Introduction to Philosophy

However, these answers were not so much explanations in our modern sense as they were “Mythos” (e.g. Narratives which attempt to unify experiences into a single coherent whole, often employing supernatural agents and forces which are believed to underlie the visible- e.g. Gods & Goddesses, magic)

Nothing is more natural than for humans to form a narrative out of various disparate experiences in order to make sense of things, gain perspective and conserve cognitive resources. For instance, when you come home after your classes and your mother asks to tell her about your day, what do you do? You turn your ‘day’ into a story.

“Well, I got up a little late, so I rushed out the door without the paper that was due today. But I couldn’t come back to get it because I had a test in my first class. So, after my first class was over, I went to the library to see if I could print out my paper from my Dropbox account. At first, I couldn’t get it to work, and I was worried that I would be late for my second class, but at the last minute I figured it out. So, I got to class with my paper and the professor told us that he was extending the deadline. So, I didn’t even need that stupid paper after all! After all of that I decided I needed to treat myself so I got a smoothie before meeting with my study group. Then gave Becky a ride home after we were done.

Now notice what you’ve done. You took all the experiences of the day, focused on some, filtered out others and turned the day into a coherent narrative whole. (For instance, you did not mention the fact that you breathed in and then breathed out. Nor how many times you blinked your eyes.) This narrative process is not unlike what goes on in myths. Mythos take seemingly unrelated events and turns them into a coherent, narrative, whole. And this is a very helpful way of remembering. Humans can remember stories far better than they can remember mere chronicles of events or lists of names. (Think of all the characters in “Game of Thrones.” Could you ever keep them all straight in your head of there wasn’t an interesting story relating each of them to one another?)

So, the ancient Greeks had a lot of myths with which they structured and ordered their experience and understanding of the world.

Example: "Why do the seasons change?" A: Demeter/Persephone Myth

Note: Mythos-narratives were not meant to be testable hypotheses. Note further, two important features of the Greek Myths:

a. These answers to questions usually invoked supernatural powers for natural phenomena.

b. Since these were answers held to be "revealed to mortals by the Gods," they carried Divine Authority. If one questioned or challenged these beliefs one would be in danger of execution or exile for the sin/crime of blasphemy or heresy.

The reason for condemning the heretics was because they were considered to be questioning the God’s authority. The political climate was not liberal since the survival of the community depended on everyone conforming to the same rules. The city-states of ancient Greece were like lifeboats of civilization outside of which a decent human life (family, friends, creature comforts, security, etc.) was impossible. The last thing you want in a lifeboat is someone “rocking the boat.”

Back to Thales-

He was curious about the notion of change. For a change to occur, there must be a subject of change, that is, a thing which undergoes the change. In any change there must be "something" which is changed. But, if this is true then every change presents us with a paradox. There is that which is identical with the “something that is changed” and thus remains constant throughout the change. And there is which was not present before the change, and thus is NOT identical with that which remains constant throughout the change.

Can these two things be the SAME “something?” Weird when you think about it.

Let’s be more concrete.

Example: Grass to Milk-

When a cow eats grass, it changes the grass into milk.

Grass= Green, solid, leafy
Milk = While, Liquid, milky[3]

A picture containing grass, cow, outdoor, sky

Description automatically generated

A close-up of some grass

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

A glass of milk

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

But:

Grass= Green, solid, leafy ≠ Milk = While, Liquid, milky

That which IS (grass) becomes that which IS NOT and that which IS NOT (milk) becomes that which IS. Weird when you think about it. How can something be what it isn’t? But that seems to be what it required in every change.

Thales reasons that there must be some enduring stuff (substratum[4], substance -stand under-) which undergoes the change. The substance supports the apparent qualities we see (green, solid, white, etc.), but while these apparent qualities ”change,” the substance remains constant. That which “stands under” the green, solid, leafy grass is the same stuff that later stands under the while, liquid, milky milk. It is somehow just configured differently.

