Philosophical ideas that everyone should know - Highbrow
So yesterday when I was exploring ProductHunt I found Highbrow, its a service which will send daily lessons on you email for a course.
The first lesson I joined is Philosophical ideas that everyone should know. So this is my notes about the same.
Episode 1: Cogito ergo sum
Cogito, ergo sum is Latin and translates to I think, therefore I am.
Considered by René Descartes in 17th century to throw away the traditional thought surrounding the medieval sciences.
In medieval times, great minds tried to “establish the sciences” on sensation alone. Descartes was concerned about this method because he believed it was prone to doubt. Instead, Descartes proposed a contrasting method of doubt. Using his method, he considered anything false that was susceptible to even the slightest doubt.
He thought that there was absolutely no doubt that he existed, so that must be an absolutely certain occurrence. He explains that all of the senses are subject to doubt, so they cannot be relied upon. In fact, he actually considers these beliefs false, not just unreliable.
However, in the second meditation, he wants to show the reader that even though all of the sensory perceptions are false, that does not mean that the individual does not exist, which might be a logical conclusion if all senses are false. He explains that if people can think, then they must exist (even if they cannot see, hear, feel, or smell). Regardless of whether what the reader is thinking is true or false, the fact that he or she is thinking at all is a sign that he or she exists.
Episode 2: Categorical imperative
From the perspective of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, lying is never an option, even when faced with a life and death decision. Telling the truth is a foundational part of morality.
Kantian ethics is a system of ethics based on responsibility. A categorical imperative is a statement with no conditions. It does not depend on the consequences of the action; it is just a command that should always be followed.
For example, there is a general rule that no one should steal. However, some argue that there may be an exception to this rule if stealing is the only way a child will avoid starvation, for example. However, for Kant, there are no exceptions. The rule is that no one should steal, so no one should steal under any circumstances.
An action is morally permitted if it accords with a rule that should apply to everyone on earth. For example, consider a maxim about the permissibility of lying. If everyone were allowed to lie all the time, it would be self-defeating; no one would be able to trust anyone else and society would fall apart. Kant would argue, then, that no one should lie because society would fail if everyone lied.
Kant also argued that people should never treat one another as a means to an end. Instead, each person should be treated as an end in him or herself. As a whole, Kant’s theories are known as a form of “critical philosophy.”
What Is The Categorical Imperative?
Episode 3: Plato’s Cave
Think about being imprisoned all your life in a cave. Your feet and hands are bound, and your head is placed so that you can’t look anywhere but straight ahead. The shadows on the wall produced by a constant burning fire are the only things you and your inmates have ever observed and the only idea you can discuss.
Plato, the philosopher, uses this analogy in the Allegory of the Cave. Plato’s concept of knowledge is complex and contains layers. For example, if your shackles were removed and you could walk around the cave, you would be awed by the fire at first. You would slowly begin to understand how it casts the shadows you have seen. Finally, you are released from the cave and can observe how the sun lights the world, providing a new level of understanding.
The cave signifies “the realm of becoming,” the part of our experience where nothing is perfect. Chained prisoners, referring to everyday people, have limited views, while the once prisoner is able to walk around the cave, he gains a better view of reality. Further, the world above the cave is “the realm of being,” or the world of truth inhabited by knowledge.
In Plato’s view, the known has to be pure, complete, and last forever. However, nothing in the world of life inside the cave stands up to this definition. Plato suggests another realm (outside the cave) that is perfect and unchanging. Plato suggests that there is a hierarchy of the knowledge. The highest is the Form of the Good (the sun), which creates the ultimate meaning for all the other forms and is the basis for their existence.
The perfect examples which make you realize this are:
Episode 4: Hume’s guillotine
In his Treatise of Human Nature, philosopher David Hume gives the classic formula for what is still a central question in the philosophy of morals: How do descriptive statements (an ‘is’ statement) so quickly turn into prescriptive statements (a ‘should’ statement)? Hume argues that these two things should not be connected so closely. That is, he argues that “is” statements cannot lead to the morally-related conclusions that are often derived from these statements.
