These introductions and
Enrichments are taken from my online class.
They are optional but will deepen your understanding of material we are
covering in each unit.
I hope you will partake of them!
Just click on the unit
link:
Unit 2
- Myth and Wonder
Unit 3 - Natural Philosophers
Unit 4 -
Sophists and
Socrates
Unit 5 - Plato
Unit 6 - Aristotle
Unit 7
- Two Cultures and the Middle Ages
Unit 8 - The Renaissance and The Baroque
Unit 9 - Descartes and Spinoza
Unit 10 - The British Empiricists
Unit 11 - Kant and the Enlightenment
Unit 12 - Hegel and Romanticism
Unit 13 - Kierkegaard and Marx
Unit 14 - Darwin and Freud
Unit 15 - Existentialism and Postmodernism
Unit 16 - Being Human in a Vast Universe
INTRODUCTION TO UNIT 2: Myth and Wonder
An "Alice-in-Wonderland" Tale
We are about to embark on an Alice-in-Wonderland type
adventure with Sophie Amundsen, a young girl who begins
receiving philosophy lessons from a mysterious
philosopher named Alberto. He says to “Sophie dear” that
he is concerned she does not “grow up to be one of those
people who take the world for granted.” He follows this
with some “thought experiments” to show her what he
means. All very strange coming from someone she doesn’t
even know! While the story is as—well—weird, as such
an “Alice” tale can be, and it takes a turn at the end
that is totally unexpected and a little bizarre, the
philosophy lessons themselves effectively track, in
simple terms, the history of thought of the Western
mind—that mind that today sets the worldview for much of
the planet—for better or worse!
So, I say to you, dear student, I hope Alberto and I
can convince you not to be one of those people who takes
the world for granted—or has no idea of the heritage of
your thought!
My lecture will give you an introduction to what
philosophy is, as well as cover some of the key threads
of thought we will follow through the semester. I will
also discuss a concept key to Greek, and any other
philosophy or theology—archetypes. Alberto will then
lead us in a look at ancient Greek mythology and culture
and their role in laying the foundation for an utterly
new way of looking at the world, taken up by a handful
of pre-Socratic natural philosophers who are credited
with the birth of philosophy.
Your Discussion Worksheet (DW) and Reading Quiz (Quiz
a), which will cover Alberto’s lessons, will lay the
groundwork for your Special Focus about worldviews.
Our entire semester study is, in fact, about worldviews,
and how they have shifted over the centuries to our
current times. Your Special Focus is a thought-provoker
about worldview shifts that may come in the future.
In our discussion we will consider some of the
political and cultural conditions of the early Greek
period that led to the birth of philosophy, and whether
there are any parallels in our world today. Remember,
though this question is broad, and admittedly even a bit
vague, you don’t need to be comprehensive, just cover a
particular thread of thought that intrigues you.
Next week we will move on to learning about that
“entirely new way of thinking.” And it was exactly
that! I still marvel at the huge shift in human
consciousness that this new thinking represented.
Enjoy.
BACK TO TOP
|
INTRODUCTION TO UNIT 3: Natural
Philosophers
Is there a basic substance that everything else is made
of?
Alberto launches Sophie’s studies of the natural
philosophers (the Pre-Socratics) with three questions:
Is there a basic substance that
everything else is made of?
Can water turn into wine?
How can earth and water produce a live
frog?
Sophie finds these questions “pretty stupid” but
they point to the foundation of thought pursued by the
natural philosopher, which is the focus of this unit’s
studies. As we learned last unit, there were several
cultural and political factors in the Greek world that
seemed to have initiated the shift to a quest for
understanding the world as a natural phenomenon. These
included leisure, democracy, and cross-cultural
exposure.
But perhaps the most fascinating factor was the
reification (making real or concrete) of the Greek myths
accomplished by simply writing them down—in the form,
for instance, of the Homeric Iliad and
Odyssey. Once they were written they could be
discussed. Once they were discussed they began to
appear much too much like human conceptions of all too
human characters. The search for more natural, and less
capricious, explanations for the forces and changes in
the world around us was on! In my lecture I discuss
some of the important foundational concepts of the
natural philosophers in this search.
Your Discussion Worksheet (DW) and Reading Quiz (Quiz
a), Special Focus (SF), and Context Enrichment (CE) will
all focus on the remarkable shift that the natural
philosopher’s made from a mythological worldview to a
worldview that attempted to observe the world around
them and draw conclusions from it. It is important to
remember that they were not modern scientist, but rather
had faith in the capacity of their human reason, to work
out possible natural solutions to questions of change
and being. They were amazingly prescient but were by no
means applying a scientific method to their inquiries.