And change is going on all the time and everywhere. It’s ubiquitous. So, there must be a basic substance of everything. What could this basic substance of everything be, which underlies all reality?

Well… you already have his answer.

Hypothesizes that “everything is water.”

We suppose he chose water because he was already working within a frame framework of four basic elements (Earth, Fire, Water and Air) and water seems most versatile and most plentiful of them all; it assumes all states of known matter- solid, liquid or gas. There’s lots of it and it even falls out of the sky half the time.[5]

Since he “thought it up all by himself” and it was not given to him by the Gods, he is not claiming the theory to be a myth with Divine authority; it had no more authority than that of an ordinary human.

Counter-examples

He shared his epiphany with his students. But it was not a big success. His students, in turn, challenged him. They pointed out counter-examples. For instance, they noted that the “dry cliffs” there in Ionia could not possibly be water since they were dry and water is wet.

Counter-examples (to a theory): Facts or observations which are incompatible with the truth of theory and thereby show the theory to be wrong, incomplete or otherwise flawed.

They (students/successors) took on the challenge coming up with a better account.

Anaximander: (6th century BC) – the basic substance is “the Boundless”; Apeiron.

Anaximander held that the basic substance would have to be MORE basic than water, or air or earth or fire. It would have to be undetermined, so that it could take on the determinations of the more specific kinds of substances. Hence “the boundless” or “the undefined.”

This in turn was criticized as too vague.

Democritus: (ca. 460-370 BC) the basic substance of everything is minuscule particles so small they could not be divided into anything smaller. He called “no-splits” –atoms. Change is the result of the composition or dissolution of aggregates of atoms as they move in the void of space.

It’s worth nothing that it was not that far (intellectually, temporally or even geographically) from Thales’ “Everything is water.” to Democritus and atomic theory.

Back to Thales-

Thales considered founder of Westerner philosophy NOT because his theory was so well received. In fact, it was shot down almost immediately. The importance of Thales is that he presented a theory that could be shot down. And he specified the criteria by which it could be shot down. Thales is considered founder of Westerner philosophy because starts the philosophical conversation and set up the rules for the dialogue; (Logos vs. Mythos as mode of explanation.)

Logos is the Greek word for “Word, Law, Principle, or Meaning[6].” These Greeks were seeking to understand the universe, confident that it obeyed/exhibited a rational order or law. Philosophy and science then are means to discover this rational structure through dialectical reasoning and argument. I am contrasting attempts to understand the world through imaginative narratives and irrational magic (mythos) with attempts to understand the world through rational investigation and testable hypotheses (Logos).

“Logos”

Logos is the Greek word for “word” “law” principle. The Greeks were committed to the idea that rational principle (Logos) governs and develops the universe. And this rational principle that is in the universe is also in the mind of humans. This is what makes understanding possible. Philosophy is born out of this commitment to discover the rational universe rationally.

Testable hypotheses supported by reasons, and subject to critical review and evidential revision.
No divine authority is claimed or invoked. Therefore, questioning the adequacy of any human-generated explanation is not an impious or sinfully prideful act.

(Also note that Thales proposes natural explanations for natural phenomena.)

Philosophical Methodology (4 steps)

1. Theory Postulation

2. Justification

3. Critical Review

4. Revision (if necessary)

NB: But note, #4 loops us back to #1. The revised theory is a new instance of “Theory Postulation” which calls for new Justification, further Critical Review, potentially new Revisions, etc..

This loop-around process is called a Dialectic.

Dialectic: The art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments

What Thales, and philosophy, offer is a different sort of/mode of rationalizing our disparate experiences from Mythos.

But this is not just the methodology for philosophy. It is also the methodology for science.

