we see similarity in all); not much original thought in arabic philosophy - they served more as transmitters of previous knowledge - but some original thought in math and chemistry

Epicureans (pleasure, absence of pain, moderation, two big fears, thoughts on religion, atoms, master of our fate)

-Epicurus (founder) believed in pleasure above all, a life without luxury (community would make small contributions to keep things going...), being "happy on the rack," achieving tranquility on earth, and that the pleasure of the mind was more important than pleasure of the body since your mind could overcome bodily pain and contemplate more than just pain -goal = absence of pain; Epicurus lived on bread and a little cheese on feast days to keep stomach stable (not too full or empty...moderation, no under- or over-indulgence), prudence was important, and philosophy should be a practical tool in order to achieve a happy life - not focused on logic/math/science (Plato, etc.); because public life could cause you pain (interactions could lead to quarrel), as can sexual love, one should focus on friendship as the ultimate social relationship -two big fears: religion and dread of death (connected b/c religion made the dead seem unhappy in many cases); he denied that god had influence in daily life, and selected natural explanations for phenomena (didn't necessarily care which one, as long as gods were left out of it); he even sought metaphysical explanations for god's lack of influence in daily life and the death of the soul (obviously different than Plato, etc.) -believed the world to be atoms and void (Democritus) but said that atoms didn't always fall natural laws, and some, when falling (always), veered off course and struck each other -believed we are the master of our fate (gods do not control our daily lives, neither does Hades, and we are not subject to the anger of our gods); we can achieve freedom from pain -squarely anti-religious; did not attribute any science to the gods, everything natural, but his ideas struggled to stay afloat because people couldn't get over their fear of death (Christianity gave them a respite here, which Epicurus, then Lucretius would have despised)

Stoicism (major figures, influence of Socrates, virtue, contradictions, contributions to theory of knowledge)

-Founder was Zeno (3rd century BC); later figures were Seneca (minister), Epictetus (slave), and Marcus Aurelius (emperor) in early centuries AD; more materialist at the start, but then shifted later with marcus aurelius -stoicism appealed to rulers, and Socrates was its patron saint for a while (refusal to escape his death sentence, calmness in death, his attitude at his trial, his belief that the perpetrator is injured more than the victim, as well as his plain approach to food/dress) -virtue is valued above all else (health, happiness, and possessions do not matter), virtue = "will in alignment with nature" and Stoics were anti-metaphysics (the "real world" exists, there are objects to be known) -belief in cosmic determinism and human freedom; belief in the natural world, the "cycle of fire" and god as the soul of the world -virtue comes from the individual, and can only be pursued and achieved by the individual, not through external forces; but if world is deterministic, how can I choose to be virtuous? (contradiction); also, if virtue is purely independent, what does that say about common good? if I am only motivated to do good for the sake of my own virtue, what does that say about my motivations and actions toward others? -contributions: 1) Seneca, when found guilty (justly, unjustly?) of conspiring to murder emperor Nero, said "at least I have given you an example of a virtuous life", 2) Epictetus promoted equality of slaves, "natural law," said that we are prisoners in an earthly body and must submit to god; 3) Marcus Aurelius wrote "Meditations", weary of public life, wanted a quiet country life (never got it), and talked of endurance more than hope (brutal time for Romans...gladiatorial battles, wild animals involved, etc.) -two big contradictions: 1) belief in natural world that is deterministic, but how can we choose to be virtuous if this is true? told we have freedom, but how do we resolve that?; 2) virtue is individual, not group-based, so what motivates us to do good for others for their sake instead of ours, what leads to group/social cohesion? according to stoics, we can't do harm/good to other b/c their virtue is of their own volition -big contributions to theory of knowledge: 1) belief in perception (unlike Plato) and that deception of senses in just false judgement that we can overcome and avoid; 2) belief in innate ideas, first principles (deductive reasoning); 3) natural rights (laid foundation for slaves and women)

Franciscan Schoolmen (Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, William of Occam, Marsiglio de Padua)

-Franciscans generally less orthodox than the Dominicans and did not always accept the authority of compatriot Saint Thomas; main figures: Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, Williams of Occam (of the "razor") -Roger Bacon: big believer in math and science and was thus under frequent surveillance from the church for heresy; he valued experiment and wrote Opous Majus/Minus/Tertium; believed there were four causes of ignorance: frail and unsuitable authority (although treaded lightly around church/pope to avoid persecution..), influence of custom, the opinion of the unlearned crowd, and concealment of ignorance in a display of apparent wisdom (relation to today too!!); said that evil spring from that last one -Duns Scotus: defended the immaculate conception against saint thomas (question of Mary's sin prior to being chosen to carry God's child...), believed in free will, believed that one's being = essence, and was interested in evidence (things known without proof); unlike St. Thomas, said that two individuals of same species are always different in their essence -Dante was a poet and thinker at this time (Inferno); he regarded the pope an emperor as independent and divinely appointed; his divine comedy has a Satan that eternally chews Judas Iscariot, Cassius, and Brutus (traitors against Christ and Caesar) -a new form of opposition to the pope occurred in 13th/14th century, i.e. Marsiglio of Padua - believed that emperor was decorative more than anything and legislators should be the majority of the people; the majority should be able to punish princes and church should be governed by popular sovereignty (including laity) to elect reps to a general council which can excommunicate...thus, all believers would have a say / a voice -Protestants ended up pushing individual authority in matters of religion; Marsiglio was heading there but still wanted to preserve the Catholic faith (not democratic, not papal authority) -William of Occam: Occam's razor ("it is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer" or the simplest explanation is often the best one; logic should be reserved for nature not metaphysics, which inspired scientific thought and inquiry

Berkeley (existence of matter, minds and mental events)

-Fun fact: author of well-known line, "Westward the course of empire takes its way..." (town of Berkeley, CA named after him!) -Famous for his denial of the existence of matter; material objects only exist through being perceived; if asked "does a tree simply disappear when not being looked at?" he would say that God perceived everything and thus we avoid a "jumpy" existence with things coming in and out of perception (so...God exists) -"the reality of sensible things consists in being perceived" - "to exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another" (i.e. great heat is a pain, and pain must be in the mind...thus, heat is mental) - same things for sound, sight, and color -argument against this is that, from experience and observation (empiricism), we can perceive objects that haven't been experienced (i.e. a pebble - I've seen some pebbles, but not all pebbles, but I can still construct statements about pebbles) -believes that only minds and mental events can exist

Greek Civilization (similarity to Egyptians and Babylonians, deductive reasoning, religion/morality, "tyranny", reason and forethought, Bacchus and impact)

-Greek civilization was similar in many ways to the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians, which started a few thousand BCE on banks of Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates, were polytheistic (focus of gods/goddesses of fertiility, "mother"), rules by a king over serfs (no individual rights), and use of slavery to serve aristocracy/royalty/wealthy -law introduced by Hammurabi (Babylon) but Greeks first to develop deductive reasoning (math based on premises, Euclid's proofs) and explore philosophy and science -Greeks merged religion and morality as well and bronze, trade, commerce played big role in this era (if you didn't have bronze, you wanted it!) -"tyranny" was defined as rule w/o heredity or bloodline as a factor (i.e. Medici's later in Italy); Greeks expanded on Phoenician glyph/symbol writing w/ the alphabet and Homer (maybe multiple people?) was an epic poet (or more...) that wrote about life and deeper meaning -Greeks pushed toward reason and forethought (agricultural influence) over mindless "in the moment" reaction, which is difference b/w savage and civilized; this forethought laid groundwork for law, custom, and religion on greater plane -Bacchus was godly influence and furious scenes of tearing apart animals gave Greeks part-man, part-god feelings (Bacchus = fertility); feminism also played role in early Greek thought (Pythagoras/Plato) and Greeks were not "serene" as commonly depicted (balance of passion and intellect, more similar to Prometheus than calm Olympian we think of; influenced by both religion and science

Locke's Political Philosophy (hereditary principle, social contract, private property, state of nature and natural law, checks and balances)

-Hereditary Principle (Filmer): common to believe that hereditary power fell down from kings (from Adam...then to Noah...then to kings) and was proper source of government; source of regal authority is drawn from father to children, from Adam originally, and that authority (of father over children) is never-ending; crazy idea now but common back then; two things defeated it: 1) multiplicity of religions, 2) conflict b/w monarchy, aristocracy, and higher class; Locke took down this argument: 1) why isn't mother held in same esteem as father? 2) we can't possibly know the true heir of Adam (would folks lay down crowns if we could figure that out? likely not...), 3) paternal power is temporary, limited and doesn't extend to life or property; we now accept hereditary principle in economics (leave wealth to children) but it's essentially vanished from politics -State of Nature & Natural Law: men emerged from a "state of nature" (antecedent) to form a social contract which instituted civil government; theological basis of the "state of nature" and "natural law" (men living together according to reason without a common superior with authority to judge between them - "virtuous anarchists" who live by reason with laws of conduct of a divine origin); property plays a big role (and right to defend it) -Social Contract: two main types of politics in 17th century: 1) monarchy of the Filmer form passed down through the lines and hereditary 2) Locke's theory of a social contract which leads to civil government (no divine origin); democratic with exception of property-less not considered citizens; government is remedy for the fact that in nature, every man is judge of himself (need mediator role); absolute monarch is wrong b/c there is nobody to judge actions b/w monarch and peoples; power of government never extends past common good (but who is judge of common good...?) -Property: every man has, or should have, private property that is product of own labor; own as much land as one can till but no more (obviously not realistic...would lead to revolution...); labor theory of value - value should be directly related to the effort put into the product (argument against middle men...but how do you explain selling land if oil found on it, without doing any labor yourself?); hard to capture that value in industrial society (how to you know precise value you put in if you're part of an assembly line?); Locke seems bothered by economic inequality but doesn't expound on how to rid world of it; in fact, that inequality fuels progress/innovation, as rich folks become patrons of the arts and science... -Checks & Balances: separate legislative and executive branches to prevent abuses of power; legislative is supreme (to control "wicked" executive...Locke influenced by the king...) and should be elected by the people; force is only okay if used against an "unjust and unlawful force" (but how to you define "unjust and unlawful"? often force used, then legal side figured out...also, subject to party bias in terms of what is unjust and unlawful...); did not imagine a judicial branch thought; his thoughts here wildly influential in U.S. Constitution -Locke's ideas still influential today, although organizations rule as opposed to the individual that Locke had imagined in his social contract; a social contract between States, not between individuals, would allow us to flourish

Hobbes (empiricist, Leviathan, central authority, critiques)

-Hobbes was a powerful empiricist and promoter of the mathematical method; his famous work was Leviathan, promulgating his Royalist view to the extreme and espousing the evils of democracy; he was a rationalist (reason over emotion) and launched attacks on the Catholic Church; he was also a determinist (related to his views in Leviathan) - believed that the succession of our thoughts isn't arbitrary but rather governed by law (there are associations and purpose in our thinking...); was a nominalist (no universals, no abstractions, just names of individual things); believed that geometry is the one true genuine science (studied Euclid) and that reasoning = the nature of reckoning and starts w/ definitions; reason is not innate in humans but a product of industry, and God is not a subject of philosophy (separate); believed that the passions (emotions like anger, fear, joy, etc.) were the small beginnings of motion ("desire" = moving toward, "aversion" = moving away), and there is no free will -Leviathan: materialist views (material/physical comfort over spiritualism), the creation of a commonwealth (called Leviathan) that is a creation of art and an "artificial man" whose goal, similar to man, is self preservation; all men are equal but life is "nasty, brutish, short" due to desire of self-preservation (constant state of war w/o power of state), defended despotic government and said the two cardinal virtues in war were force/fraud -Leviathan: believed that people, focused on self-preservation, are better off creating a social contract and submitting to a central authority to bring end to constant state of war; by submitting to limitations on individual freedom, would bring end to anarchy and allow for survival; bees in hives could coexist peacefully by natural order but humans cannot - must enter a covenant with each other to submit to authority and cease war (covenant made w/ each other, not with authority...important distinction; after submitting to authority, political power ends and only rights granted are those granted by authority (covenant w/ other people, not authority, which allows this to happen); authority has total power (censorship, property, despotic actions, monarchy as exemplar, teaches were ministers of the authority...total control); interestingly, Hobbes does believe in self-preservation to degree that one can refuse to fight even when monarch demands it -in Pt. 3 he says there is no universal church (anti-pope) b/c it must rely on local civil government; king is the head of the church, pope is not valid -overall critiques: Hobbes was more fearful of anarchy than despotism (can disagree on that point...), did not appreciate the power of rebellion of citizenry to "right the ship" and provide checks/balances (like Locke) against abuse of power by central authority; he also assumed that all citizens had same interest and assumed same of every class (Marx later expanded on this, noting very different interests of classes...)