For example, consider the following two “is” statements: 1) Sally is stealing from Paul 2) Paul is harmed by theft. Many automatically jump to the conclusion that Sally should not steal from Paul because Sally should not harm Paul. Hume argues, however, that this conclusion is not a logical outcome of these two statements. That is, he argues that humans insert the premise that Sally should not harm Paul, when, in fact, that premise does not exist except by some moral code.
The issue that Hume pointed out was due to two strong, conflicting beliefs. First, humans accept that we live in a world of objective facts. However, if we make ethical judgments, we are stating something true about the world, which would be true no matter how we felt about it. These beliefs seem to conflict with Hume’s law. Hume was aware of the weight of his discovery and was concerned that “all the vulgar systems of morality” would be destroyed. The unbridgeable chasm between fact and value that Hume exposes makes the status of ethical claims doubtful, and in this way serves as the foundation of moral philosophy.
Hume’s law (or Hume’s guillotine) is usually conflated with a similar but separate view introduced by philosopher G.E. Moore in Principia Ethica (1903). Moore claimed that earlier scholars committed what he termed the “naturalistic fallacy.” This idea involves confusing ethical and natural concepts; thus “good” may be mistaken to mean the same as “pleasurable.” Moore alleged, however, that one should still ask whether the pleasurable is also good.
The Is / Ought Problem - Youtube
Episode 5: Aristotelian and mathematical logic
Lasting through the 19th century, the science of logic took the path Aristotle had set it on more than 2000 years before. Syllogism became popular as a way to reason. Syllogism consists of two premises and a conclusion. The conclusion is directly derived from the premises. For example: “All men are mortal; humans are men; therefore, humans are mortal.”
The example given is a deductive argument. Here the conclusion is the logical result of the premises, and the argument seems “valid.” When the premises of logical arguments are true, then the conclusion is also true. The end of a deductive argument cannot go beyond the facts in the premises. As such, one cannot accept the premises and deny the conclusion.
Induction is another way to reach the conclusion from the premises. In inductive arguments, a general principle is taken from observing the world. For example, observing animals giving birth may lead to the assumption that all mammals give birth to their young. This argument is not deductively valid because the premises could be true and the conclusion false (for example, some mammals lay eggs). So, inductive reasoning goes beyond its premises in a way that deductive arguments do not. They are generalizations used to predict an outcome.
The philosopher David Hume claims that there are no valid grounds to use induction. This reasoning, he suggests, relies on assuming that the future will mimic the past if conditions are similar. However, nothing exists to support this. Similarly, people try to prove induction through past successes. But the assumption that something will always work relies only on past success, so the argument ultimately fails. In Hume’s view, humans cannot prevent inductive reasoning, but he insists that this thinking is not rational. Humes alleges that the “problem of induction” mainly affects science, but it applies to generalizations across many areas of thought.
Episode 6: The Liar Paradox
The “liar paradox” started when the Greek Epimenides, a Cretan, stated, “All Cretans are liars.” Another, simpler version of this idea is “This sentence is false,” which is false if true, and true if false. Basically, it is impossible to tell whether the sentence or the statement is true or false. This phrasing is also known as the “Epimenides paradox.”
The Liar Paradox is actually a group of related paradoxes that center around truthfulness. These statements are not related to social norms, ethics, or intentions. Instead, they are simply about whether the statement itself is a “truth.”
Each liar paradox has three basic elements. The first is the truth predicate. The truth predicate states or affirms something about the subject of the sentence. Next, the liar paradox contains some form of self-reference (e.g., “I am lying.”). This self-reference can also be in the form of a cycle (where two people speak, both referencing the fact that the other is lying). Finally, the liar paradox also contains some form of capture and release. That is, the truth predicate “captures” the truth or the truth “releases” the truth predicate.
Bertrand Russell states, “The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple that doesn’t seem to be worth talking about and end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it” (1918).
Episode 7: Occam’s razor
Occam’s razor is named after William of Occam, a 14th-century philosopher. The ‘razor’ signifies removing unneeded assumptions from theory. Also known as parsimony, Occam’s razor is a call to avoid finding more complicated ways to explain events if a simple idea is already present. If more than one explanation is present, Occam’s razor directs you to choose the simplest.