Philosophical methodology = Scientific methodology (At least in broad outline)

Philosophy and Science

But if Philosophy and Science are similar with regard to methodology, how are the different? Well, for a long time they were not really different. For the better part of Western history, from the time of Thales onward, what is called “science” today would have been considered natural philosophy. Aristotle, for instance, did not think he was doing anything essentially different when he wrote Physics than what we was doing when he wrote Metaphysics.

However, we see a distinct separation between the two with the advent of Modern Science (and Modern Philosophy). Today they do represent distinct disciplines, Philosophy and Science. So, how are the different?

Both use the same dialectical method, but they are different in terms of the sorts of questions each seeks to answer.

Scientific questions ≠ Philosophical questions

Science seeks to answer questions that are empirical (observational) in nature;

If one can answer a question by doing an empirical investigation, then it is not a philosophical question; it is a scientific question. (I am conceiving of Science very broadly so as to include history and the social sciences.)

Empirical: Observational. Refers to what can be known through sensory experience.

Non-empirical Questions

What about questions which cannot be answered by empirical investigation? Are all non-empirical questions necessarily “Philosophical?”

No.

Some non-empirical questions are simply nonsense questions.

Examples: "How high is 'up'?" "What is the color if love?" “What is east of the moon?”

Note, that these are indeed non-empirical questions; no amount of empirical investigation could hope to answer them.

However…

The only person who would seriously ask such a question and hope for an answer is someone who literally doesn’t know what he or she is talking about. (e.g. My four-year-old grandnephew.)

In these cases, at least, it is easy to see that they are nonsense questions because any and all answers are equally silly.

EX:

Q: How high is up?

A: 6 Feet

EX:

Q: “What is the color of love?”

A: “Mauve.”

All answers are equally ridiculous.

Category Mistakes

These non-empirical questions can be labeled “category mistakes.” One is asking to know the height of something that does not belong to the category of “Things with a Height” or the color of something which does not belong to the category of “colored things.” The questions themselves are conceptually flawed as they presume category membership that does not in fact obtain.

Some philosophers would claim that many/most/all questions which cannot be answered by science are in fact literally non-sense questions.

Example: What is the meaning of life? – Is this too a “category mistake? Perhaps “life” is not in the category of “things with a meaning.” In this case, the right response is not to try to answer the question, but rater explain why one should simply stop asking it.[7]

This view gained wide acceptance, even among philosophers, in the first part of the 20^th century and some philosophers hold this view today. (I am not one,)

However, this is NOT the traditional view. Traditionally philosophy seeks to answer non-empirical questions which are taken to be meaningful and important and which can and do admit of answers, some of which are better, more reasonable, than others.

What would such a question look like? Well..

Example: “Is there a God?”

Note that, unlike obviously non-sense questions for which all answers are equally ridiculous, the problem here seems to be there are TWO possible, meaningful answers: “Yes” and “No.” What remains to be seen is which, if either, of the perfectly sensible possible answers is true (or can garner greater rational support).

Philosophy’s Subject Matter: Branches of Philosophy:[8]

1. Natural Theology: that branch of philosophy which seeks to answer questions about the existence and nature of God.

NB: This must be distinguished from Reveled Theology. Reveled Theology is also in inquiry into the existence and nature of God (Theo–ology), but reveled theology attempts to answer these questions relying on revelation. Reveled Theology usually takes as a matter of faith that God has been supernaturally reveled to us (through sacred scriptures, a holy institution, the history of a chosen people, etc.) But since it is a faith-based method for trying to answer such questions, it differed importantly from Natural Theology.

2. Metaphysics: that branch of philosophy which seeks to answer questions about the types and structure of existence.

Metaphysics talks about existence and reality in the broadest terms.

Examples of metaphysical questions:

Do immaterial things exist?
Is there a soul? /What is a soul?
What sort of existence do rainbows have? Unicorns? Sherlock Holmes? Santa Clause? Beethoven’s 9^th Symphony? Triangles?
In what way can any of these things be said to “exist?”

