METAPHYSICS PART ONE INTRODUCTION ARGUMENTS AND THE ANCIENTS

METAPHYSICS PART ONE: INTRODUCTION, ARGUMENTS, AND THE ANCIENTS

WHAT IS METAPHYSICS? • INTRODUCTION • DEFINED: THE STUDY OF THE NATURE & STRUCTURE OF REALITY. • ONTOLOGY: THE STUDY OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF REALITY. • SOME QUESTIONS IN METAPHYSICS. • SOME METAPHYSICAL PROBLEMS • PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALS • THE NATURE OF MIND • THE PROBLEM OF PERSONAL IDENTITY

WHAT IS METAPHYSICS? • SOME CONCEPTS • • • ONTOLOGICAL KIND PROPERTY SUBSTANCE DUALISM MONISM IDEALISM MATERIALISM PARTICULAR UNIVERSAL

WHAT IS METAPHYSICS? • DOING METAPHYSICS • EXPLANATORY POWER/PROBLEM SOLVING • ASSESSMENT • FRUITFULNESS • OCKAM’S RAZOR • COHERENCE • SIMPLICITY • CONSISTENCY • MYSTERY/WEIRDNESS • NON-CIRCULARITY • METHODOLOGY • PLAUSIBILITY • PRIMITIVES

ARGUMENT BASICS • ARGUMENT • DEFINED • CLAIM • PREMISE • CONCLUSION • INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT • DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT • FALLACY

ARGUMENT BASICS • GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF ARGUMENTS: REASONING • DO THE PREMISES LOGICALLY SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION? • DEDUCTIVE: VALID OR INVALID? • INDUCTIVE: STRONG OR WEAK? • GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF ARGUMENTS: PREMISES • ARE THE PREMISES TRUE OR AT LEAST PLAUSIBLE? • SOUND=VALID + ALL TRUE PREMISES • COGENT = STRONG + ALL TRUE PREMISES

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS • INTRODUCTION • DEFINED • USE • ASSESSMENT • VALID/INVALID • SOUND/UNSOUND

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS MODUS PONENS (VALID) HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM (VALID) PREMISE 1: IF P, THEN Q PREMISE 2: P PREMISE 2: IF Q, THEN R CONCLUSION: Q CONCLUSION: IF P, THEN R MODUS TOLLENS (VALID) PREMISE 1: IF P, THEN Q PREMISE 1: P V Q PREMISE 2: NOT P CONCLUSION: Q

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS • REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM • FORM 1 • ASSUME P IS TRUE • PROVE THAT P LEADS TO ABSURDITY • CONCLUDE P IS FALSE • FORM 2 • ASSUME P IS FALSE • PROVE THAT NOT P LEADS TO ABSURDITY • CONCLUDE P IS TRUE • EXAMPLE

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS • DEFINED • DEFINITION • THE INDUCTIVE LEAP & THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION • ASSESSMENT • STRONG/WEAK

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS: ANALOGICAL ARGUMENT • INTRODUCTION • DEFINITION • USES • FORM • INFORMAL • STRICT FORM • • PREMISE 1: X HAS PROPERTIES P, Q, AND R. PREMISE 2: Y HAS PROPERTIES P, Q, AND R. PREMISE 3: X HAS PROPERTY Z AS WELL. CONCLUSION: Y HAS PROPERTY Z.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS: ANALOGICAL ARGUMENT • ASSESSMENT • THE STRENGTH OF THE ARGUMENT DEPENDS ON • THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES X & Y HAVE IN COMMON. • THE RELEVANCE OF THE SHARED PROPERTIES TO Z. • WHETHER X & Y HAVE RELEVANT DISSIMILARITIES. • EXAMPLE

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS: APPEAL TO INTUITION • METHOD • INTUITIONS AND ARGUMENTS • BASIC METHOD • STORY METHOD