In our discussion we will consider how this rational
vs. empirical, transcendence vs. immanence approach
seems reminiscent of our same conflicts in today’s
global society. Remember, though the question for your
forum is broad, and admittedly even a bit vague, but you
don’t need to be comprehensive, just cover a particular
thread of thought that intrigues you.
Next week we will meet the pivotal figure of
Socrates, who pursued philosophy in a whole new way. He
pursued it with his life. He lived philosophy for his
salvation and died for his belief in the truth quest.
Alberto tells Sophie that Socrates “called philosophy
down from the sky and established her in the towns and
introduced her into homes and forced her to investigate
life, ethics, good and evil.”
BACK TO TOP
|
INTRODUCTION TO UNIT 4: Sophists and
Socrates
In this unit we consider the Sophists—itinerate teachers who
were skeptical that either truth or true knowledge could be
accessed, if they existed at all. “Man is the measure of all
things” was their approach to life. We also consider the
cultural, political, and intellectual context of Athens at the
time of the Sophist, and their philosophical counterpart,
Socrates. Alberto uses one of his back-of-the-envelope questions
to lead Sophie into the world of Socrates: “Wisest is she who
knows what she does not know.” In Passions we can find
insight into the meaning and of this question and its
relationship to the mission, or philosophical project, of
Socrates:
Socrates eventually concluded that he was the wisest in Athens
because he alone recognized his own ignorance. While the
Sophists had held genuine knowledge to be unattainable, Socrates
held rather that genuine knowledge had not yet been achieved”
“The discovery of ignorance was for Socrates the beginning
rather than the end of the philosophical task, for only through
that discovery could one begin to overcome those received
assumptions that obscured the true nature of what it was to be a
human being. Socrates conceived it his personal mission to
convince others of their ignorance so that they might better
search for a knowledge of how life should best be lived
(Tarnus p. 33)
Socrates’s philosophical project was not focused on the
metaphysical questions of the Natural Philosophers, but on the
ethical question of how one ought to live. And he searched for
this truth with his life.
Your unit work will focus on Socrates’s remarkable life and
death, and his search for true knowledge, using his rational
mind and distrusting his senses. In our discussion we will
consider Socrates life and death within the context of the world
in which he lived.
Next week we will meet Socrates’s most famous student, Plato,
who systematize and expanded his beloved mentor’s message and
beliefs. He essentially immortalized Socrates—and himself in the
process.
BACK TO TOP
|
INTRODUCTION TO UNIT 5: Plato
Plato, as we know, was a disciple of Socrates. One of the first
he did after Socrates’ death was to write down the account of
Socrates’ trial and his defense before the jury of 500 (in
Apology). Socrates continued to play an important
role in Plato’s prolific writings. It is, in fact, quite
difficult to know for sure what Socrates actually thought and
said, and what was Plato’s evolving and expanding philosophical
interpretation of what he perceived to be the intent of words of
his friend and mentor. Nevertheless, it is not entirely a matter
for concern as to what Socrates actually said since the Western
mind was built on the words of Plato.
“In Plato’s vision, Socrates appeared as a living embodiment of
goodness and wisdom, the very qualities Plato considered to be
the foundational principles of the world and the highest goals
of human aspiration. Socrates thus became not only the
inspiration for but also the personification of the Platonic
philosophy. From Plato’s art emerged the archetypal Socrates,
the avatar of Platonism”
(Passions p. 40)
In this unit we study, in a sense, that archetypal Socrates
created by Plato. We also consider the archetypal nature of
Plato’s Theory of Forms (Ideas) and the solution he
proposed for what he saw as the weakness in the thought of the
pre-Socratics. For Plato, the question was that of what actually
caused a bunch of Lego-type building blocks to assemble in to a
crocodile, or an elephant, and not into a crocophant. He
searched for ontological order (forms) and epistemological
certainty (reason) and in the process shaped not only the
Western mind, but as we shall see, through Augustine, the
Christian mind as well for the next more than 2300 years—to our
current day.
You may enjoy this short biographical video of Plato to give you
a sense of his life and worldview. (6:59 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgPJUTltITk&list=PLB8F9D7A493693CCC
Next week we will meet Plato’s most famous student, Aristotle,
who turned his teacher’s theory of forms upside down, bringing
it out of the transcendent world into this world in which we
live. Another turn from rationalism to empiricism, from
transcendence to immanence.