Consider an example. Geometric shapes in fields that are made of flattened wheat, barley, or rye are crop circles. When first observed, there was a lot of speculation in the media about how they were created. Many believed that the circles were alien landing sites or caused by UFOs burning a pattern into a field. But humans created the circles by using ropes and other tools to make the designs.
Here each explanation seems to fit the evidence, but how do we decide which is true? Without knowing more, can we rationally choose one? According the idea of Occam’s razor, we can. This theory only states that we are to select the simplest approach that makes the most sense.
So for the UFO theory, we have to believe that UFOs exist for this theory to be valid. However, there hasn’t been clear evidence of this yet. But for the human-created theory, we have to believe that people are capable of pranks, which is a typical behavior. Therefore, rationally, we can choose the theory that the crop circles are a hoax created by humans because it is the simpler of the two answers. In this case, Occam’s razor works well.
Occam’s razor is sometimes criticized because there can be many explanations for presented evidence. But the idea is not that simple is always right, but that the simple explanation is more likely to be correct. So, it is a good rule of reason to follow when trying to figure out where given evidence may lead.
Episode 8: Theodicy
Theodicy represents trying to reason why God, assuming God is good, would permit evil. Evil is everywhere, but how can God and evil exist together if God has the capacity stop evil? This puzzle represents the central idea of “the problem of evil.”
Is God oblivious to evil, truly evil, or does God just not exist?According to traditional beliefs, God knows all that is possible to know and can do all that is possible to do. Further, God wants to do all the good that can be done. So you may see where evil becomes a problem. From the three basic properties above, we can state that if God knows all then God is aware of all suffering. And, if God can do all, then God can stop suffering. Further, if God wants to do good, then God wants to stop all current and further pain.
If the last three ideas are real, and if God exists as presented in the first three statements, it is logical to conclude that suffering should not exist, but it does. Because suffering exists, we can find that God does not exist or cannot be described by the three elements.
Episode 9: Determinists vs Libertarians
As awesome as it is to believe in free will, doing so presents a problem. Humans need to balance a supposed free spirit with the ideas suggested by science. The idea of determinism states that every situation in the world is caused by something else, which, in turn was caused by some catalyst that came before that. But if some previous event determines all of our actions and choices, how is free will possibly true? Further, are we even responsible for our actions? Determinism challenges the idea of acting unfettered and existing as moral beings. This approach elicits strong philosophical responses, and the following stand out among them.
Experts in the field maintain determinism as true and see free will as an illusion. That is, each happening has a cause, and we could not have acted differently. Therefore, punishment and praise for actions is not correct. Still other determinists accept determinism while incorporating free will. They believe that it is possible to act differently despite previous causal events. This idea gives soft determinists a sufficient understanding of freedom of action. They believe that cause determination is not necessary, only that one is not coerced in exercising choice. This kind of decision is subject to regular moral judgment.
Libertarians support determinism as conflicting with free will, and consequently reject determinism. However, they also dismiss the assertion of soft determinists, which explains that we could have acted differently if we had a choice. Libertarians also see this as causally determined. As such, libertarians believe in free will and not in the predetermination of action. Libertarians still need to explain how an action happens indeterminately—mainly how an uncaused event can avoid being random because randomness and determinism are equally problematic.
Episode 10: Leviathan
Philosopher Thomas Hobbes published his book Leviathan in 1651. Leviathan is also the name of a sea monster that is referenced in the Old Testament of the Bible. Perhaps Hobbes named his book after this creature to show that his version of social order is a necessary evil.
Hobbes uses the name Leviathan to symbolize state power, and currently, the word refers to a state power that is overstepping its authority. To Hobbes, everyone has the instinct to act in their own personal interest, and it is also in the interest of all to cooperate. This combination is the only way we can change conditions of war and poverty. But changing conditions is hard because there is a cost to enforce interpersonal contracts. So how can anyone ensure contractual order? In Hobbes’s view, there is no way out of the violent cycle.
Signing a contract gives certain rights and obligations to all involved parties. The contract between citizen and state is a metaphor intended to explain the responsibility of citizens and the state in relation to each other. Hobbes suggests that people need some higher power to make them obey contracts. All citizens must curb their liberties to foster peace and cooperation.