These questions are philosophical questions because answers cannot be secured (merely) through observation, though often science can contribute to answering these questions. A responsible philosophy of mind must be informed by current scientific knowledge of brains and cognition, for instance.

Example of Metaphysical Theory:

Physicalism: the view that the only things which exist are material objects and material forces.

While this might look unproblematic at first, it is not that easy a story to make out though. Consider:

What about Rainbows? (They are not physical. They are located nowhere in space.)
What about shadows? (Located in space, but not three-dimensional.)
What about corporations? (Surely, they “exist” in some sense.)
What about Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony?
What about Sherlock Holmes?

Note: This Physicalism is NOT itself a scientific theory. One cannot prove by empirical means that “immaterial objects” do not exist. After all, what can a scientist do qua science, except look?. But the fact that we do not see non-physical objects (or hear them, or taste them, etc.) is not itself sufficient reason to think they don’t exist because we wouldn’t see them even if they did exist. They are not empirical items. Therefore, any reasons one might offer for adopting or rejecting this metaphysical view would have to be philosophical reasons, not scientific reasons.

Now, you might argue: “Well, we can explain everything we need to explain simply by appealing to the things that physics talks, about, that is, physical objects and physical forces. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose anything else exists.” OK. That’s a fair enough point. But, even if it were true that we can explain everything that needs to be explained in physicalist terms, (and I have my doubts about that…scroll up.) this argument for Physicalism is itself a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

3. Epistemology: branch of philosophy that seeks to answer questions about the nature of knowledge, truth and justification.

Example of epistemological questions:

Is observation and experiment a reliable way of coming to know reality?
Is science a good way of coming to know (all) objective truth?

Note: The above are not themselves scientific questions. Could we use science (run an experiment, make an observation or take a poll, etc.) to prove science is reliable means of gaining truth?

No.

Science assumes that observation and experiments are good ways of coming to know reality. Therefore, there is a circularity problem because science must use an experiment to prove the value of experiments. (One is beginning by assuming what one is trying to “prove.”) This is like writing one’s own “letter of recommendation” and assuring the prospective employer that she can believe every word of it because you are honest (as you say in your letter).

– Begging the Question: This is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

– In other words, the arguer is assuming without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question.

– Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle.

– EX: Thoughts are not part of the physical world, since thoughts are in their nature non-physical.

Must have a philosophical discussion to assess the best way of coming to know reality.

Example of Epistemological Theory: (perhaps)

1. Science provides us with (the most) useful theories.

2. Useful theories are true theories.

Therefore:

3. Science provides us with true theories.

But again, this is NOT itself a scientific theory, but rather a philosophical one, more specifically, an epistemological one. This is a philosophical theory known as Pragmatism (–well.. sort of. This is a very watered-down version.)

Further, some might question premise 2. There seems nothing contradictory about a useful, false theory. Haven’t we seen many useful false theories in the past?

4. Ethics: branch of philosophy that seeks to answer questions about right human conduct.

Example of Ethical Question:

What should I do?

Note: Ethical questions are not empirical and cannot be settled by modern science alone. Science can tell us everything we could possibly want to know about human cloning except whether we OUGHT to do it or not. No amount of observation of the world can tell us how the world OUGHT to be. Only how the world IS.[9] The sciences of human conduct (Psychology, Sociology, History, Marketing) are descriptive and/or predictive – not prescriptive.) Therefore, ethical questions, while meaningful and admitting of better or worse answers, are not empirical/scientific. [10]

5. Aesthetics: that branch of philosophy that seeks to answer questions about art and beauty.

Examples of Aesthetic Questions:

Is a load of bricks dumped in the corner of an art gallery a “work of art?” (Depends on what art is/can be.)

Is beauty in the “eye of the beholder” or can one be wrong about one’s judgments of beauty?

Whatever your answers to the above questions, they are philosophical/aesthetic positions. One can only defend them via philosophical argumentation.