Leibniz (notion of substance, monads, arguments for god)

-Leibniz was known for two opposing systems of philosophy: one to gain popularity (optimistic, orthodox, fantastic, shallow) and one much better (profound, coherent, Spinozistic, logical) -philosophy based on the notion of substance: Descartes had 3 (god, mind, matter), Spinoza 1 (god), and Leibniz had infinite substance called "monads" which were souls that could not interact and occupied space with one dominant monad serving as the soul of a human; believed in infinite monads b/c he didn't think that extension could be an attribute of substance, like Decartes/Spinoza); monads could not interact and occupy a point in space through which they view the world -god cannot be illogical b/c he can decree what is logically possible; three arguments for god: 1) ontological (the essence of the "extreme in the number of imperfections"), 2) cosmological (uncaused cause of everything, like Aristotle's "unmoved mover",, sufficient reason to exist), 3) eternal truths: statements that are always true (i.e. 2+2=4), 4) pre-established harmony: related to monads, must be single outside Cause that regulates all of the monads -believed that there are many possible worlds and God created one with the greatest balance of good and evil, but not one that had no evil, b/c you need some evil to appreciate good (cold drink on a hot day, exercise of free will and relationship to sin)

Plato's Theory of Ideas (simile of the cave, universals vs. particulars)

-Plato thought philosophers should be kings, and understand the difference b/w reality and appearance; the simile of the cave says that bound prisoners in a cave w/ fire behind them only se themselves and those moving behind them cast in the cave wall (appearance) but if a prisoner escapes into the sun he sees reality; he must return to the cave to tell the others, but once you see the sun it's hard to see the shadows anymore (how do you explain reality? they'll think you're crazy...) -philosophers love beauty in itself more than beautiful things; God has created good and beautiful ideals; Plato also discusses universals here - cats can have a particular "cattyness" but be particular, we need generals to describe reality but only God could have created "The Cat" (logical/eternal term, cat, vs. metaphysical ideal of Cat); critique would be the why (why did God create the Cat and not keep it as just an idea?)

Plato's Theory of Immortality & Cosmogony (dualism, knowledge, four elements, triangles)

-Plato was a dualist (soul/ body) and believed that soul (mind) persisted after the body (matter) in heaven, hell, or purgatory; knowledge brought into the soul from a previous existence, so here is where we see a ack of scientific / empirical approach -God created the world by rearranging existing material (not new material), and world is made up of four elements (fire, water, air, earth) in proportion and a series of particular triangles (Euclidean geometry) ; intelligence found in the soul, and soul in the body

Spinoza (God, comparison with Hobes, Ethics, metaphysics vs. ethics, stance on time)

-Spinoza a Jew early on, excommunicated because the orthodox detested him, but interestingly his philosophy is dominated by god -first books before Ethics: believed that the scriptures can be interpreted to be compatible with liberal theology; believed similarly to Hobbes in terms of political theory - 1) church should be submissive to state, 2) powerful central authority, 3) distaste for rebellion, BUT did not believe that democracy is the most "natural" form of government (like Hobbes) and thought individuals should still have some personal freedom and have some freedom of opinion -Ethics: 1) Spinoza's metaphysics is a modification of Descartes, 2) psychology reminiscent of Hobbes, 3) original thought on ethics; overall had a materialistic, deterministic physics but room for reverence and devotion to God (mostly concerned with religion and virtue); the book is laid out like Euclid's Elements - axioms, definitions, theorems and focus on deductive argument -where Descartes saw three substances: 1) God, 2) mind, and 3) matter, Spinoza saw one - 1) god; individual souls and separate matter were just part of divine being God (completely undiluted pantheism...god permeates everything...) -there's no free will in the mental sphere (mind) or chance in the physical world (matter); everything is a manifestation of god's inscrutable will; it is logically impossible for events to be something other than what they are (so what about sin? many asked this...does that destine one to sin if it's already determined?) -Spinoza believed that the human mind has adequate knowledge and eternal and infinite essence of god, but our emotions/passions distract us from this; Book 3 of Ethics is very egoist - we enjoy another's pain because it we are trying to persevere in our own being (self preservation, reminiscent of Hobbes) -believed that we are in bondage in proportion to what happens to us due to outside causes and free in proportion to how much we are self determined; self-seeking; believed self-preservation governs all human behavior, and mind's highest good is a knowledge of God and highest virtue is to know God -interestingly, he believed that time is not real, so something bad that happened long ago (i.e. conquest of Genghis Khan) is still felt just as much today as something horrific that happened yesterday b/c it happened in god's dominion (irrational to think otherwise b/c whatever happens is part of god's eternal, timeless world); hope and fear are condemned b/c of determinism (we can't alter the future or past so why worry) -the "love of God must hold the chief place in the mind" wasn't just a moral exhortation for Spinoza, but a "proof" of what inevitably must happen as we acquire understanding (QED); an intellectual love of god captured in the eternal part of the mind, blessedness = virtue itself -metaphysics: "logical monism" (a single substance that is logically impossible to exist as separate parts); the nature of the world is logically deduced from self-evidence axioms, (but... facts need to be discovered by observation not by reasoning - thus, Spinoza's methods are a bit outdated and incompatible w/ modern logic and scientific method) -even if you reject Spinoza's metaphysics you can still accept his ethics; his advice on how to live nobly while addressing the limitations of being human (i.e. death...it's inevitable...so don't spend too much time worrying about it) is helpful, BUT thinking about your loved ones, that's a different thing altogether...remaining calm and stoic (like Stoicism) seems a bit more callous - you can think "I can still be virtuous..." (selfish side of Stoicism) but we feel emotion for loved ones, beyond ourselves -it's hard in the moment to consider bad events to just be part of a "greater whole" leading to "ultimate harmony" (like Spinoza thinks)...sometimes bad events are just bad, nothing more, and they stay that way for the eternity of time, BUT can be helpful to frame bad events within a larger whole to avoid total despair

Christianity during first 4 centuries (St. Paul, anti-semitism, Nicene Creed, Arians, five reasons for growth)

-St. Paul had a big influence, and led a sect of Jews and Gentiles who grew rapidly (he dropped the circumcision and detailed food regulations to attract more to his faith) -lots of anti-semitism (Jews failed to recognize Christ); church government grew which led to increased power; almsgiving led to a "mob of the destitute" doing bidding for favor of bishops and the church -Nicene Creed (325 AD): established Father/Son of equal importance and of same substance but distinct persons, Son as being who took human form, died for human sins, resurrected, and is now seated at right hand of Father; this was against Arian viewpoint, which saw Son as created by Father and of a different/lesser substance -five big reasons for growth: inflexibility in beliefs (belief in chosen people and single god, 2) future life (beyond brutal "sensible" world, 3) miracles, 4) moral rigidity (heaven/hell), and 5) structure/discipline of church government (relationship to political power..."one force" like we think of political powers now)

Milesian School (Thales, astronomy, primal substances, justice as balance)

-Thales (beginning of philosophy) - "everything made of water" (primal substance, earth rests on it) -great astronomer who predicted eclipses (like Babylonians) and later Milesians tested out hypotheses -Anaximander believed primal substance infinite, ageless, and transforms into fire, water, earth that consumes everything, and other worlds too -justice relates directly to the balance of fire, earth, water -Anaximenes believed air is the primal substance and the soul is air, then water, earth, and stone (condensation-esque) -Milesians asked good scientific questions and influenced later thinkers

The Hellenistic World (three stages, alexander, mix of influences, split of empire, other religious influences, role of philosophy)

-Three stages: 1) free city states (until Philip / Alexander conquests), 2) Macedonian (after Alexander's death, until Romans after Cleopatra's death), and 3) Roman Empire; #1 = freedom and disorder, #2 = subjection and disorder, #3 = subjection and order; 2nd period is Hellenistic (best Greek math and science and Epicurean & Stoic schools -Alexander conquered huge swath of land (Egypt, Persia, Asia Minor, Syria, Babylonia, etc.; lots of different peoples, cultures, religions; he tried to install self government then settled for a fusion of Greek and barbarian; he had somewhat of a god/king image but Platonic/Aristotelian superiority (he married two barbarians); short-lived empire -Mix of Greek science and barbarian superstition, so empire became less purely Greek over time; definitely an urban culture, mixing of many peoples -upon Alexander's death, empire split (Africa, Asia, Europe); Ptolemic family built up Alexandria, Egypt which became superior (little war, high commerce); while marauding armies could always derail one's life, if you had some money and no desire for power, you had pleasant life -there weren't strong political units, lack of rationality and order during this time; bands of warriors (powerful generals) made life unpredictable, philosophy not as valued during this time; folks in cities were from all over...hard to establish bonds -jews (monotheism), persians (Zoroastrianism dualism - good/evil - and monotheism), buddhist religions all influential, but polytheistic greeks studied babylonians (study of eclipses, but "germ" of astrology/magic also influenced Greeks ["germ" according to author]; Babylonian study of fate and fortune - link to astrology - captured Greek attention) -this was age where fear prevailed over hope, goal was to escape misfortune than search for common good; not great time for philosophy (metaphysics sinks into background and individual ethics comes to forefront)

The Romantic Movement (social revolt, Rousseau, individuality, self realization)