BACK TO TOP
|
INTRODUCTION TO UNIT 6: Aristotle
This week we move on to Plato’s most famous student, Aristotle.
Being the son of a Macedonian physician, Aristotle was
particularly disposed to examination of the natural world—on
“all fours” as Alberto rather ineloquently puts it. We find that
Aristotle essentially turned Plato’s ontology upside down. “For
Plato, the particular was less real, a derivative of the
universal; for Aristotle, the universal was less real, a
derivative of the particular. Universals were necessary for
knowledge, but they did not exist as self-subsistent entities in
a transcendent realm” (Passions p.57)—As Alberto puts it
“laying on a shelf somewhere.”
Tarnus gives us timeless understanding of Aristotle:
“To understand the basic tenor of Aristotle’s philosophy and
cosmology is prerequisite for comprehending the further movement
of Western thought and its succession of world views. For
Aristotle provided a language and logic, a foundation and
structure, and, not least, a formidably authoritative
opponent—first against Platonism and later against the early
modern mind—without which the philosophy, theology, and science
of the West could not have developed as they did.”
(Passions p. 40)
In this unit we will explore the many branches of philosophical
and scientific inquiry that Aristotle developed, from his theory
of forms as immanent in the things of this world, to his idea of
how to live a life of happiness. It’s a lot to cover in one unit
but diligent attention to your Discussion Worksheet should move
you well forward in your understanding, as well as prepare you
for your Reading Quiz and you Discussion Forum.
Your Special Focus (SF) is a short reading from Aristotle’s
Metaphysics that I have annotated to help you in your
understanding of it. You will find it to be a great example of
Aristotle’s view of reality through which we have come to
understand his philosophical ideas, and an example of his
writing style.
The Content Enrichment video will give you a closer look at
Aristotle’s ideas on the good life, i.e. a happy one! Yeah!
(7.5 min):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csIW4W_DYX4
Next week we will look at the influence of Plato and Aristotle
on the coming together of two great Western world cultures in
the birth of Christianity. We will fly with Plato (and
Augustine) through the Middle Ages and land a thousand years
later with the rediscovery of Aristotle (through Aquinas). It is
a bit of a wild ride!
BACK TO TOP
|
UNIT 7: Two Cultures and the Middle Ages
Consolidating 1200 years of Western intellectual and spiritual
history into a single week’s study is essentially a hopeless
task. Yet, if Gaarder can get it done in two chapters (Two
Cultures and The Middle Ages), we will rise to the task in this
unit. There is so much important material in both Sophie’s
World and Passions that I found it incredibly
difficult to single out what would help you focus on the most
important concepts. I wish it were possible to share more of
Passions with you—this is such a fascinating period in history—a
cataclysm through the coming together of the cyclical and linear
worldviews in the rise of Christianity, a tragedy in the fall of
the Greco-Roman world and the destruction of a civilization, the
long period of recovery and the eventual renewal of Classical
Greek thought, and the final bursting out of intellectual
passion in the Renaissance.
I don’t wish to overburden you with quotations from Passions—you
have more than enough reading this week. But I feel compelled to
give you the richest possible perspective for following the
philosophical threads of Plato’s rationalism and Aristotle’s
empiricism out of antiquity and into the early modern mind—and
subsequently through the rise of science and the pivotal figure
of Descartes. I think of Augustine at the beginning of the
Middle Ages, and Aquinas at the end of the Middle Ages, as a
sort of pair of “book ends” to a long period of intellectual
quietude.
Augustine and Plato.
“Despite its having entirely distinct origins from the Judaeo-Christian
religion, for many ancient Christian intellectuals the Platonic
tradition was itself an authentic expression of divine wisdom,
capable of bringing articulate metaphysical insight to some of
the deepest of Christian mysteries.” “Fundamental Platonic
principles now found corroboration and new meaning in the
Christian context [through early Church Fathers and particularly
through St. Augustine—note the Socratic influence!]:
The existence of a transcendent reality
of eternal perfection,
the sovereignty of divine wisdom in the cosmos,
the primacy of the spiritual over the material,
the Socratic focus on the ‘tending of the soul,
the soul’s immortality and high moral imperatives,
its experience of divine justice after death,
the importance of scrupulous self-examination,
the admonition to control the passions and appetites in the
service of the good and true,
the ethical principle that is better to suffer an injustice than
to commit one,
the belief in death as a transition to more abundant life,
the existence of a prior condition of divine knowledge now
obscured in man’s limited natural state,
the notion of participation in the divine archetype,
the progressive assimilation to God as the goal of human
aspiration”
(Passions p. 102—I have listed out a paragraph of
principles to make each principle more available).