THE PRE-SOCRATICS: THE MILESIANS • THALES (624 -545 B. C. E) • BACKGROUND • THE PROBLEM OF THE ONE AND THE MANY • THE BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT ACCOUNTS FOR EVERYTHING • WATER • THE PROBLEM OF PERMANENCE & CHANGE • WHAT CAUSES THE ONE TO CHANGE INTO THE MANY? • “FULL OF GODS”

THE PRE-SOCRATICS: THE MILESIANS • THALES CONTINUED • IMPORTANCE • FIRST MONISM • FIRST MATERIALISM • THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING • DID NOT APPEAL TO TRADITION OR AUTHORITY

THE PRE-SOCRATICS: THE MILESIANS • ANAXIMANDER (610 -545) • MAIN QUESTION • HOW CAN A PARTICULAR THING, LIKE WATER, BE THE BASIS FOR OTHER THINGS? • ANSWER • ULTIMATE REALITY MUST BE AN ETERNAL, IMPERISHABLE SOURCE • APEIRON: THE BOUNDLESS, THE INFINITE, THE INDEFINITE • LACKS BOUNDARIES & DIVISIONS • SPACE FILLING, DYNAMIC MASS • INFINITE IN TIME • INDEFINITE IN QUANTITY • LACKS QUALITIES • CANNOT BE DEFINED

THE PRE-SOCRATICS: THE MILESIANS • ANAXIMANDER CONTINUED • THE PROBLEM OF CHANGE • WARRING OPPOSITES • CHANGE • EVERYTHING WAS APEIRON • MOTION • COMBINATION OF QUALITIES PRODUCES OBJECTS • OTHER • • EVOLUTIONARY THEORY THE EARTH RESTED ON NOTHING CENTER OF A SPHERICAL UNIVERSE IS AN EVERLASTING MOTION OF CREATION & DESTRUCTION • IMPORTANCE • • ABSTRACT PHILOSOPHICAL CRITICISM CHANGE JUSTICE

THE PRE-SOCRATICS: THE MILESIANS • CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE MILESIANS • PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD • EMPIRICISM • RATIONALISM • METAPHYSICS • APPEARANCE VS REALITY PROBLEM • METAPHYSICAL MONISM • PHILOSOPHICAL MATERIALISM • PROBLEM OF CHANGE

PYTHAGORAS & PYTHAGORIANS • PHYTHAGORAS (570 -495 B. C. E. ) • BACKGROUND • SALVATION • THE SOUL IS IMMORTAL • THE SOUL MIGRATES AFTER DEATH • MATHEMATICAL NATURE OF REALITY • THE UNIVERSE HAS A MATHEMATICAL UNITY AND ORDER • NUMBERS ARE REAL • PHYSICAL OBJECT CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING MATHEMATICS

PYTHAGORAS & PYTHAGORIANS • PHYTHAGORAS CONTINUED • MUSIC & HARMONY • MUSIC IS EVIDENCE • MATHEMATICS OF MUSICAL TONES • FROM MUSIC TO REALITY • HARMONY (MUSIC) OF THE SPHERES • HARMONY OF THE BODY

PYTHAGORAS & PYTHAGORIANS • THE CONFLICT OF ORDER & DISORDER • ETERNAL CONFLICT • DUALISM Order Limit Odd One Right Male Rest Straight Light Good Square Disorder Unlimited Even Many Left Female Motion Crooked Darkness Evil Oblong

PYTHAGORAS & PYTHAGORIANS • IMPORTANCE OF PYTHAGORAS & PYTHAGORIANS • METAPHYSICS AS RELEVANT TO LIFE • INDIVIDUAL ETHICAL CONCERNS • MATHEMATICS • COSMOS • SCIENCE

HERACLITUS • BACKGROUND (540 -480 B. C. E) • RELIGION & LOGOS • BACKGROUND • SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY & ETHICS • LOGOS • IMPORTANCE • CHANGE • RIVER METAPHOR • UNITY OF OPPOSITES • FIRE