-a revolt against the received ethical and aesthetic standards (partly influenced by pushback to the Church), the leader being Rousseau; a proneness to emotion, direct and violent and uninformed by thought -better to retire on a few rural acres and ponder one's existence serenely than to labor in the industrial furnaces of the city; yet more sympathy for the poor peasant family than thought put into the systems that made them poor... -from 1660 to Rousseau, after intense civil wars, focus was on prudence as highest virtue, intellectual development, restraint of the passions for fear of disrupting the peace, but that changed with the Romantics -Romantics believed in individual liberty and expression of individuality, so they rebelled against industrialism and substituted the aesthetic for the utilitarian; revolt of solitary instincts over social bonds; search for a balance between isolation and requirements of economics and passions -critique is that ego cannot be center of one's existence; in escaping industrialism and commerce, you eventually find that others have egos, and you can either turn to anarchy or despotism (two crappy choices); thus the goal of self realization cannot be the ultimate aim; "man is not a solitary animal, and so long as social life survives, self realization cannot be the supreme principle of ethics"

Athens/Anaxagoras (Persian Wars, Pericles, the Academy, Anaxagoras beliefs, Herodotus, Peloponnesian Wars, Atomists)

-after Persian Wars in ~400s BCE where Athens defeats Darius and Xerxes, Pericles rules over a peaceful time w/ philosophy, art, literature flourishing, Socrates/Plato emerging (the Academy) w/ Socrates influenced by Anaxagoras (rationalist, scientific mind is cause of physical change, mind = motion, likely atheist, mind is separate substance) -Herodotus becomes father of history; Sparta defeats Athens in Peloponnesian Wars (~400 BCE) but Academy survives until Europe enters Dark Ages ~529 AD (at that time, Justinian of Roman Empire closes it due to religious bigotry) -Atomists believe that, as materialists, the world was made of tiny indestructible atoms constantly in motion, in free space, colliding into each other to create matter; no final cause, they didn't speculate on an original beginning, and they were highly deterministic; really close to modern science in their approach! (no purpose in universe, only atoms interacting, subject to mechanical laws)

The 5th and 6th Century (after barbarian invasion of Rome, kingdom formation, global to local, Goths, Huns, issue of incarnation)

-after the barbarian invasion of the Roman empire, and the fall of the empire, there was a lot of destruction and not much philosophy -kingdoms start to form: english invaded Britain (became England), frankish pushed into Gaul (France), and vandals into Spain, as well as Germanic kingdoms succeeding Roman's vast bureaucratic empire -vast roads linking parts of the roman empire decayed, commerce decreased, and life become more local again -King Alaric of Goths sacked Rome in 410, Attila and the huns invaded Gaul but were repelled by Romans and Goths (they were originally aligned with Goths); Attila thought about pushing to Rome but pope dissuaded him...he then died a year later (and the Huns with him) -the Church was troubled by the issue of Incarnation - was Christ one person of divine and human nature or two separate entities? Saint Cyril believed in the former (unity of divine/human) but Nestorius believed in a separation of human and divine and established that belief in Constantinople; Cyril initiated pogroms against Jews for this very belief (the unity of human/divine, unlike Jews) -the 3rd ecumenical council condemned Nestorius' views, and the council of Epheus confirmed that Christ was one person but He exists in two states (human and divine); Monophysites did not accept this, which lead to heresy spreading up the Nile (Mussolini later cited this as reason to invade Assyrians)

Francis Bacon (knowledge is power, practical philosophy, induction vs. deduction, shortcomings)

-although many likely used the term before him, was first person known to use phrase "knowledge is power"; promoter of the modern inductive method and using scientific procedures -his philosophy in a nutshell (very practical): scientific discovery and invention could provide man with power over the forces of nature; believed that philosophy is separate from theology (based on reason over revelation), and promoted induction (empiricism) over deduction -he believed in searching for a better induction than by enumeration (parable of asking every villager what their name was, and they all say "William Williams" so you stop and conclude that everybody's name is WW, but after you stop you don't realize that one villager is "John Jones"...thus, enumeration didn't lead to correct conclusion...); induction by enumeration was quite durable though...still is today (still looking for better way) -believed everything can be explained from efficient causes, and we should be like bees (collect and arrange) to create order; however, his inductive method was faulty b/c he didn't put sufficient emphasis on hypothesis and its importance preliminary to collecting facts to create that very order; he generally underestimated deductive methods and the importance of mathematics in scientific investigation (in relation to deduction)

Saint Benedict & Gregory the Great (monastic movement, influence of papacy, spread of catholicism to heathens)

-amidst war, the Church conserved much of what was considered Rome; three big influences: monastic movement, influence of papacy, and the spread of catholicism to heathens -monastic movement: first seen in Egypt and Syria and ranged from solitary hermits (St. Anthony) to communal monks (Saint Benedict); Benedictine Order focused on doing agricultural work to resist the flesh, had an abhorrence of cleanliness, and valued poverty, obedience, and chastity -Gregory the Great expanded the influence of the papacy during confusing times: Saxons brought back paganism to England after Roman empire, Lombards were wreaking havoc in Italy, Spain (Visigoths) and Africa (Bynzantines) were struggling and anarchy thrived, and remnants of Arianism spread; in this context, Gregory asserted his authority with high number of letters to bishops; he was also unfriendly to pagan learning (learning = scripture) -Barbarians were target of conversion by mission: Goths (first they were Arian, then Catholic), Franks in France, Irish (converted by St. Patrick), and then England

Locke's Theory of Knowledge (Glorious Revolution, pursuit of truth, empiricism, ethics)

-apostle of the revolution of 1688 in England (Glorious Revolution) that saw overthrow of Catholic monarchy and insertion of Protestant monarchy with more balance of power with Parliament (big impact on his thoughts...) -lack of dogmatism: belief in god, belief in man, belief in mathematics; but holds that rational man will hold a shred of doubt b/c truth is hard to ascertain (connected to religious toleration, democracy, other liberal maxims); believes in revelation as Christian, but reason is supreme -pursuit of truth is goal, not necessarily your own truth; discusses importance of listening and examining other's arguments in relation to your own; we don't possess uncontestable evidence that we are right or incontrovertible evidence that another is wrong, so we must be careful about judging others who don't immediately submit to our opinion (because it's unlikely we would do the same!); limitations of human knowledge -founder of empiricism - all of our knowledge acquired through experience...no innate ideas or principles (he was skeptical of "substance" and metaphysical arguments, though he believed in god); "blank slate" argument; ideas come from 1) sensations and 2) perception of the operation of our own mind; thus, knowledge cannot come prior to experience (this was revolutionary back in the day, when much knowledge was assumed to be a priori) -all things are particulars, but we can frame generals seen in many particulars, and we give those generals names (i.e. "man"), but in our mind, those generals are particulars like everything else -on ethics, Locke believed that men are moved, in action, solely by their desire for pleasure and happiness (in relationship to and balanced with getting to heaven...); this breaks down a bit when considering present vs. future pleasure though - we aren't that disciplined!; but Locke believes that long-term interest / pleasure is the priority (be prudent...relationship to capitalism and Protestantism); harmony b/w private and public interest (we must govern our personal passions for the general good...absolute liberty is a recipe for disaster); critique is that prudence can't possibly be the only important virtue

The Religious Development of the Jews (three main influences in Christianity, sensible/eternal world, kingdom of judah, Jewish state, morality, Babylon / Persia, morality, monotheism, romans, rebellion)

-at the end of the Roman empire, Christianity handed to the barbarians w/ three main influences: 1) philosophical beliefs of Plato, 2) morals and history from Jews (concept of Creation, Chosen People [the "Elect" for Christians), righteousness, law, messiah, kingdom of heaven, and 3) concept of salvation, which was somewhat new (influence of Orphism, Near East cultures) -Greek doctrine - the sensible world is an allusion, can learn to live in the "real" eternal world, whereas Christians believed in the sensible and the eternal world, with the eternal world being in the future (for bliss or torment, reminiscent of revenge philosophy) -Kingdom of Judah (King Judah) survived the Assyrians who were defeated by the Babylonians in 600s BCE, but Nebuchadrezzar captured Jerusalem in 500s BCE and Jews were swept into Babylon; Cyrus (Persians) then took Babylon and Jews were allowed to back into Palestine; their temple was rebuilt and jewish orthodoxy took off... -...Yahweh (god), evolution of the 1st commandment ("i am the one true god..."), all religions but one are wicked (somewhat newer sentiment), jews are the "chosen people", suffering could only be explained by earthly wickedness (purification by punishment); jews were prideful people, their misfortune due to god's anger with them, erected synagogues, established the sabbath, circumcision begins as practice -jewish state survives as a small theocracy around jerusalem, becomes disputed territory after alexander (b/w ptolemics and seleucids); not much fighting, allowed to exercise their religion -morality explained in book of Ecclesiasticus (reputation among neighbors matters, as does honesty, almsgiving, medicine; must not treat slaves kindly, and women were subjugated in the book) -this is also when immortality developed; Jews saw virtuous be punished, so they had to believe in the hereafter as potential reward for most virtuous -monotheism (Christianity, Islam) owes much to the Maccabees, who rebelled against Seleucid king Antiochus (they ate pork, circumcised, which was criticized by Antiochus); their survival had major impact on monotheism -Jews thought about sin, but not about themselves as sinners (unlike Christians); Mark Antony (Roman) befriended Herod, king of Judea, who tried to reconcile with Jews; he rebuilt temple but put eagle in front (against 2nd commandment...); eagle eventually taken down by Pharisees but damage done; romans abolished kingship after he died but put pontius pilate as procurator of Judea -Jews, lead by Zealots, rebelled against Rome, they were put down, and few jews left in Judea; however, they had followers in almost all cities of antiquity who weren't content with greek/roman thought or scepticism school, and seeded christian thought (many early christians were likely jews); orthodox jews become more orthodox -after 1st century, Christianity crystallized and drove anti-semitism, jews were persecuted throughout middle ages, but muslims did treat them humanely, let them practice and contribute (i.e. science in Moorish Spain); crusades, pogroms lead to death, but often Christians were worse offenders

Sparta (complete military focus, "weaklings", Lycurgus and law, equality, helots, commonness, homosexuality, kings and Council and Assembly, "ephors", Thermopylae, view on education)

-completely dedicated to military fitness, Sparta was a unique place where boys and girls were both hardened from a small age, w/ boys serving in military (if they were "weakling" baby they were thrown into a pit of water) -Lycurgus established laws based on equality, and that encouraged women (and men) to produce babies (men could even allow others to lie w/ wives); "helots" (serfs) cultivated land (Spartan warriors weren't allowed to due to military focus) and were subjugated -Spartans didn't believe anybody should be rich or poor, and common meals, training, dress were prevalent; homosexuality was accepted before boys picked wives, and there was annual "war" on helots to keep them in line (brutal) -Sparta rules by two hereditary kings, a Council of Elders (60 and older), an Assembly (all people, to voice opinion), and chosen "ephors" who had jurisdiction (and increasing power) over king -Spartans famous battle was narrow pass at Thermopylae (held off Persians w/ 300 but eventually lost) -Spartans did not believe in formal education - al war; on other hand, Spartans took bribes according to some, and did not have a sense of Greek unity (didn't help Athens as they drove Persians from islands)

Plato's Utopia (types of citizens, education and justice, state control)