Aquinas and Aristotle
Alberto tells Sophie the Aquinas adopted many areas of
Aristotle’s philosophy. These included logic, a theory of
knowledge, his natural philosophy, and his “scale of nature.” In
doing so he inadvertently paved the way for the humanism and
skepticism that proceeded the rise of science. In many ways,
Aquinas belongs to the next unit on the Renaissance, Galileo,
and Science. Because of this, we will revisit him in a bit more
depth in the next unit.
BACK TO TOP
|
UNIT 8: The Renaissance and Baroque
In our last unit we saw that a series of events and
preconditions precipitate both the rise of Christianity and the
destruction of the Greco-Roman world. As that world
disintegrated, and Christianity spread throughout the bygone
empire, the Roman Catholic Church began to fill both the
spiritual and political vacuum. It increasing created a
unifying, if God and church-centered society, and towards the
end of the Middle ages, as that society began to stabilize, a
robust educational system, and a desire to know and even
control, the natural world.
With the recovery of Aristotelian philosophy and the humanism
(individual human is valued) of the Classical Greek world, the
Renaissance breaks out of the Middle Ages with an exuberance
that, as Alberto puts it “attempted to exceed all boundaries.”
“Cracks begin to appear in the unifying culture of
Christianity.” Ultimately, one of those cracks is the
Reformation which “…opened the way in the West for religious
pluralism, then religious skepticism, and finally a complete
breakdown in the until then relatively homogenous Christian
world view” (Passions, 240). It also opened the way to the
Scientific Revolution.
In this unit we consider this transition from the Middle Ages to
the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the strange but indicative
period of the Baroque, by following the development of the
“early modern mind” as it turns to education, the resurrection
of antiquity, the sense of its own worth in exploring the world.
It lays the ground work for the new scientific method,
based on experiment that results from observation, rather
than speculation as to the cosmic meaning of the
observation, as Aristotle did.
Your SF is a portion of a PBS Nova special called Galileo’s
Battle for the Heavens. It will help you “live in” Galileo’s
era and get a sense for how he revolutionized science by his
insistence on experimentation.
Your Context Enrichment gives you a choice, but I hope
you will choose both! One choice is a rather funny video about
how the Renaissance didn’t really happen. Funny or no, it is
really good history, and makes an important point that can be
applied to almost all the intellectual eras we study in this
course—they usually apply only to the “ivory tower” so to
speak—to those who have the time and leisure to think about big
pictures. Nevertheless, they eventually move whole cultures
forward, usually with a lot of people kicking and screaming
along with it. This is actually happening right now in our own
time.
The second is a selection of material drawn from Passions
"The Transformation of the Medieval Era: Selections from
Passions of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnus"
(yes, I selected and typed each paragraph just for this class)
that will give you a bird’s eye, flying overview of the progress
of the Western mind out of the Middle Ages and into the
Scientific era. It is only two pages, and I very much hope you
will take just a few moments to read it!
Also, you
might enjoy this Context Enrichment video (about 11 minutes):
The Renaissance: Was it a Thing?
Next week we tackle the first philosopher to develop a full
philosophical system since Plato and Aristotle—Rene Descartes.
He epitomizes the consequences of the deliberations of the early
modern mind. He is a man of his time. And he, as a devote
Catholic, essentially, puts the nail in the coffin of the
unified Christian culture of the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance!
BACK TO TOP
|
INTRODUCTION TO UNIT 9: The Rationalist!
In this unit we meet the ultimate rationalist in Rene Descartes.
He radically separates the body and mind, the material and the
spiritual, into two entirely separate substances—forms of
reality—that have no contact with one another and gives primacy
to the rational mind. This dualist position was to split asunder
the way we think about the world—no longer as an integrated
whole, but as two separate realms. In doing so he provided
critical impetus to the growing worldview that there is a
mechanistic universe that runs entirely by natural laws, and, we
can explore this universe through science without reference to
the spiritual or religious sensibilities.
Descartes was born in 1596 in France. When he was one year old,
his mother died. His father Joachim was a member of the
Parliament. In 1606, at the age of 10, he entered the Jesuit
College where he was introduced to mathematics and physics,
including Galileo's work. By the age of 20 he had graduated and
went on to a degree and license in law from the University of
Poitiers. He was brilliant and essentially a child-prodigy.