Example of and Aesthetic Theory (of Art):

Institutional Theory of Art: To be a work of art is NOT to have any specific set objective qualities, but rather to enjoy a certain social standing, So, for instance, when I marry, I undergo no physical change, but my relation to the community changes. I have different social identity; I am given a new role, privileges and expectations. On a similar view of art, under the right circumstances, a load of bricks can become a “work of art” if it undergoes the right “induction” procedure. This might even be ritualized such as at a gallery opening or "unveiling."

6. Logic: that branch of philosophy that analyzes and evaluates arguments

(more on that later)

Relationship between Philosophy and Science:

Science and philosophy share methodology (methods of explanation -look at rules above); they do not share the questions. If the question is empirical (can be resolved by experiment, observation, etc.) then it belongs to science.[11]

Relationship between Philosophy and Religion:

Philosophy and religion share (many) questions, but do not share methodology. Both religion and philosophy seek to answer theological questions, metaphysical questions, epistemological questions, ethical questions, and even aesthetic questions. However, they do not seek to answer these questions via the same method.

Religion (at least the major Western Religions) begins from faith, a certain foundation, accepting a certain body of beliefs as truth that has been divinely revealed and that is not to be questioned. As a member of the faithful one is to hold these beliefs, not as tentative hypotheses, but rather without evidence or justification (Faith[12]).
Philosophy does not maintain any body of beliefs to be sacred or accepted without question.
Recall my earlier distinction between Natural Theology (which is a branch of philosophy) and Revealed Theology (which is NOT a branch of philosophy).

This has made for (continues to make for) some tension between Religion and Philosophy. They are working the same side if the street, so to speak.

Some Philosophers have criticized Religion as irrational superstition and uncritical, intellectual enslavement. (Consider Daniel Dennett’s et al. recent criticisms of religious belief. Albert Camus claims faith is “philosophical suicide.”)
Some Religious have criticized Philosophy as merely blasphemous human arrogance, ignoring or even denying the Author of Truth.
However, there have been some who believe that there need be no tension at all, and that, in fact, the two are mutually complementary. (e.g. Thomas Aquinas)

Operating Assumptions

If philosophy did have any operating assumptions they might be these:

1. Reality can be understood by or reality is understandable to humans. (It is possible for humans to make some sense of the world.)

2. Unaided human reason is capable of/sufficient for understanding (some of) reality.

Many religions, while accepting #1 deny #2 (see Mysticism)

Because Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic theologians thought that Reason was an independent means to (God’s) truth, The Catholic religious traditions are a little more open to the idea of philosophy (#2) than are Evangelical Protestant traditions (e.g. Calvinists).

Many Evangelical Protestant traditions deny #2, claiming that, since the intellect as well as the will, is in a fallen state, it too is corrupt and prone to sin and error. Therefore, Faith and the Grace of God are necessary for any adequate understanding of reality. They see themselves as true to St. Augustine’s claim that “understanding is the fruit of faith.”

“Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore, seek not to understand that thou mayest believe, but believe, that thou mayest understand.”[13] - Saint Aurelius Augustine (Augustine of Hippo), In Ioannis Evangelium[14]

[1] Short web resource for more detailed account: http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/110/1-presocratics.htm

[2]This traditional view has been challenged by some recently. See for instance “Thales – the ‘first philosopher’? A troubled chapter in the historiography of philosophy” by Lea Cantor in British Journal for the History of Philosophy, Published online: 29 Mar 2022

[3] A few years ago, a student pointed out to me another important contrast of properties. Grass is inedible and milk is nutritious. He suggested that this was among the reason the cow is considered sacred in native Indian religions. It accomplishes this miraculous change.

[4] Another term sometime used is “Hypostasis.” It literally means “that which lies beneath as basis or foundation.”