-consists of three types of citizens: 1) commoners, 2) soldiers, and 3) guardians (philosophers who rule the state); birth generally determines your group (hereditary) but you can be promoted/demoted for exceptionality -simple society where basic needs are met (Spartan) and education focused on core subjects (no Homer b/c it teachers gods can be bad and that you shouldn't fear death...but Plato said you should!); "music" (but not how we think about it...subjects of the "muses", more broad) and "gymnastics" (physical ed) formed basis of school -"justice" achieved when all men are free to do their work unimpeded (not justice as we define it) which also means one must "stay in their place"; not really democratic, not really equal -women were looked at as equals though, in mental and physical capacity, which is interesting; legislators picked guardians, then it was hereditary -state-controlled birth, infanticide, abortion...eugenics to produce desired "stock" (guardians) and pairing of many men with women so one didn't know who father was (call everybody father, brother, etc.); this removed emotion to focus on improving utopia, and Utopia in general required advancing myth that gods wanted and designated classes of people

12th Century (conflict of empire and papacy, Lombard cities, Crusades, scholasticism)

-continued conflict of empire and papacy; papal elections became free of lay control, and in 13th century the pop triumphed over emperors -rise of Lombard cities: free cities began to rise as feudal system began to decay (expansion of commerce), which decreased the power/influence of emperors; as emperor's power decreased so did pope's because they didn't need to serve as the antagonist to powerful emperor anymore; economic progress and politics of rising cities overcame power/influence of both emperor and pope; richer laity sided with the pope but it was more lip service (think New England Puritans...not a whole-hearted genuine endorsement, but more "using" church to advance interest); in 13th century, cities secured their independence -Crusades: war propaganda and religious zeal increased the power of the papacy (like war does...); large scale massacres of Jews -scholasticism: more exercise of reason and in 13th century reached highest point; dialectics emerged (two opposing viewpoints using reasoned discourse to discover truth); some viewpoints questioning religious narrative, trinity, incarnation, etc. considered heretical

Rousseau (Romantic movement, natural religion, savage, Emile, Social Contract)

-father of the Romantic movement, political philosophy of pseudo-democratic dictatorships as opposed to absolute monarchies; "man is naturally good, only through institutions is he made bad" (antithesis of doctrine of original sin and salvation through the church) -grain and iron and private property have ruined man; we must abandon civilization and return to nature; natural inequality is okay but inequality resulting from civilization, technology, and advancement is reprehensible -"Emile" was a treatise on natural education but contained "Confession of Faith of a Savoyard Vicar," which enraged the church (only genuine religion is natural...); "The Social Contract" promoted democratic principles and denied the divine right of kings; led to his condemnation and having to flee, likely dying by suicide in Paris -known for his sensibility, passion, and emotion; two big contributions: 1) did not offer intellectual argument for God but rather based his belief on emotion which had big effect on Protestants; natural religion is one that reveals itself directly to the individual; 2) rejection of reason in favor of the heart (reason is opposed to religion, so no time for reason!) - Rousseau's "savage" was naive but kind, could not understand ontological arguments -politics: prefers city-states over large empires b/c it makes democracy easier (favors direct representation over elected aristocracy but eventually swayed toward latter b/c it's difficult for people to participate all the time...), favors more of a totalitarian democracy to ensure individual liberty; more Hobbes than Locke - a powerful state will ensure the general will of the people to pursue their individuality will be enforced ("forced to be free")...wants largest collective satisfaction of self-interest that is possible to the community; however, this system is vulnerable to dictatorship and totalitarianism

Kant (German idealism, Critique of Pure Reason, God, moral concepts, space)

-founder of German idealism, emphasis on mind as opposed to matter; appeals to the heart in an era where much focus was on cold theoretical reason; "there can be nothing more dreadful than that the actions of a man should be subject to the will of another"; big emphasis on the rights of man -Critique of Pure Reason: none of our knowledge can transcend experience, but it is a priori and not inferred inductively from experience; the part that is a priori embraces logic; distinguishes between "analytic" (predicate part of subject, i.e. "A tall man is a man.") and "synthetic" (not analytic, only known through experience) propositions; distinguishes between "a priori" (an experience with basis other than experience, i.e. pure mathematics, 2+2=4) and "empirical" (we cannot know w/o help of sense perception, i.e. laws of science) propositions -important question: "How are synthetic judgements a priori possible?; everything we experience/perceive through our senses is ordered in space and time by our mental apparatus in an a priori way (using geometrical concepts, pure math) to allow us to experience it (even though the substance itself may not be ordered that way, we see it that way); space and time are forms of "intuition" -only three proofs of God's existence: 1) ontological proof (the subject of all predicates), 2) cosmological proof (if I exist, an absolute Being must exist), 3) physico-theological proof (universe exhibits an order evident of its purpose) -all moral concepts have a priori origin; man only moral when acting from a sense of duty (not when duty might have been prescribed, i.e. a tradesman being honest due to self-interest); advocates a federation of states bound by covenant forbidding war (reason utterly condemns war), but suspicious of democracy...advocates for a monarchy, a "necessary despotism," to prevent will of the majority from restricting freedom of the rest (like Rousseau) -"space" must exist in order for us to experience sensations (a priori); objects we sense must obey geometry (Euclidean) because it is a priori and the only way we can perceive; tricky though because there is also "synthetic" geometry found by empirical observations and measurements than differ from Euclid's axioms (i.e. Einstein's theory of relativity)

Descartes (animals vs. humans, Cartesian doubt, dualism)

-founder of modern philosophy, affected by new physics and astronomy, a practicing Catholic but heretical (believed in rotation of the earth and the infinity of the universe); innovated coordinate geometry (finding point on plane using two lines) -said that animals are simple automata governed by the laws of physics and void of feeling; humans have soul (in pineal gland...this part later dropped though...) where it comes into contact with spirits and interacts with body in a way to redirect motion (also later dropped due to inconsistency with physics and laws of motion) -believed that Genesis story is real but was interested in exploring other "natural" explanations for the creation of the world -known for "Cartesian doubt" - he was skeptical of the senses (i.e. dreams could be completely deceiving) and "I think, therefore I am" (if I didn't think, I would cease to exist, and nothing could deceive me if I didn't exist...); this lead to his "mind over matter" belief and a belief in the certainty of my mind (if I ceased to think, there would be no evidence of my existence...thus, a separation of the soul and body -thinking = doubt, understand, conceive, affirm, deny, will; a triumph of the mind over senses (i.e. candle wax melting...I can still see the essence of the wax though it has changed form) -promoted dualism of mind and matter which were two parallel independent worlds; mind/body like two clocks (body is "thirsty" and soul is "sorrowful") -Descartes was rigidly deterministic (living organisms are governed by the laws of physics, no need of a soul to explain growth, movement explained by natural law, no need then for free will) -three innate ideas: 1) the idea of God, 2) ideas of [finite] mind, 3) idea of [indefinite] body

Plato (influence on Christianity, death of Socrates, turn to Sparta, five main ideas, wisdom and politics)

-greater than Aristotle as a philosopher, huge influence on Christian theology; an aristocrat and young man when Athens was defeated, death of his mentor Socrates had a profound effect on him and made him question democracy (killed Socrates) and turn to Sparta -main ideas: 1) utopia, 2) theory of ideas, 3) immortality, 4) reminiscence over perception as concept of knowledge, and 5) cosmogony; Utopia was huge work; had some illiberal ideas dressed up as democratic (Republic) but he wrestled w/ wisdom, how to possess it, who possesses it, and how that translates to politics; ultimately the masses (possessing more wisdom than small group) is argument for democracy

Greek Math & Astronomy (huge advances, Egyptians/Babylonians, proportionality, Euclid, Anaximander, Pythagoras, Aristotle, sophisticated measurements)

-huge advances in math, especially in geometry; Egyptians/Babylonians made advances on arithmetic front (for commerce, etc.) but Greeks advanced on principles that laid foundation for advanced math (irrational numbers, square root of 2, - found that b/a gets close...(1,1) (2,3) (5,7) (12,17) (29,41) (70,99) etc.... 99/70 is very close to sq. rt. of 2....) -Eudoxus discovered proportionality - a/b = c/d as long as ad = bc; Euclid used deduction exclusively and his initial assumptions were unquestioned until 19th century (non-Euclidean geometry); Greeks impetus for geometry was for pure love, but set up foundation for utility in warfare (parabolas, Galileo) and astronomy (Kepler, ellipses, etc.) -Egyptians / Babylonians: knew about eclipses and motion of planets, but didn't know morning and evening star were same...Babylonians did establish 90 degree angle and 60-minute base for measuring distance/time; Greek Anaximander believed earth floated freely, immovable, but Aristotle argued that why? if you put food at edge of circle around human, they'd move somewhere or perish (also, gravity would preclude immobile earth...) -Pythagoras said earth is a sphere, due to reflection of light on moon; earth is a planet, we move around "central fire" (later dismissed) and we see same face of moon (geosynchronous); Horaclides initiated 24-hour cycle, Venus/Mercury as moving around sun, and then Aristarchus adopted Copernican view (earth around sun) but was indicted for his views (a la religious prejudice); Greeks had incredible estimates of distances (earth diameter, distance to moon, sun diameter) despite lacking precise measurement tools

Eclipse of the Papacy (elements to catholic church, reasons for eclipse, council at Pisa, Wycliffe, other causes in 15th century)

-in the 13th century there were many elements to the Catholic Church - Greek (Pythagoras, Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle), Alexander's conquest and the introduction of eastern influences (Orphism), which transformed the world (dying/resurrecting god, sacramental eating, second birth of baptism) and became big in the pagan Roman world; also, the ethic of the liberation from bondage to flesh (the afterworld, the beyond); from Syria/Egypt/Babylonian an institution of separate priesthood from the lay (which had magical powers, political influence, impressive rituals, and dualism from Persia brought Satan into the game; all of these combined to make church powerful force -Catholic Church combined Old Testament (from Jews), mystery religions, Greek philosophy and Roman methods of administration to create power; Church become more Aristotelian (but was that a mistake? Plato was a better fit with his reminiscent vision and universals over Aristotle with his emphasis on empiricism -Eclipse: richer cities, growing commercial class, independent spirit of the times of cities, nationalist pride, and democratic tendencies all played a role; why do we need a pope? it was looked at by many as simply a taxing agency; also, moral corruption of papacy decreased its legitimacy; the church began to depend on France and the Great Schism split the church into East and West with different popes -a council was called at Pisa and both popes (east/west) were deposed for heresy and schism and a third was elected; however, the third one died quickly so the cardinals had to appoint a third (Martin V); now the church had three popes recognized by segment of population!; Martin V failed to substitute a constitutional monarchy for papal absolutism in the church, so a separation occurred -Wycliffe was a secular English priest, a Platonist, who eventually became heretic due to his sympathy for the poor and disgust with rich worldly ecclesiasticals; he attacked the papacy and supported democratic movement; Oxford (England) defended him vs. bishops but he eventually died and the council ended up digging him up and burning his bones; his follwers were persecuted but his ideas prepared the soil for Protestantism -other causes (15th century): gunpowder strengthened central government (vs. church), rich middle class continued to grow, literacy grew, a new pagan culture in Italy grew admiring Greece and Rome (and architecture/art reflected this admiration) and hatred of middle ages; Constantinople was captured by the Turks , Vasco de Gama and Columbus enlarged the world, Copernicus enlarged the heavens, and the world was no longer seen as a "vale of tears" but as an sphere full of opportunity for pagan delights (art, poetry, pleasure, etc.); the world was no longer such a terrifying place in need of a place to go to for reassurance of a beyond...people felt more liberty to explore other things

Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and Science (Luther, Calvin, Loyola, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, scientific instruments, philosophical beliefs)

-in totality, the Reformation exemplified the rebellion of less civilized nations against the domination of Italy and the supremacy of the pope (rejection of the pope played huge role); lots of anti-Italian sentiment (i.e. seen in Shakespeare and his antagonists) -Luther and Calvin: reverted to St. Augustine re: the relationship of soul to God but not to church; he wanted to diminished the power of the church, abolish purgatory and indulgences, and believed that the fate of the soul after death (predestination) was independent of popes -Loyola: founded the Jesuits on a military structure, their main objective being a war on heresy; believed in free will and rejected doctrine of predestination; believed in salvation by faith and good works - faith alone doesn't cut it; they had a missionary zeal which allowed them to grow -in this atmosphere, doctrinal unity was impossible to achieve between Catholics and Protestant breakaways, leading to Reformation; increasingly international world meant you could escape persecution by fleeing abroad - you had options in terms of religion!; secular learning and science flourished in this era (HUGE in 17th century) -Copernicus: heliocentric model with sun at the center and the earth having two-fold motion (diurnal rotation and revolution around the sun); believed in circular motion of the celestial bodies - "perfect circle" was big in ecclesiastical world and he thought it was axiomatic; interestingly, Luther/Calvin were repulsed at his findings but they didn't have the pull of the Catholic Church so they couldn't do anything to squash it -Kepler: elliptical orbits of celestial bodies (no "perfect body in perfect figure") - HUGE departure from contemporary thinking; if no perfect circle, what does that say about God? -Galileo: made advances with acceleration (change in velocity), law of falling bodies (falling in a vacuum accelerates at constant rate...not speeding up....), and parabolas of projections (have horizontal and vertical velocity...don't just stop in horizontal position and then drop straight down...); he was condemned by the Inquisition but heliocentric theory lived on; he also discovered that planets don't move in exact ellipses -Newton: three laws of motion, every planet at every moment has acceleration toward sun, force is the cause of a change of motion (i.e. acceleration), and had theory of universal gravitation -scientific instruments developed incredibly rapidly during this time: microscope, telescope (Galileo), thermometer, barometer, air pump, clocks -the outlook of educated men really changed (at the beginning of the century there were witchcraft trials and by the end of the century folks thought that to be ludicrous...); magic and sorcery were largely debunked -philosophical beliefs that followed the science of the 17th century: 1) removal of animism from physics (lifeless matter moves unless acted upon...no reliance upon a "soul"), 2) change in the conception of a man's place in the universe (the understanding of the scale of space expanded greatly...), 3) eternal damnation - beginning to think that maybe creator had better things to do than consider the fate of those on such a small planet for very small theological differences (very minute overall...)

Ecclesiastical Reform in 11th Century (power of clergy, simony, investiture, celibacy, St. Anselm)

-increasing separation b/w the clergy and laity with the goal for the clergy being power; clergy controlled church sacraments, miracles, and access to heaven and hell, which helped maintain power with kings and emperors -simony: ecclesiastical preferment (bishop, other positions in clergy) by wealth not merit; bishops became very rich, had large estates (part of feudal aristocracy) and were focused on politics over religious matters; this was a focus of reform -concubinage (marriage): clerical celibacy was valued over marriage (exercising self control), and there was also a push for celibacy because priests were marrying and handing down church property to their sons which was another form of power/control; in East, due to lesser influence of papacy, priests can get married to this day -investitures was another reform target (local emperors / kings would give clergy gold rings or staffs to integrate them into the local aristocracy); the papacy targeted this and eliminated it -philosophy emerged once again: reason superior to authority, and St. Anselm made the ontological argument for god - god is "greatest possible object" one can think of so god must exist; he also said reason should be subordinate to faith

Plato's Knowledge & Perception (concepts, perception, mistake)

-knowledge comes from concepts, not perception (2+2=4 is different than the ambiguous statement 'snow is white'); one's senses (perception) can change, hence the fact we need concepts to confirm knowledge, but things are in a constant state of flux, but we need constants for reliable discourse (but Plato didn't allow for that in his theory...a mistake) -ideas are the non-physical "essences" of things, and matter is just imitation; Plato's mistake, and Aristotle addressed this, is his lack of appreciation of and recognition of the need for universals

Pythagoras (famous theorem, strange religion, axioms, ded. reasoning)

-known for his famous theorem and strange religion (i.e. the sinfulness of beans) he left a huge mark on mathematics ("self-evident" axioms, deductive reasoning that left mark on philosophy and science (looking for axioms re: "God's work" to explain the natural world, "proofs" that God existed...) -valued intuition over observation, reasoning over empiricism

Machiavelli (Prince, Discources, political philosophy)

-known for his political philosophy, which was scientific and empirical, and balance b/w Prince and Discources -Prince: discusses how principalities are won, kept, and lost (lots of examples in 15th century italy of this w/ rampant corruption!); rulers must be cunning as a fox and fierce as a lion to win and keep power and should seem to be religious as a political tactic; power is for those to grab it in free competition, and ends matter (if you believe you have the right end, you're free to act in specific "bad" ways to grab it); success = achievement of purpose regardless of means -Discourses: ethical hierarchy of eminent men: founders of religion, founders of monarchies, and literary men; religion should have a prominent place as a social cements (not on the grounds of its truth though...); believes that evil conduct of church has undermined religious belief and temporal power of popes undermines unification of Italy; he mentions checks and balances as well, balancing his thoughts in Prince -ecclesiastical principalities, once acquired, protected by ancient religious customs to keep princes in power regardless of how they behave and there would be no need for armies (likely included this passage to please Medicis, who had just acquired papacy)

Bergson (irrationalism, dualistic system, immediate experience and intuition)

-known for irrationalism and the revolt against reason that began with Rousseau; one way to categorize philosophers is by 1) philosophies of feeling (love of happiness), 2) theoretical philosophies (love of knowledge), and 3) practical philosophies (love of action); Bergson is the latter -dualistic system: world divided into two disparate portions - 1) life and 2) matter; whole universe is clash and conflict of those two opposite motions: life, climbing upward, and matter, falling downward; life meets resistance of matter, trying to break through, gradually learning to use matter by means of organization; believes evolution is creative (i.e. vague desire in sightless animals to see objects in front of them, so eyes were created, which satisfied the demand but couldn't have been imagined beforehand) - free will over determinism, evolution as "art" -known for his arguments that processes of immediate experience and intuition are more significant than abstract rationalism and science for understanding reality

Aristotle's Logic (syllogism, critiques of it, first principles)

-most famous for syllogism ("All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal.") (major premise, minor premise, conclusion); deductive inferences fit his mold, can help one avoid fallacies, but major defect is that expounding to more broad can lead to questions...i.e. "All Greeks are men..." assumes there is such thing as "Greeks" (how do you address that?) -individual vs. group statements much easier (difference b/w "Socrates" and "Greeks" in logic (can "prove" Socrates is a thing); one critique is an over-reliance some have re: deductive reasoning...a lot of it is actually inductive (i.e. mortality...we observe how long a person lives and then reason back from there) -concept of "first principles" = the essence of a thing who properties cannot change w/o losing its identity (i.e. being man, not ill - one can change, one cannot); Pythagorists can't resolve this though since they believe in transmigration (one soul to another)

Currents of Thought in 19th Century (4 major influences, Helvetius, Bentham, Romantics, Darwin)

-much more complex thought started to occur in the 19th century; 1) covered much bigger area (America and Russia joined Europe in contributing thought, and Europe became more aware of Indian philosophies), 2) science expanded greatly (geology, biology, organic chemistry), 3) machine production expanded the idea of what man could do to control nature (more power, altered social structure), 4) philosophical and political revolt against tradition in politics and economics (romantic...Byron to Schopenhauer to Nietzsche to Mussolini to Hitler, and rational...French Revolution philosophy to English radicals to Marx to Soviet Russia) -Germany not united at this time (after Holy Roman Empire dissolved) so lots of political and philosophical competition, very regional; Kant and Hegel had tremendous influence though -Helvetius followed Rousseau's "tabula rasa" in France but considered all individual differences due to education (talents, virtues a product of one's instruction, and genius is often due to chance); he was a utilitarian (pleasure is good, religious deist, and held Locke-like theory of knowledge (we owe ideas to sense organs); perfect man created by perfect education (if only priests would get out of the way...) -Bentham: English radical, promoted equality of women, opposed imperialism, uncompromising Democrats, but sided w/ employers in England's industrial clashes (over working class) -Romantics: believed in will at the expense of the intellect, were impatient with chains of reasoning, glorified violence of certain kinds, ally of nationalism, enemy of reason, and anti-scientific -Darwin: 1) theory of evolution (Lamark and Darwin's grandpa Erasmus first came up with theory, even Anaximander, but Darwin took it to finish line and achieved fame for it), 2) struggle for existence and survival of the fittest; congenital differences b/w members of same species conflicted with doctrine that "all men are equal" and had major impact of world; also, if men have developed in slow stages throughout history, how we know where the line b/w animal / men is? how do we tell? how do we classify "human"? where do we draw line of equality? however, huge doctrine in establishing progress! -due to Darwin, more emphasis was put on the community politically than individual; survival of the fittest applied to the state, not just the individual man (growing power of the State, w/ accompanying nationalism, appealed to doctrine of survival of the fittest) -major progress in conquering fear: 1) first weapons squashed fear of wild animals, 2) agriculture squashed fear of starvation, 3) machine production squashed fear of nature (power to alter environment); nature came to be looked at as raw material; new "democracy" started to rise that was actually undemocratic (captains of industry vs. masses of workers)

St. Thomas Aquinas (wise man, reason/faith, Summa Contra Gentiles, four books, overall impact)

-one of greatest of all scholastic philosophers, follower of Aristotle -wise man: man can be wise in a particular pursuit, but that particular end is subordinate to the end of the universe, and wisdom per se is related to the end of the universe; the "end" of the universe is the good of the intellect (truth) and the pursuit of wisdom in this sense is most perfect, sublime, profitable, delightful of pursuits; the appeal of the Philosopher (i.e. Aristotle) proves this -some parts of the Christian faith can be provided by reason (existence of god, immortality of soul...really???) but not others (Trinity, incarnation, resurrection of body) -Summa Contra Gentiles: four books, only in the fourth book are there propositions that extend beyond reason and enter into faith (cannot be known apart from revelation) -existence of god: self-evident argument is not good enough: 1) Aristotle: "unmoved mover" (some things only moved, other things both move and are moved....something must be moving those things...to avoid endless regress, we conclude that is God; 2) First Cause (impossibility in infinite regress...must be beginning), 3) the necessity of an ultimate source, 4) there must be a source for the various perfections in the world (what are these though?), 5) even lifeless things serve a purpose which must be the result of something outside of them since only living things have an internal purpose (soul?) -God is eternal, unchanging, unmoved, pure activity (not passive matter), no body / composite / face, god is good, intelligence is god's essence, and reason can be assigned to god's volition but not a cause -Book 2: about the human soul; god created the world out of nothing, god cannot undo past or commit sins or make another god; the soul is united to a body and only one soul in a man - souls of animals are mortal unlike man; soul not transmitted through semen but created fresh with each man (so how does original sin pass down??); like Aristotle he believed universals do not exist outside of the soul but intellect understands things outside of the soul (??) -Book 3: about ethics; the ultimate happiness of man is contemplation of god (not carnal pleasures, honor, glory, wealth, power, moral virtue); knowledge of god of majority doesn't suffice nor knowledge by demonstration nor faith - hereafter is where it's at (heaven/hell); believes in voluntary poverty; like Augustine believes in predestination and that no man is freed by sin except by grace and the sinner is blamed if not converted....some people are Elect and some Reprobate (no reason why, must be baptized to have a chance to enter heaven) -Book 4: about the trinity, incarnation, and the supremacy of the pope, sacraments, resurrection; we can know god by reason, revelation, or intuition of things; he blames Greeks for rejecting the supremacy of the pope and said that sacraments are valid even if priests are wicked/sinners (common at the time); on resurrection: identity of the body not dependent on persistence of same material particles since there's perpetual change in one's body due to eating and digestion (argument that cannibals/cannibalized could be resurrected) -overall, adapted Aristotle to Christian dogma; appeal to reason is suspect though, as he begins with Christian conclusions and argues back from there (not opposite which is true reasoned argument; doesn't really "inquire" - starts from Catholic faith and goes from there