In his book, Discourse On The Method, he says "I entirely
abandoned the study of letters. Resolving to seek no knowledge
other than that of which could be found in myself or else in the
great book of the world, I spent the rest of my youth traveling,
visiting courts and armies, mixing with people of diverse
temperaments and ranks, gathering various experiences, testing
myself in the situations which fortune offered me, and at all
times reflecting upon whatever came my way so as to derive some
profit from it."
On a night November 1619, Descartes had a vision that a divine
spirit revealed to him a new philosophy. From this he had
formulated analytical geometry and the idea of applying the
mathematical method to philosophy. He concluded from his vision
that the pursuit of science would prove to be, for him, the
pursuit of true wisdom and a central part of his life's work.
Descartes also saw very clearly that all truths were linked with
one another, so that finding a fundamental truth and proceeding
with logic would open the way to all science. This basic truth,
Descartes found quite soon: his famous “Cogito ergo sum.”
How ironic that he received in a vision this idea that
the pursuit of science was the pursuit of true wisdom!
BACK TO TOP
|
INTRODUCTION TO UNIT 10: Working through
Descartes’ philosophical dualism
The seventeenth century saw the rise of science as Galileo took
up where Copernicus left off and laid the foundations for the
modern experimental method. In this century we saw Descartes
grappling with what could count as true knowledge in the face of
rising materialism and the questioning that it brought of God’s
place in this mechanistic and apparently deterministic universe.
With the exception of Hume however, each of the Continental
Rationalist and British Empiricists, like both Galileo and
Newton, retained their belief in God while finding a place for
empiricism and our senses in the world he had created. The
British Empiricists, and Kant, even retained a touch of
rationalism in their philosophies. Remember, this was the
Baroque period, filled with seemingly irreconcilable tensions.
By the eighteenth century “Confidence in human progress, akin
to the biblical faith in humanity’s spiritual evolution and
future consummation, was so central to the modern world view
that it notably increased with the decline of Christianity.”
“But regardless of what attitude was maintained toward
Christianity, the conviction that man was steadily and
inevitably approaching entrance into a better world, that man
himself was being progressively improved and perfected through
his own efforts, constituted one of the most characteristic,
deep-seated, and consequential principles of modern
sensibility”(Passions p. 322-323).
“In Descartes’ vision, science, progress, reason,
epistemological certainty, and human identity were all
inextricably connected with each other and with the conception
of an objective, mechanistic universe; and upon this synthesis
was founded the paradigmatic character of the modern mind”
(Passions p. 280).
Yet no sooner had Descartes laid out his vision than the
empiricist took up his ideas and began to dissect them within
the paradoxical nature of the time, sometimes building on
Descartes, sometimes refuting him, retaining mechanistic
worldview while find a place for belief in God. They
particularly pushed back against Descartes dualism, since, if
mind and body were two entirely different substances, it seemed
impossible for them to function together as they obviously do in
this world. Connecting in the pineal gland, as Descartes
suggested, seem an entirely unsatisfactory and ad hoc solution.
In this unit we consider the solutions the British Empiricist
proposed to the problem of mind, body, and knowledge. Your SF is
a triplet of short primary source reading from Locke, Berkeley,
and Hume. In the next unit, we find Immanuel Kant attempting to
synthesize their many ideas into the next great philosophical
system.
BACK TO TOP
|
INTRODUCTION TO UNIT 11: Kantian
Philosophy
The last great philosophical system of the modern age.
As we saw in Unit 9, Descartes is considered the Father
of Modern Philosophy because he was the first
philosopher since the Classical Period to try to develop
a full philosophical system. In a way he kicked off the
serious search for what can be constituted as knowledge
in the face of the rising questioning of past paradigms
and the increasing accuracy of empiricism. It is
probably safe to say that Kant represents the final
hurrah, so to speak, of that search. One can almost
guess that Kant’s brilliant, but ridiculously complex
work, may have served to point out that the quest to
retain rationalism and faith as sure forms of knowledge
was rather futile. “Kant was too intimate with
Newtonian science and its triumphs to doubt that man had
access to certain knowledge. Yet he felt as well the
force of Hume’s relentless analysis of the human mind.
He too had come to distrust the absolute pronouncements
on the nature of the world for which a purely rational
speculative metaphysics had been pretending competence…”
(Passions p. 342)
It seems clear though, that no matter how faithful
Kant, and Locke and Berkeley too, were attempting to be
to empiricism, they simply could not retain a place for
God, Christian faith, and morality, without turning to
rationalism. Kant thought that since we can’t
experience God, and laws such as causality, time,
and space, they clearly must be a priori “conditions of
the human mind.” Locke’s thinking was not so clearly
developed, but certainly similar. Berkeley just leaped
straight to everything being in the mind of God. And
Hume, for all his empiricism, still had to come up with
sensations and reflections in the mind to explain making
sense of the world. Abandoning rationalism all together
seemed to portend the loss of a place in the world for
God—and offered little basis for morality.