PARMENIDES & THE ELEATIC SCHOOL • BACKGROUND (515 -450 B. C. E. ) • PHILOSOPHY • STARTING POINT • ARGUMENT • 1. ANYTHING THAT CAN BE SPOKEN OR THOUGHT ABOUT EXISTS OR DOES NOT. • 2. ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST IS NOTHING. • 3. WE CANNOT SPEAK OR THINK ABOUT NOTHING. • 4. THUS, THAT WHICH DOES NOT EXIST CANNOT BE SPOKEN OR THOUGHT ABOUT. • 5. HENCE, ANYTHING THAT CAN BE THOUGHT OR SPOKEN ABOUT EXISTS.

PARMENIDES & THE ELEATIC SCHOOL • COMMENTS ON ARGUMENT • BEING IS UNCREATED: 1 ST ARGUMENT (PRINCIPLE OF CAUSALITY) • 1. IF BEING BEGAN OR WAS CREATED, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM SOMETHING OR NOTHING. • 2. IF BEING IS ALL THERE IS, THEN IT COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM SOMETHING ELSE. • 3. BEING COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM NOTHING, SINCE NOTHING CANNOT BE A CAUSE. • C. SO, BEING IS UNCREATED.

PARMENIDES & THE ELEATIC SCHOOL • BEING IS UNCREATED 2 ND ARGUMENT (SUFFICIENT REASON) • 1. IF BEING BEGAN OR WAS CREATED, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM SOMETHING OR NOTHING. • 2. IF BEING IS ALL THERE IS, THEN IT COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM SOMETHING ELSE. • 3. BEING COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM NOTHING, SINCE NOTHING CANNOT BE A CAUSE. • C. SO, BEING IS UNCREATED.

PARMENIDES & THE ELEATIC SCHOOL • BEING AS ONE AND INDIVISIBLE • 1. IF BEING IS A MULTIPLICITY OR DIVIDED, THEN WHAT WOULD MARK THESE DIVISIONS? • 2. IF WHAT MARKS THE DIVISION IS BEING, THE DIVIDERS ARE THE SAME AS THE DIVIDED-MAKING IT CONTINUOUS AND UNDIVIDED. • 3. IF THE DIVIDERS ARE NOTHING, THEN THERE ARE NO DIVISIONS. • 4. HENCE, BEING IS ONE AND UNDIVIDED.

PARMENIDES & THE ELEATIC SCHOOL • BEING IS MOTIONLESS • 1. MOTIONS REQUIRES EMPTY SPACE. • 2. EMPTY SPACE WOULD BE NOTHING. • 3. THERE IS NO NOTHING, SO THERE IS NO EMPTY SPACE. • 4. THERE IS NO MOTION.

PARMENIDES & THE ELEATIC SCHOOL • BEING IS MOTIONLESS • 1. MOTIONS REQUIRES EMPTY SPACE. • 2. EMPTY SPACE WOULD BE NOTHING. • 3. THERE IS NO NOTHING, SO THERE IS NO EMPTY SPACE. • 4. THERE IS NO MOTION.

PARMENIDES & THE ELEATIC SCHOOL • BEING IS A FINITE SPHERE • REASON VS SENSES

PARMENIDES & THE ELEATIC SCHOOL • ZENO OF ELEA • BACKGROUND (490 -430 B. C. E. ) • ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SENSES • 1. IF A MILLET SEED IS DROPPED, IT WILL MAKE NO NOISE. • 2. IF A BUSHEL OF MILLET SEEDS IS DROPPED, A NOISE WILL BE HEARD. • 3. EITHER MILLET SEEDS MAKE A SOUND WHEN DROPPED OR THEY DO NOT. • 4. IF THEY DO NOT MAKE A SOUND (PREMISE 1), THEN OUR SENSES DECEIVE US ABOUT PREMISE 2. • 5. IF THEY DO MAKE A SOUND (PREMISE 2), THE OUR SENSES DECEIVE US ABOUT PREMISE 1. • 6. EITHER WAY, THE SENSES DECEIVE US.