Roman Empire & Culture (Roman expansion, democratic movements, artistocrats and military, preservation of Hellenistic culture, Muslims and Arabic influence, Constantine, Plotinus)

-overall, Romans led a long peace and got people accustomed to a single civilization and a single government over a wide swath of land; Roman imperialism especially strong in N. Africa where land areas were made fertile for agriculture -empire evolved and there were combinations of monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic influences; with conquest came wealth, and senators vied for power and influence with increasing wealth and aristocrats opened large grape/olive estates driven by slave labor -the people pushed back, and democratic movement brought civil war and strife, establishment of "tyranny" (non hereditary rule), and time of Augustus (adopted son of Caesar) led to time of peace (he opposed battles among wealth aristocrats for power and influence w/ military which drove unrest) -3rd century was rough for Rome - army realized the power they had and they fought for personal gain and wealth for specific emperors, barbarians invaded from the north and east and attacked cities of perimeter of empire; resources decreased, bribery increased -Constantine saved the Roman empire; introduced Christianity as state religion; secured Constantinople as center of the eastern empire; made rural population serfs working the land, and set fixed municipal taxes that had to be paid (however, when local leaders couldn't keep up, they fled; adoption of Christianity led to some schools of philosophy closing due to bigotry -Greeks believed they were more civilized than the Romans, but the Romans had a more structured and ordered system (some Roman stoics snuffed their noses at Greek decadence...Romans were harder); Greeks more advanced in art, literature, knowledge, agriculture, manufacturing) but Romans had military and social cohesion; Romans ended up being culturally parasitic re: the Greeks, which upset Cato the Elder (thought Romans became soft b/c of Hellenistic influence...) -Roman conquests made the larger western world more familiar with beliefs of Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, and Greeks (like Alexander had done previously), as well as Christianity and Judaism -unlike what Genghis Khan or Xerxes likely would have done (simply destroy culture), Romans preserved Greek culture (art, literature) - we are fortunate that's the case; Muslims conquered much of the middle east (holy land) in 7th century but let Christians and Jews live in peace as long as they paid tribute (contrary to what we would think) - they respected Hellenistic culture and helped spread it further; many words with "al" beginning (i.e. algebra) came from Arabic influence and advancement of prior Greek philosophical/mathematical tradition -Plotinus: a successor of Plato who had a large influence on Christianity; he spoke of transcendental hopes (soul and body) as opposed to more modern "do social good" type of Christianity; he was a dualist like Descartes (if soul did wrong in current life, would come back again for punishment...i.e. if I kill my mom, soul would come back into a woman and be killed by my son); believed in holy trinity (the one, the spirit, and the soul) -Plotinus made three major contributions: 1) secure refuge for hopes and ideals which required moral and intellectual effort (conserved doctrines of Greeks to return to later...), 2) encouraged men to look within (the divine) as opposed to without (response to brutality of life...imperfections of the "sensible" world), and 3) marked an end to Greeks and beginning of Christendom; he lived in a brutal world and his thoughts reflected that

Catholic Philosophy (St. Augustine, Catholic Church, papacy, dualism, disruption of Ren and Ref)

-period of St. Augustine to the Renaissance, where the Catholic Church dominated Catholic philosophy (and politics) and therefore was dominant influence of the time; at this time, philosophy had a much closer relationships to social and political cohesion and development; everything was ecclesiastical and dominated by the papacy -dualism emerged at this time (pope / emperor, spirit / flesh, etc.); the first period led by St. Augustine and influenced by Plato (pagans), and the second period dominated by St. Thomas Aquinas in 13th century whose followers more aligned with Aristotle; it was around this time when ecclesiastical influence was destroyed by an emerging rich commercial class that was smarter and stronger (commoners before had simply deferred to the perceived intelligence of the papacy/clergy); also, monarchies were being established in England, France, and Spain that pushed back against the politics of the church...papal influence decreased and many become Italian princes more focused on power politics -the Renaissance and Reformation disrupted the medieval synthesis significantly (1500s); the general misery of the middle ages (invasions, sackings, etc.) led many to look to the beyond for hope; when general happiness increased however, those sentiments, though still there, decreased in intensity; like Greeks, people enjoyed the "here and now" more

Schopenhauer (pessimism, will over knowledge)

-pessimist, enjoyed religions of India (Hinduism, Buddhism), cultured, not nationalistic; wrote The World as Will and Idea (adaptation of Kant) -what appears to my perception as my body is really my will; what is real is one vast will separate from time and space - my will is part of will of the universe (no separation of my will...that's an illusion) but doesn't lead him to an optimistic pantheism with virtue being conforming to divine will; rather his pessimism leads him to believe that cosmic will is wicked and is source of our suffering; no such thing as happiness (unfulfilled desires = pain, fulfilled desires = just satisfaction), we can't escape the suffering, sexual acts are not desirable b/c it leads to another chance for suffering (another life to suffer/die); but Nirvana (from India) gives us a way out (distinction b/w ourselves and others only an illusion, lift the veil of Maya (illusion) and see through love that all of us are one) -in all things men must try to break down individual will (cause of suffering = intensity of will, more exercising of will = more suffering); two keys to his beliefs: 1) will over knowledge and 2) pessimism

Philosophy ("no man's land", beginning of philosophy, other stages, questions it handles)

-philosophy occupies space b/w theology and science, thinking about relationship b/w mind and matter -beginning of philosophy dates to 6th century BCE w/ Greeks, and then transitions though two more stages - merge w/ and separation from Christianity (theological explanations) and then a modern era where science plays a role in explaining our world and we see difference in relationship of man/God and man/state (in this era we see Reformation, Protestant sects, and liberation of "common man" (serf) -philosophy handles questions that religious superstition can't fully address but that modern science can't know either...a "no man's land"; major question: social cohesion vs. individual freedom (what liberalism is trying to answer...)

William James (psychologist, radical empiricism, pragmatism, "pure experience")

-psychologist, but important in philosophy; invented the doctrine "radical empiricism" and one of three protagonists of "pragmatism"; love of medicine influenced his materialism, but had religious (Protestant) feelings as well; very warm heart, beloved by many -radical empiricism: subject-object relationship is not fundamental; taken for granted until his time that "knowing" meant a "knower" (mind/soul) becomes aware of an "object" (material object/eternal essence/another mind/etc.); this dualism and distinction of mind/matter was reconsidered by James -"pure experience" is the "immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection"; knowing is a relationship b/w two portions of pure experience (a knower / something known); consciousness is a nonentity, no distinction from material, of which our objects and thoughts are made; no distinction b/w mind and matter ("neutral monism") -one critique is that we don't experience everything that happens (i.e. rain falling in a desert where no living things reside) but it is still something we can infer to happen -James' Will To Believe argues that we are sometimes compelled to make moral decisions where there is no theoretical basis to do so (i.e. religious matters) - we have a right to believe even if not logical/intellectual; advocates doctrines that make people virtuous and happy; critique would be his false dichotomy b/w believe truth" (I guess a stranger's name on a train is ___ hoping I'm right') vs. "shun error" (I do not guess a stranger's name on a train is __ b/c I may be wrong)...think about that in relation to a belief in God....but we know that people act on hypotheses and evidence (critique) -ideas only true if they help us "get into satisfactory relations with other parts of our experience"; we have an obligation to seek truth; this leads to an acceptance of the hypothesis of God b/c it leads to happiness; however, he is focusing on the benefit to humans of a belief in God, not the supernatural aspects of God (belief in God leads to happiness, so believe in God...nothing more)

Sophists (intellectual elite, pay, law, skepticism, Sparta, objective truth)

-sort of the intellectual elite of Athens, protectors of the wealthy, teachers of the young (who could pay for it), Protagoras as key Sophist -masters of law, they pursued truth wherever it may lead, making them unpopular w/ many and they employed a radical skepticism -Athens was doing well under Pericles and they flourished before Sparta overtook Athens and killed Socrates in 399 BCE -Sophists did not believe in objective truth (skepticism) and slaves/women continued to suffer, outside of their view

Aristotle's Metaphysics (universals, matter vs. form, three substances)

-student of Plato, mentor of Alexander (but influence on him was likely very small...), he had famous theory of universals that were "predicated of many subjects" ; universals cannot exist by themselves but only "in" particular things (football only exists with football players, but the opposite is not true) -distinction b/w matter (i.e. bronze) and form (i.e. bronze sphere) - the form makes a "thing" separate from the rest of the mass (i.e. vessel of water, containing specific water) but soul is also the form of human body -3 substances: plants/animals, heavenly bodies, rational soul / God; God originates motion, and the more rational we are and the more virtuous, the more we approach God

John Dewey (instrumentalism, inquiry, beliefs, education)

-substitutes "inquiry" for "truth" as the fundamental concept of logic and theory of knowledge; huge influence on American education -instrumentalism: most philosophers think of "truth" as static and eternal (in religion, God; in math, think multiplication tables); Dewey believes truth to be more biological (evolutionary) than mathematical (which is linked to theology/God); all reality is temporal and process is not the unfolding of an eternal Idea like Hegel (though it is evolutionary...) -inquiry: mutual adjustment between organism and its environment; meaning/significance = a sentence S "means" an event E if it promotes a behavior which E would have promoted (i.e. if I hear over a megaphone "a lion has escaped the zoo" I will react as if I saw the lion even if I haven't); if there's been no such occurrence though, the sentence is false -Dewey makes inquiry the essence of logic, not truth or knowledge; defines it: "inquiry is the controlled or directed transformation of an indeterminate situation into one that is so determinate in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole" -beliefs divided into two classes - "good" and "bad" - but a belief may be good at one time and bad at another (depending on the activities it inspires in an organism) - i.e. if somebody asks if I had coffee this morning, I wouldn't just say "yes" or "no," I would say I have to hold two experiments, imagine both scenarios, and determine which one led to better consequences (more satisfactory) and then answer -Dewey judges beliefs by their effects rather than causes - many hold that a belief is "true" if it has a certain relation to its causes, where Dewey holds it has "warranted assertability" (not "truth") based on its effects (i.e. did Caesar cross the Rubicon? many would say "yes", Dewey would decide to say yes or no based on appraisal of future events) -author thinks that Dewey's belief in human power and unwillingness to admit "stubborn" facts is due to machine production and scientific manipulation of our environment (happening in his time); Dewey's educational philosophy - based on experience - influenced by this as well