[5] "Thales, the founder of this school of philosophy [Ionian School], says the permanent entity is water (which is why he also propounded that the earth floats on water). Presumably he derived this assumption from seeing that the nutriment of everything is moist, and that heat itself is generated from moisture and depends upon it for its existence (and that from which a thing is generated is always its first principle). He derived his assumption, then, from this; and also from the fact that the seeds of everything have a moist nature, whereas water is the first principle of the nature of moist things." - Aristotle. "Book I 983b". Aristotle, Metaphysics

[6] Actually Logos is notoriously difficult to translate because is it was so broadly used in Greek.

[7] Twentieth Century philosophy Ludwig Wittgenstein suggests that the aim of philosophy is “to show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle” (PI 309).

[8] Other philosophers distinguish more or fewer branches. For instance, some distinguish only three branches: Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Axiology (value theory). Others consider Social/Political Philosophy a separate branch in its own right. It is really a matter of convenience/organization and the one I offer here is the scheme with which I am most comfortable.

[9] The 18^th Century Philosophy David Hume referred to this as the Naturalistic Fallacy. Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739):

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

Hume, David (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. London: John Noon. p. 335. Retrieved 2011-12-06.

[10]Side notes here. This presumes that observation alone cannot provide us with any understanding of natural purposes or functions of things, no evidence of “teleology.” This certainly is the view of many modern philosophers and scientists today, but while this may be an operating assumption of modern science, it is not a demonstrated scientific proof (nor could it be) and stands in need of philosophical defense. Further, this is a view that Aristotle, among many others, would have rejected.

[11] I have an ever increasing number of colleagues both here at FIU and within the broader professional community who would vehemently disagree with me on this. In fact, I will admit that one of the most rapidly growing areas of contemporary philosophy is called “Experimental Philosophy.” While I remain convinced that I am essentially correct here, the point of these remarks is to acquaint the student, unfamiliar with the discipline, with the nature of traditional philosophical method and subject matter. If after one has used my conceptual schema to achieve a perspective on philosophy, and later on, for good reason, chooses to push my conceptual ladder away (to barrow an image from Wittgenstein) so be it. I have yet to feel the need to do so myself.

[12] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

[13] “If we have understood this, thanks be to God; but if any has not sufficiently understood, man has done as far as he could: as for the rest, let him see whence he may hope to understand. As laborers outside, we can plant and water; but it is of God to give the increase. ‘My doctrine,’ saith He, ‘is not mine, but His that sent me.’ Let him who says he has not yet understood hear counsel. For since it was a great and profound matter that had been spoken, the Lord Christ Himself did certainly see that all would not understand this so profound a matter, and He gave counsel in the sequel. Dost thou wish to understand? Believe. For God has said by the prophet: ‘Except ye believe, ye shall not understand.’ To the same purpose what the Lord here also added as He went on ‘If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from myself.’ What is the meaning of this, ‘If any man be willing to do His will’? But I had said, if any man believe; and I gave this counsel: If thou hast not understood, said I, believe. For understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand; since, ‘except ye believe, ye shall not understand.’ Augustine (Tractate 29 on John 7.14-18):

[14] If you will indulge me a bit here, I would like to expand a bit on Augustine, belief, understanding and “seeing.”

John 6:40 “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day.”

Here in the Book of John, Jesus calls us to do two things. First, we must see Him. Second, we must believe. But in truth, the text says to see and to believe and does not prioritize which comes first; it merely distinguishes the two. There is a certain resonance here with Thomas Kuhn and the role that “paradigms” play in the interpretation of experience. Or the concept of the “blik” introduced by R. M. Hare in his response to Anthony Flew’s objection that theological “utterances’ were meaningless since they were unfalsifiable. Perhaps Augustine is right here, and to see beyond the veil of the appearance (of a merely human body of Jesus or the appearance of bread and wine in the consecrated host in the Roman Catholic tradition, etc.) and see Divinity, we must believe. What we “see” is certainly very often informed by, if not fully determined by, what we believe.