Thus, Kant succeeded in synthesizing the work of the
Continental Rationalists and British Empiricists into a
cohesive whole. “…he agrees with Hume and the
empiricists that all our knowledge of the world comes
from our sensations. But...he stretches out his hand to
the rationalist—in our reason there are also decisive
factors that determine how we perceive the world
around us”(SW p. 321). Yet he stands on the cusp of the
triumph of empiricism. Reason—rationalism—that we have
followed throughout the semester as knowledge of the
mind, now becomes entirely identified with empiricism—as
part of a modern meaning that all of us now understand:
“…based on facts [empirical] or reason and not on
emotions or feelings…having the ability to reason or
think about things clearly” (Merriam-Webster).
Your DW this week will help you work through the main
body of Kant’s philosophical system, while the Special
Focus will give you some insight (I hope) into his ideas
on morality as “practical postulates.” You will love
the “categorical imperatives”—a rather complex way of
stating the Golden Rule, as Sophie points out. You
should definitely watch the Three Minute Philosophy
video—it is a remarkably good explanation of Kant’s
moral philosophy.
BACK TO TOP
|
INTRODUCTION TO
UNIT 12: Romanticism and Hegel
Romanticism – one of two streams of 18th century culture
The Enlightenment period was one of a rationalist based
empiricism—and by the end of the 1800’s we see the rational
and empirical mind thoroughly integrated into an
increasingly science-based and materialistic worldview. It
was against this worldview that the Romanticist struggled,
believing that it left out a substantial portion of human
cognition and turned humanity into an objective observer and
a mechanistic being. They sought to preserve and explore the
subjective nature of the human experience in, as Alberto
lists the catchwords: feeling, imagination, experience, and
yearning. “From the complex matrix of the Renaissance
had issued forth two distinct streams of culture, two
temperaments or general approaches to human existence
characteristic of the Western mind. One emerged in the
Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment and stressed
rationality, empirical science, and a skeptical secularism.
The other was its polar complement, sharing common roots in
the Renaissance and classical Greco-Roman culture (and in
the Reformation as well), but tending to express just those
aspects of human experience suppressed by the
Enlightenment’s overriding spirit of rationalism. (Passions
p. 366)
Thus the Romantic sensibility advanced new standards
and values for human knowledge. Through the self-creating
power of imagination and will, the human being could body
forth unborn realities, penetrate invisible but altogether
real levels of being, comprehend nature and history and the
cosmos’s unfolding—indeed, participate in the very process
of creation. A new epistemology was claimed both possible
and necessary. And so the limits of knowledge established
by Locke, Hume, and the positivist side of Kant were boldly
defied by the idealists and romantics of the
post-Enlightenment. (Passions p. 371)
It is in this world of Romanticism that Georg W.F. Hegel
develops his historical philosophical method in an effort to
encompass every aspect of reality—human thought, history,
nature, the divine reality itself, through a conception of
reality as the interplay of opposites (remind you of a Greek
pre-Socratic?)
Whereas for most of the history of Western philosophy
from Aristotle onward, the defining essence of opposites was
that they were logically contradictory and mutually
exclusive, for Hegel all opposites are logical necessary and
mutually implicated elements in a larger truth. Truth is
thus radically paradoxical. Yet for Hegel the human mind in
its highest development was fully capable of comprehending
such truth. In contrast to Kant’s more circumscribed view,
Hegel possessed a profound faith in human reason, believing
it was ultimately grounded in the divine reason
itself….Hegel saw human reason as fundamentally an
expression of a universal Spirit or Mind (Geist), through
the power of which, as in love, all opposites could be
transcended in a higher synthesis. (Passions p. 379)
[This is a very "Greek", rather than Enlightenment, view of
human reason]
BACK TO TOP
|
INTRODUCTION TO
UNIT 13:
Kierkegaard and Marx
Kierkegaard and Marx: The demise (temporary) of metaphysics.
As we leave the Enlightenment and Romanticism behind, we
gradually move away from the “modern mind” to the
“post-modern mind” and the grand metaphysics of the past
2000 years. My World of Ideas dictionary defines
postmodernism as “the rejection of intrinsic meaning and
reality, the repudiation of progress and cultural cohesion,
and an ironic embrace of ambiguity….” While it could be
said that Marx found some intrinsic meaning in his material
factors and relationships, Kierkegaard found none in our
existential situation—meaning is meaning only for oneself.