PARMENIDES & THE ELEATIC SCHOOL • ARGUMENTS AGAINST PLURALITY • 1. SUPPOSE MANY OBJECTS EXIST. • 2. EACH OBJECT MUST HAVE A SPECIFIC SIZE. • 3. ANY OBJECT CAN BE INFINITELY DIVIDED INTO MULTIPLE PARTS. • A. AN OBJECT CAN BE CUT IN HALF AND THE HALVES CAN BE CUT IN HALF AND SO ON. • 4. IF AN OBJECT IS MADE OF AN INFINITE NUMBER OF PARTS EACH WITH SOME SIZE, THEN THE OBJECT MUST BE INFINITE. • 5. THIS IS ABSURD, SO THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE INFINITE OBJECT.

PARMENIDES & THE ELEATIC SCHOOL • PARADOXES OF MOTION • 1. A RUNNER IS TRYING TO RUN FROM STARTING POINT A TO GOAL Z. • 2. TO GET FROM A TO Z SHE MUST FIRST TRAVERSE HALF THE DISTANCE FROM A TO Z. • 3. BEFORE SHE CAN GET TO THAT HALFWAY POINT, SHE MUST GET HALFWAY TO THE HALFWAY POINT AND SO ON. • 4. AT ANY POINT IN THE RUN, HER GOAL IS A DISTANCE THAT CAN BE DIVIDED IN HALF AND THIS DISTANCE CAN BE DIVIDED INTO AN INFINITE • NUMBER OF POINTS. • 5. IF THERE IS AN INFINITE NUMBER OF POINTS TO RUN, THE RUNNER WILL TAKE AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET TO THE GOAL. • 6. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE, HENCE MOTION IS IMPOSSIBLE.

PARMENIDES & THE ELEATIC SCHOOL • IMPORTANCE OF THE ELEATIC SCHOOL • METHOD • REASON AND SENSES • LOGICAL AND MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS • LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS • LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS • PROBLEM OF MAKING INFERENCES FROM LANGUAGE TO METAPHYSICS • “IS”: EXISTENCE, IDENTITY, AND PREDICATION.

THE PLURALISTS • MOTIVATION • IMPLICATIONS OF MONISM • EMPEDOCLES (495 -435 B. C. E. ) • CHANGE • NO ABSOLUTE CREATION OR DESTRUCTION • RELATIVE CHANGE • 4 PERMANENT THINGS: EARTH, AIR, FIRE, AND WATER • COMBINATION

THE PLURALISTS • EMPEDOCLES CONTINUED • PRINCIPLE OF UNIFICATION • LOVE • PRINCIPLE OF INDIVIDUATION • STRIFE • MORE ON CHANGE • INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN COMPLETE UNITY AND TOTAL SEPARATION • THINGS ARE BECOMING WORSE • DEITIES AND MATERIAL FORCE

THE PLURALISTS • EMPEDOCLES CONTINUED • OTHER VIEWS • DENIAL OF EMPTY SPACE • FIRST THEORY OF SENSE PERCEPTION • A THEORY OF EVOLUTION • ANAXAGORAS (500 -428 B. C. E. ) • ELEMENTS • SEEDS • MIXED

THE PLURALISTS • ANAXAGORAS CONTINUED • NOUS (MIND) • SOURCE OF MOTION AND PRINCIPLE OF ORDER • DID NOT CREATE THE WORLD • RAREFIED MATTER • IMPORTANCE • INSPIRATIONAL FAILURE • NOUS

DEMOCRITUS & THE ATOMISTS • DEMOCRITUS (460 -360 B. C. E) • BACKGROUND • BEING • REALITY CONSISTS OF ATOMS AND THE VOID • THE VOID IS NOTHING • QUALITIES OF ATOMS • INDIVISIBLE, ETERNAL, UNCHANGING. • THEY ARE INFINITE IN NUMBER. • THEY DIFFER IN SIZE AND SHAPE. • THEY HAVE NO COLOR, TASTE, TEMPERATURE OR SMELL.

