Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
What is philosophy?The study of how things, in the broadest
possible sense of the term, hang together, in the broadest sense of the term.
At the end of the day, what we want is to know our way around, “not in that unreflective way in which the centipede… knew its way around before it faced the question, ‘how do I walk?’, but in that reflective way which means that no intellectual holds are barred.” (Wilfrid Sellars, PSIM)
Wilfrid Sellars, 1912-1989
Subject MatterPhilosophy has no special subject matter of
its own.Over time many topics that philosophers
have studied grew to become topics of special fields: physics (once ‘natural philosophy’); psychology; economics;
Historically, philosophy emerged in Ancient Greece (and in India too) at about the same time as mathematics.
Euclid (fl. 300 BCE, Socrates (469-399 BCE)
On EuclidEuclid wrote the most famous math text in
history, organizing what the Greeks had learned about geometry in axiomatic form.
Beginning with 5 simple axioms and a few definitions, Euclid proved many principles of what we now call Eulclidean geometry.
This has been regarded as an ideal example of cognitive systematization ever since.
On SocratesSocrates didn’t publish.But his student, Plato, made him the
central character in many dialogues.In these dialogues, characters
representing different points of view engaged in discussions of issues includingWhat is justice?What makes some actions right and others
wrong?What is knowledge and how do we learn
truths?
Aristotle
Background on AristotleA student of Plato’s at the Academy.Teacher of Alexander the Great (Ptolemy
and Cassander, too).Wrote treatises on all fields of philosophy,
physics, biology, zoology, logic, art (drama, poetry), rhetoric, and more
His work was largely lost to Europe, but preserved by the Arabs, who brought it back to Europe in the 11th/12th centuries.
Evaluating ArgumentsIdentifying premises and conclusion(s).Evaluating premises:
Do you think they’re true? Why?Can you give reasons to reject one (or
more)?Do we have any reason to accept them?
Evaluating the link:Does the conclusion really follow from the
premises?
Where do we get our premises?Regresses: we can ask for arguments in
support of premises, but there has to be an end to this somewhere!
Authority (How do we justify accepting or rejecting someone as an authority?)
Observation/personal experience (What justifies relying on our own observations?)
‘Pure’ reason (Same question.)
Evaluating AuthoritiesWhen can/should we rely on some source of
information? 1. Basic capacities
-Training (where relevant)-Experience/opportunity (eye-witnesses, for example)
2. Motives-Supporting reliability: having good reasons to get it right and be honest about it; no apparent reason to mislead us (asking a friend if your tie is straight?)-Undermining reliability: having some reason to deceive (sales people or others with a conflict of interest, for example).
Trusting yourselfWhen should I trust myself to ‘get it right’?In principle this is no different from asking
when you should trust someone else: self-deception is not a contradiction in terms!Do I have the background/ training needed to
answer the question reliably? (If not, what sources should I consult? We’re back to the question of when to trust someone else.)
Am I motivated to arrive at a particular answer regardless of what the evidence shows? (If yes, look deliberately and carefully for contrary evidence/objections to that answer and take them carefully into account– e.g. George Smith on forensic engineering.)