He is considered the father of existentialism. In
Sophie’s World we are approaching the last chapters,
which will take Sophie and Alberto on a rather wild
adventure. We the readers will take a passage through the
postmodern period to our current global world. Tarnus does
the same in Passions:
“We now approach the last stages of our narrative.
What remains for us is to scan that trajectory taken by the
modern mind as it developed from the foundations and
premises of the modern world view just examined. For
perhaps the most momentous paradox concerning the character
of the modern era was the curious manner in which its
progress during the centuries following the Scientific
Revolution and the Enlightenments brought Western man
unprecedented freedom, power, expansion, breadth of
knowledge, depth of insight, and concrete success, a yet
simultaneously served—first subtly and later critically—to
undermine the human being’s existential situation on
virtually every front: metaphysical and cosmological,
epistemological, psychological, and finally even biological”
(Passions p. 325)
“The peculiar phenomenon of contradictory consequences
ensuing from the same intellectual advance was visible from
the start of the modern era with Copernicus’s dethroning of
the Earth as the center of creation. In the same instant
that man liberated himself from the geocentric illusion of
virtually all previous generations of mankind, he also
effected for himself an unprecedentedly fundamental cosmic
displacement. The universe no longer centered on man; his
cosmic position was neither fixed nor absolute. And each
succeeding step in the Scientific Revolution and its
aftermath added new dimensions to the Copernican effect,
further propelling that liberation while intensifying that
displacement” (Passions p. 326)
BACK TO TOP
|
INTRODUCTION TO
UNIT 14:
Darwin and Freud
Riding the naturalistic currents.
The naturalistic currents of the middle of the 19 th
century were flowing strong and Darwin and Freud were riding
them. They, like their contemporaries, relied exclusively on
natural phenomena, much as the Greek natural philosophers
did, more than 2000 years before, but now there were no
rationalistic speculations about those phenomena, or any
hint of divine revelation. As naturalists Darwin concluded
that humans are simply a biological phenomenon and Freud
undermined the rational certainty that has prevailed
throughout Western philosophical history, even in the
interpretation of empiricism: “For man could no longer
assume his mind’s interpretation of the world to be a
mirrorlike reflection of things as they actually were. The
mind itself might be the alienating principle. Moreover,
the insights of Freud and the depth psychologists radically
increased the sense that man’s thinking about the world was
governed by nonrational factors that he could neither
control nor be fully conscious of. From Hume and Kant
through Darwin, Marx, Freud and beyond, an unsettling
conclusion was becoming inescapable: Human though was
determined, structured, and very probably distorted by a
multitude of overlapping factors…. In the end, the human
mind could not be relied upon as an accurate judge of
reality. The original Cartesian certainty, that which served
as foundation for the modern confidence in human reason, was
no longer defensible” (Passions p. 353).
“..the belief that the human mind could attain or
should attempt an objective metaphysical overview as
traditionally understood was virtually relinquished.” “There
was no all-encompassing or transcendent or intrinsic
“deeper” order in the universe to which the human mind could
legitimately lay claim” (Passions p. 354).
“With both philosophy and religion in such problematic
condition, it was science alone that seemed to rescue the
modern mind from pervasive uncertainty. Science achieved a
golden age in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
with extraordinary advances in all its major branches….”
“The optimism of the age was directly tied to confidence in
science and in its powers to improve indefinitely the state
of human knowledge, health, and general welfare” (Passions
p. 355)
Your DW this week will help you work through both Darwin
and Freud. Like Kierkegaard and Marx, I hope you will see
Darwin and Freud in the larger context mentioned above, and
think deeply about the affects their naturalism had on our
contemporary times.
SPECIAL FOCUS: Darwin’s
Dangerous Idea—Nova video
This video is just under 2 hours long but I hope
however, that you might find time to enjoy this
wonderful first part of a 7 part Nova special on
evolution. It tells Darwin’s story, his voyage on
the Beagle, his research, his marriage to his first
cousin, his supportive and rascally brother, the
loss of his beloved daughter Annie, his meticulous
scientific approach to his work, his fears for its
implications, and his eventual burial with great
honors in Westminster Abbey, near the grave of Isaac
Newton. It also gives detailed descriptions of
evolutionary processes along the way. Here is the
link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCOc7Xqj-kQ
The
HMS Beagle at anchor on the South American Coast.
Darwin sketches of the Galapagos finches
BACK TO TOP
|
INTRODUCTION TO UNIT 15: Existentialism
and Postmodernism.