NIetzsche (aristocratic pride, great man over masses, submission, noble man, happiness)

-successor of Schopenhauer; likes ruthlessness and war and aristocratic pride but also loves philosophy and literature and the arts; political philosophy similar to Machiavelli's Prince -criticized religions and philosophies due to their ethical motives; admires certain qualities only possible for aristocratic minority; the majority should be only means to the excellence of a few (no claim to happiness or well-being); no objection to seeing ordinary human beings suffer if it leads to production of a great man -higher men must make war upon the masses and resist democratic tendencies, b/c all over mediocre people are joining to try to become masters; admires strength of will above all and believes compassion is weakness; believes in the Hero not the State; desires an international ruling race (not pro-German specifically, not natioanlist...); holds incredible contempt for women and Christianity -does not believe one should submit to the power of the church (does not believe any religion is true) both b/c of supposed will of God (not valid) and will of "artist-tyrants" associated w/ Church; church tries to tame the wild heart of man but a wild beast has certain splendor; submission to church crushes the potential of great men and destroys the strong -believes in a "noble man" who is a governing aristocrat capable of cruelty and recognizes duties only to equals; "noble man" = incarnate will to power; cannot imagine a "saint by nature" (does good b/c gives him happiness) but only "saint from fear" (does good b/c police will discover any wickedness) -happiness of common people is no part of the good; all that is good or bad in itself exists only in the superior few; what happens to the rest is of no account; superior few = conquering race of hereditary aristocracy (good birth, "biologically" superior rather than by education/environment, which would leave door open to the masses...)

Erasmus and More (Northern Renaissance, humanists, Utopia, ecclesiastical abuses, link to Rousseau)

-the Northern Renaissance (England, Germany, France) was more focused on piety and public virtue than expounding on individuality -Sir Thomas More: a humanist that was convicted of treason and beheaded for saying that King Henry of England could not be appointed by Parliament as the head of the Church of England; famous for writing Utopia, which makes repeat mention of communism - an island where everything is held in common (no private property), all 54 towns are structured the same, people switch homes every year to avoid feelings of ownership, family life is patriarchal (live with parents until marriage), representative democracy flourishes with a prince elected for life but can be deposed at any time for tyranny, there were only three purposes for war (defend land, help an ally win back land taken, and defend oppressed nation from tyranny) which was a more civil way of looking at things, religious tolerance (but if you didn't believe in god / immortality, didn't really play any role in political life), and much milder criminal law (i.e. wouldn't get beheaded for theft...); however, extreme lack of diversity, a flaw that characterizes many failed planning communities -Erasmus: wrote about ecclesiastical abuses (indulgences, pardons, differing length of soul's time in purgatory for the sake of grabbing money from people, worship of saints and the Virgin (over her son), disputes of Trinity and incarnation, transubstantiation, ridicule of popes/cardinals/bishops and monastic orders (monastic orders for their pettiness in his view); one would think Erasmus was for the Reformation but he eventually sided with the Catholic Church due to Luther's violent methods (he detested them); connection to Rousseau's Savoyard Vicar due to his belief that true religion comes from the heart not the head, and theology is superflous....he rebelled against the scholasticism of the day)

The Papacy in the Dark Ages & John the Scot (power of papacy, east/west divide, charlemagne)

-the dark ages was a time when popes became more independent and powerful and a chasm started to divide the eastern and western catholic church (the east refused to submit to the pope due to the strength of the emperors); constant balance b/w papal and emperor power; literacy much lower in the west which helped popes establish and maintain power -Charlemagne united much of western and central europe for first time since the Roman empire, and defended the papacy by rooting out Lombards in Italy and leading conquests of muslims in Spain -in the year 1000, church became more monastic and the clergy less tied to church morals; conquest decreased, calmer time; Tang dynasty and Islam were growing influences and there was more power in China, Japan, and the Caliphate than in Europe -John the Scot was employed by the king of France, believed in reason and revelation both sources of truth but that reason prevails if they conflict; supported free will in dispute b/w free will and predestination (heretic to some); believed that universals preceded particulars (like Plato) and that there were four classes of nature (the first one being god, "that which creates and is not created"); said god was beginning, middle, and end of all things, unknowable to men and to angels and even to himself; all things eventually return into god; sin's source is freedom when man turned toward himself instead of to god; he was unorthodox - his trinity doesn't preserve equality of three persons and includes "timeless" creation (unlike Augustine, for example, who believed in a clear beginning; he was a pantheist who believed humans were divided into male and female as a result of sin and that woman embodies men's fallen nature; sin = misdirected will and punishment is natural (discover vanity of sinful ways) but punishment is not eternal...can be saved; he was condemned as heretical by the pope (some of the copies of his work wasn't burnt though)

Aristotle's Politics (state as highest order, family, law and state, critique of Plato, equality, types of gov, revolution)

-the state is the highest order of structure and good; first comes family (man/woman, master/slave), the village (collection of families), then city-state (the "whole"); family comes first in time, but is only part of the whole, and state is prior by "nature", even compared to individual ("thing when fully developed is nature" hence state over individual); this is somewhat similar to the concept of an organism...parts to create a whole -law needs a state for legitimacy; he also did not believe in equality, slaves (non-Greeks of course) were "naturally" inferior but part of family in subservient role; trade/commerce is not "natural" (a shoemaker cannot feed his family w/o clientele) so working house/land is correct path and leads to "wealth" (more than money) -Aristotle criticized Plato's utopia due to family relations (Plato = call all your brother, father, sister, etc.) b/c it denigrated importance of core relationships (common to all = special to none...); Aristotle also believed in private property (unlike Plato's communism) but wanted people to share benevolently -equality doesn't exist in Aristotle's system but gov should act for good (best govs = monarchy, aristocracy, constitutional gov; worst = oligarchy, democracy, tyranny); saw a "golden mean" as right way (democracy = poor mistreat rich, oligarchy - rich overpower power); revolution only occurs w/ oligarchy and democracy from his view due to extremes -education, law, justice can prevent revolution but must ensure justice is "in proportion" (hard to define); relation to today = tyrants distract the masses w/ war and projects like the pyramids (like a drug); Aristotle's goal was to create the "cultured gentlemen" which has since died away due to democracy, industrialization, and common education (more readers to expose new ideas more broadly...rebel against cultured gentlemen)

St. Augustine's Philosophy & Theology (theory of time, philosophy of history, theory of salvation)

-theory of time: Platonism is not always in sync with Genesis; Plato/Aristotle believed in a primal "substance" that God "the architect" used the fashion the world, whereas Augustine believed that God "the creator" created the entire world; nothing existed before God...time began with God / the Creation; pure Creator; Pantheism (Greek) believed that God and world were one and the same which conflicted with Augustine; Augustine believed that time was created when the world was created, and that time is subjective (past = memories, future = aspirations and expectations, present = considerations); can't understand time and place before Creation -philosophy of history: pagans blamed the sacking of Rome on the abandonment of gods (i.e. Jupiter); Augustine responded that horrible things happened before Rome accepted Christianity; says that astrology is false (twins have same astrology, different fortunes), angels and men have free will (Stoic "fate" is wrong), God has foreknowledge of our win but not why we sin; Augustine admired Plato (he wasn't a materialist like the others...Protagoras, Epictetus, etc.) but disagreed with Plato on the incarnation; the City of God is for the Elect (chosen by God) and only through Christ can you know God, expand knowledge by reading religious scripture; no history / no time before Creation...world 6000 years old (six being the perfect number b/c you can arrive at it by adding its factors...also time it took to create world...six days); eating the apple (the Fall) brought eternal damnation for humankind and we are saved only through God's grace; sin comes from the soul not the flesh (like Plato / Manicheans thought) and sex requires lust (not emotionless) b/c of Adam's sin; virtue is control of free will...so is sex virtuous? (we're not sure); ever since Fall, there is City of God and City of Devil and the bodies of damned burn eternally (the Elect and Reprobate selected arbitrarily it appears...); Augustine believed in the separation of church and state, but the state must subject to church in all religious matters in order to be saved in the City of God (able to accomplish this in West due to weak emperors but not in East) -theory of salvation: Adam had free will before the Fall and could've avoided sin, but did not; he sinned, corruption entered, and passed down this sin to posterity (original sin); now nobody can abstain from sin (connection to Adam) and only by God's grace can we be saved; we all inherit Adam's sin and deserve eternal damnation; God selects the Elect from the people but must be baptized in order to be part of the Elect or go to hell; damnation = God's justice, salvation = God's mercy (but those who are saved are random? hmmm); question never resolved....if soul sins, not flesh, then does soul come from parents (like flesh?) since since is passed down through Adam? -interesting that focus during this time (sacking of Rome) was on virginity and eternal damnation of unbaptized infants, rather than saving civilization from barbarians; long period of cruelty and superstition followed

Hume (impressions and ideas, no substance, inductive reasoning, skepticism)

-there are two kinds of perceptions - "impressions" and "ideas" - of which impressions have more force and violence and ideas are faint images in thinking and reasoning; impressions come first -we extrapolate general ideas from particular impressions (i.e. image of a man) - "abstract ideas are in themselves individual, however they may become general in their representation"; modern form of nominalism -there is no "substance" (banished from psychology like Berkeley did from physics); no "impression" of self so no idea of self - just a bundle or collection of different perceptions in perpetual flux and movement -we can only know cause and effect by experience, not by reasoning or reflection, but it must be "constant conjunction" of the events of kind A with events of kind B to establish cause and effect; experience of frequent conjunction is frequently conjoined with a habit of association (but no reason to think that similar associations will continue in future...); "the proposition 'A causes B' means 'the impression of A causes the idea of B'" -Hume rejects induction (which others disagree with) which makes all future expectations irrational (even sun rising tomorrow...); "the future resembles the past" is not founded on arguments of ay kind, but is derived entirely from habit (complete skepticism); belief is never rational since we know nothing - "belief is more properly an act of the sensitive, than of the cogitative part of our natures" -the skeptic can reason and believe but asserts he cannot defend his reason by reason; his philosophy represents the "bankruptcy" of 18th century reasonableness; from experience and observation nothing is to be learned (unlike Locke) - no such thing as rational belief -quarrel with Rousseau - Rousseau agreed with Hume that no belief is based on reason, but thought heart superior to reason and allowed to lead to convictions different than what Hume retained in practice -Hume's skepticism is inescapable for an empiricist if through induction we cannot observe one event causing another to a degree (enumeration) approaching certainty; Hume did prove that science cannot be based on pure empiricism - must be deductive as well

Philosophical Liberalism (reciprocal relationship b/w ideas and practical life, characteristics of early liberalism, growth of individualism)