As the implications of the science of Newton (law driven
mechanistic universe), Darwin (evolution by natural selection,
not by design), and Freud (we are bundles of primeval id) begin
to sink in, so does the realization that Nietzsche came to:
“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How
shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What
was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned
has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off
us?”
Nietzsche was not making a cosmological statement. He was
reflecting (and setting) the mood of his time—as all great
philosophers do:
“As the twentieth century
advanced, modern consciousness found itself caught up in an
intensely contradictory process of simultaneous expansion and
contraction. Extraordinary intellectual and psychological
sophistication was accompanied by a debilitating sense of anomie
and malaise. An unprecedented broadening of horizons and
exposure to the experience of others coincided with a private
alienation of no less extreme proportions” (Passions p. 388)
“The anguish and alienation of
twentieth-century life were brought to full articulation as the
existentialist addressed the most fundamental, naked concerns of
human existence—suffering and death, loneliness and dread,
guilt, conflict, spiritual emptiness and ontological insecurity,
the void of absolute values or universal contexts, the sense of
cosmic absurdity, the frailty of human reason, the tragic
impasse of the human conditions. Man was condemned to be free”
(Passions p 389).
Man was condemned to be free. Alberto quotes Sartre:
“Condemned because he has not created himself—and is
nevertheless free. Because having once been hurled into the
world, he is responsible for everything he does” (p.451)There
are no external values—we must make choices throughout our
lives. We are thrust on the stage of life with no lines, no
prompters.
Next week we will see the stunning success of the empiricism of
science as it penetrates both macro and micro world mysteries
and the resurgence of the value of subjective experience in
redefining our understanding of ourselves, our world, our
universe as we consider a path to the future. The grand finale!
For this course at least!
BACK TO TOP |
·
INTRODUCTION TO UNIT 16: Being Human in a
Vast Universe
Your assigned chapter on the Big Bang, and the Discussion
Worksheet for this unit, are intended to move your philosophical
mind into the vast and essentially incomprehensible context of
the universe as we have come to know it today—with all the
implications for our human and planetary existence. We have only
known of the mind-numbing size of the universe for roughly a
hundred years out of the several hundred thousand that humans
have been on Earth. One hundred years! That means that most of
the philosophers we have studied this semester knew nothing of
the Big Bang, the galaxies, the true nature of the stars and
their role in birthing ourselves and our world. Their
perspective was very “Earth-centric.” They had no clue of what
science would eventually reveal.
“We have the post Copernican dilemma of being a peripheral and
insignificant inhabitant of a vast cosmos, and the
post-Cartesian dilemma of being a conscious, purposeful and
personal subject confronting an unconscious, purposeless, and
impersonal universe, with these compounded by the post-Kantian
dilemma of there being no possible means by which the human
subject can know the universe in its essence. We are evolved
from, embedded in, and defined by a reality that is radically
alien to our own, and moreover cannot every be directly
contacted in cognition” (Passions p. 420)
[You will see this also expressed in Hilde’s father’s discussion
of why we can never know the universe as it is.]
“Our psychological and spiritual predispositions are absurdly at
variance with the world revealed by our scientific method. We
seem to receive two messages from our existential situation: on
the one hand, strive, give oneself to the quest for meaning and
spiritual fulfillment; but on the other hand, know that the
universe, of whose substance we are derived, is entirely
indifferent to that quest, soulless in character and nullifying
in its effects. We are at once aroused and crushed. For
inexplicably, absurdly, the cosmos is inhuman, yet we are not.
The situation is profoundly unintelligible” (Passions p. 420).
But Tarnus gives us hope:
“And why is there evident now such a widespread and constantly
growing collective impetus in the Western mind to articulate a
holistic and participatory world view, visible in virtually
every field? The collective psyche seems to be in the grip of a
powerful archetypal dynamic in which the long-alienated modern
mind is breaking through, out of the contractions of its birth
process…to rediscover its intimate relationship with nature and
the larger cosmos” (Passions p. 440).
[And perhaps even with the divine!]
SPECIAL
FOCUS: The Awakening Universe
Your Special Focus video, Awakening the Universe is one
expression of this impetus to “articulate a holistic and
participatory world view” and to “rediscover [our] intimate
relationship with nature and the larger cosmos.
I look forward to our final Discussion Forum where we will share
our ideas on what it means to be human in a vast and perplexing
universe! Must our rational, subjective, spiritual selves be
forever opposed to our empirical, objective, physical selves?
BACK TO TOP |
|