-there's a reciprocal relationship inherent in how ideas and practical life interact to create conditions for varying philosophical views -characteristics of early liberalism: sparked first in England and Holland, religious toleration, Protestant but not fanatical, belief that religious wars are silly, value of commerce and industry, favor of middle class over monarchy/aristocracy, belief in the rights of property, restriction of hereditary principle, rejection of the divine right of the king, belief that men are born equal but circumstances then lead to inequality, importance of education, skepticism of government (kings / aristocrats) -a growth of individualism not dominated by the church (Protestantism), Descartes (all had soul separate from body that governed individual action...), and French Revolution all played a major role -a new movement then sparked an antithesis to individualism: Rousseau (a romantic extension of individualism from the intellectual sphere to the passions), anarchic aspects of individualism, cult of the hero (Nietzsche) sparked by a dislike of industrialism (but can lead to a despotic government of the "hero" left standing who then represses the individualism of others...) -Locke was inspired by a number of events, like the conflict b/w king and parliament in England (civil war in 1600s) which led to a love of compromise after a replacement of English monarchy with a commonwealth, monopoly of Church of England ended, and a more symbiotic relationship b/w king and parliament

Three Doctors of the Church (Saint Ambrose, Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine)

-these three figures (also Gregory the Great, a fourth), flourished b/w the victory of the catholic church in the roman empire and the barbarian invasion; afterwards, Arian "heretics" take over but christendom then flourished again after 1000 years pass, drawing much from these three -Saint Ambrose: known for ecclesiastical relationships b/w church and state (did much to secure independence of church, separation b/w church/state; he identified a difference b/w short-term, money-seeking, self-serving political leaders of the state and long-term vision of the church; did much to consolidate power of the church!; said that "possessions of the church are the maintenance of the poor" (different view than the state and also "heathen" temples); critique: did not offer to pay for destruction of Jewish temple (anti-semitism), saying that church money shouldn't go to unbelievers (different take on separation of church/state) -Saint Jerome: known for writing the Latin Bible used by Catholics worldwide, accepting the Old Testament as written by Jews in Hebrew...received flak for this; known also for monasticism (complete devotion to that which is spiritual); must preserve religion hopes as earthly hopes become vain (fall of the Roman empire...); interestingly, he didn't criticize Roman fiscal system or reliance on barbarian armies as Rome fell... -Saint Augustine: created the theology of the church until reformation; pear tree story shows his fixation of sin (he spoiled a neighbor's pear tree when he had better pears at home...needless wickedness...he felt horrible about it); thought about communal sin (Jews) vs. individual sin (Catholics), which later factored into Catholic vs. Protestant debate (original sin we're all responsible for vs. individual redemption)...St. Augustine believed in both -Augustine said that God predestines who will be saved, but soul must be in harmony w/ God to be saved, and soul must be baptized and member of the church to be in harmony; rejected Manichean viewpoints due to scientific fact (astronomical advances) and his own observations, but said that errors only become mistakes when spoken with air of authority (divine inspiration) -Augustine was a student of Plato and found doctrine of Jesus Christ in Plato's teachings (not incarnation or human salvation...the Genesis side of things); evil is not from some substance (Manichean) but perverseness of will

Heraclitus (perpetual flux, fire, outracing "time"), Parmenides (no change, no opposites, something must come from something that still exists...no true past), Empedocles (centrifugal, moonlight, air, survival of fittest),

-things are in a state of perpetual flux, w/ fire being the primordial element; a search for something permanent that outraces "time" a major focus of Heraclitus -Heraclitus anticipates some discoveries made in chemistry (changing state of matter) and physics (atoms can be destroyed...radioactivity) but his thoughts again were based on reasoning from axioms, not observation/empiricism, and he still believed that fire "never dies" -Parmenides believed there is no change, no opposites (i.e. "dark" is just "no light") and if you think of something, it must have meaning and come from something that still exists (no true past); we still take his idea of permanence of substance while rejecting his doctrine that there is no change / no past -Empedocles: big contributions to science (air as substance, centrifugal force, moon is lit by reflected light, rudimentary "survival of the fittest" theory), added Love and Strife to four elements (earth, air, water, fire) as way that world stays balanced and changes, thought himself a god but man-god, and didn't believe in monism; nature governed by chance not purpose

Marx (scientific, materialist, dialectical, matter not spirit, major triad, industrial system, progress defined)

-wanting nothing to do with Romanticism, his outlook was always scientific; believed classical economics benefitted the capitalist at expense of the landowner and wage earner; Marx focused on the wage earner; believed in a "dialectical" whereby an object and a subject (a "thing being known" and a "knower") are in a continual process of mutual adaptation which is never fully completed (not a simple "constant" object while the "knower" alone adapts in pursuit of knowledge)...a criticism of "truth" -matter, not spirit (i.e. Hegel), is driving force behind development of world, but specifically, it's man relationship to matter, the most important part being his mode of production (Marx's materialism becomes economics...); the politics, religion, philosophy, and art of any time are outcomes of a society's methods of production and distribution -one major triad concerned him: feudalism (represented by landowner), capitalism (represented by industrial employer), socialism (represented by wage earner); "classes" were major concern; said he didn't advocate socialism or think it was ethically better, only that it was side taken in the deterministic movement of the dialectic; however, not completely true - he definitely thought it would increase human happiness and be considered "progress" -the cruelty of the English industrial system appalled him as did the notion that the system may evolve from free enterprise into a system of monopoly which may produce revolt of the proletariat; held that the only antidote would be State ownership of land and means of production; committed to power politics and a master class (but not a master race) and desires the division of classes to disappear leading to political and economic harmony

Socrates (no money, executed, "knew nothing," platonic relationships, dualism)

-we either know a lot or very little about him; he took no money for teaching youth, different from Sophists, and was eventually tried and executed for worshipping new divinities (his defense became his Apology); he had connections tot he aristocracy which got him into trouble re: divinities he supposedly worshipped; said he "knew nothing" and tried to draw knowledge out of others (Socratic method), was guided by an oracle (had "trance-like" state often), kept relationships platonic, mastered dualism (bw soul and body, soul guided body...i.e. in love) and focused on ethical questions over scientific ("know nothing" of physical world); he was indifferent to death, likely due to his mastery of dualism and guidance from divine voice; focused on virtue and knowledge

General Characteristics - Renaissance to Hume (church vs. science, theoretical vs. practical science, Italian infighting)

-we see a diminishing authority of the church and an increasing authority of science during this time; states had increasingly more influence compared to the church, and government in hands of a king gradually gave way to democracies and tyrants; the feudal aristocracy gradually loses its power and influence in politics -Copernicus introduced his theory in the mid 1500s and was followed up by Kepler and Galileo in the 17th century; the authority of science over intellectual matters was a huge step forward, and science was seen as an intrinsic appeal to reason and a way to explain our world; the authority of science was "beyond" any governmental or religious authority because it didn't seek to fully explain our natural and moral world and provide a whole "system" by which to live (like church) just a small part based on rigorous study and reason that was subject to change based on future advances -theoretical science = seeking to understand our world and practical science = seeking to change our world; the practical took precedent early due to its relation to war and advancing personal/group causes; more individualism and subjectivity early on in science which puts it at risk of anarchy because nobody at the top is "directing" those efforts toward worthy end (science is ethically neutral, which means it can be used for horrific ends in relation to power politics) -Italian Renaissance: almost constant state of fighting in Italy between five states (Milan, Venice, Florence, Naples, Papal Domain) and France and Spain within the country; Venice had powerful influence due to ports but lost influence due to discovery of route around Cape of Africa, Florence was bastion of civilization and chief source of the Renaissance, the Medicis (rich from mining) were huge spark for literary and artistic activity in Florence, and power politics of popes dominated in papal domain; power politics extremely complex in italy and it was almost impossible to achieve national unity despite efforts to do so; discovery of America and cape route to east decreased importance of Italy too -renaissance revived scholastic thought; brought back Plato (direct study, not through Neoplatonists) and encouraged intellectual pursuit as social activity not cloistered behind walls to verify predetermined conclusion; not a widely popular movement, small scholastic/artistic faction driven by Medicis and humanist popes

Hegel (whole vs. part, logic, reason, war, the State)

-whole vs. part: the "whole" is real, not collection of hard units (i.e. atoms/souls) but whole is complex (like an organism); world as composed of separate things is illusion, each has greater/lesser degree of reality (reality = aspect of the whole); disbelief in space / time because that would involve separateness of parts and multiplicity of the whole (whole = "The Absolute") -Hegel emphasized logic (nature of Reality can be deduced b/c it can't be self-contradictory); also, triadic movement called "Dialectic" (thesis, antithesis, synthesis); "Reality is an uncle" (thesis), but implies a nephew so "The Absolute is a nephew" b/c nothing exists but absolute (antithesis) same objection as to Uncle being absolute so Absolute is whole composed of uncle and nephew (synthesis) but man can only be uncle if he has siblings w/ children so we must enlarge our universe so we're driven on by logic to final conclusion of dialectic (Absolute Idea, like Aristotle's God, pure thought thinking about pure thought) - nothing true unless about reality as whole -reason is the substance of universe; freedom = right to obey law...despotism = one is free, democratic/aristocracy = some are free, monarch = all are free; Hegel was big on war b/w separate nations and big on heroes that serve as military conquerors; he glorifies that State ("realized moral life"); believed truth is "unity" of universal and subjective will - universal found in State, in its laws its universal and rational arrangements...State is divine idea as it exists on earth -beliefs on State like Augustine on church (except geography differs for states, common creed of religion over distinct states, and one church...); State = independent "citizen" and duty of citizen is to uphold individuality of the State (vs. other states); war is good, would oppose a "league of nations", war helps us take stock of vanity of temporal things (vs. war being result of economic consequences); war prevents internal tyranny and external aggression; however, this is inconsistent with his metaphysics - individual better as part of whole, but why not apply this to nations? overall, he believes whole is better than parts...citizens exist for the state, not other way around

Cynics & Skeptics (4 schools during Alexander, return to nature, true knowledge unattainable, thoughts on god, Cato the Elder)

-with the Macedonian empire, philosophy turned from politics (creation of states) to individual virtue/salvation, influenced by the times -4 schools during Alexander's time: Cynics, Skeptics, Epicureans, Stoics -Cynics: humans must return to nature, belief in plain man, no government, no private property, no marriage, no slavery, no religion; cynic = "canine" (live like a dog), they had a passion for virtue and had influence Alexandria Egypt; but maybe beliefs were a little too simple -Skeptics: true knowledge is unattainable so why bother? they believed that Greek deductive reasoning was founded on original "first principles" that were general and held to be true...but how do we know they're true? (ends up becoming circular argument...); the future is uncertain so enjoy the present, don't trouble with unanswerable questions; had "dogmatic doubt" (not like scientist "I think this to be true, but I can't be certain) = "I do not know and it is not possible to ever know."; questioned god = if creator of all things, he is responsible for evil....it not, he is lazy and impotent; Skeptics rivaled movement of dogmatic religion and individual salvation but couldn't offer anything substantial in return, which is why eastern religions and barbarian superstition were main rivals before Christianity took over -mention of Cato the Elder (Roman warrior, senator): simple life, had his slaves quarrel to not become too friendly, strict moral code, traditional and disgusted at Athenian "degeneracy" in the Skeptic academy