DEMOCRITUS & THE ATOMISTS • CHANGE • DIFFERENT RELATION BETWEEN THE ATOMS • ARGUMENT FOR CHANGE • THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE UP OR DOWN, HENCE MOTION IS WITHOUT DIRECTION. • THUS, ATOMS DO NOT HAVE WEIGHT IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE. • SINCE ATOMS LACK A NATURAL, FINAL RESTING POINT, THEIR MOTION IS ETERNAL. • ARISTOTLE’S CRITICISM

DEMOCRITUS & THE ATOMISTS • THE WORLD OF APPEARANCE • MOTIONS AND SHAPES OF ATOMS • SOLID MATTER IS PRODUCED BY HOOKED OR ROUGH ATOMS. • LIQUID IS PRODUCED BY SMOOTH ATOMS. • SWEET THINGS ARE MADE UP OF SMOOTH ATOMS. • BITTER THINGS ARE MADE UP OF SHARP ATOMS. • THERE IS NO ORDERING PRINCIPLE BEYOND THE PROPERTIES OF THE ATOMS AND RANDOM COLLISIONS FROM THEIR MOTION.

PLATO’S EPISTEMOLOGY & METAPHYSICS � INTRODUCTION KNOWLEDGE & OPINION ARGUMENT AGAINST RELATIVISM (THEATETUS) � RELATIVE � SELF REFUTING � PROTAGORAS FIRST PROBLEM OF THE SENSES: CHANGE � CHANGING WORLD � CANNOT HAVE CERTAINTY � APPEAR AT A SPECIFIC TIME � SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE � SENSES CANNOT BE A SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE

PLATO’S EPISTEMOLOGY & METAPHYSICS SECOND PROBLEM OF THE SENSES: DEFINITIONS � OBJECTS OF KNOWLEDGE MUST BE UNIVERSAL & UNCHANGING � UNCHANGING DEFINITIONS ARE NECESSARY � LANGUAGE WOULD NOT WORK PERFECT STANDARD ARGUMENT � PHYSICAL THINGS FALL SHORT � KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING PERFECT � KNOWLEDGE CANNOT COME FROM SENSESS KNOWLEDGE IS NOT RIGHT OPINION � RIGHT OPINION (TRUE BELIEF) VS. KNOWLEDGE � TRUE OPINION � ACCOUNT � RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION

PLATO’S EPISTEMOLOGY & METAPHYSICS • KNOWLEDGE IS • OBJECTIVE • NOT OBTAINED BY THE SENSES • UNIVERSAL • CHANGELESS • BASED IN REASON • THE FORMS & IDEAS • PARTICULARS (TOKENS) & CATEGORIES (TYPES) • UNIVERSAL/FORM • ETERNAL • CHANGELESS • PERFECT

PLATO’S EPISTEMOLOGY & METAPHYSICS • PARTICIPATION • IDEA • THE DOCTRINE OF RECOLLECTION (MENO) • MENO’S PARADOX • ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE • COMMUNING WITH THE FORMS • FORGETTING • DOCTRINE OF RECOLLECTION

PLATO’S EPISTEMOLOGY & METAPHYSICS • PLATO’S METAPHYSICS • THE FORMS • REAL, OBJECTIVE, INDEPENDENT, UNCHANGING • NOT SPATIAL OR TEMPORAL • PARTICIPATION PROBLEM • CHANGE • PARADOX OF CHANGE • HERACLITUS • PARMENIDES • PLATONIC COMPROMISE • PARTICULARS: CHANGING, IMPERFECT, OBJECT OF OPINION

PLATO’S EPISTEMOLOGY & METAPHYSICS • PARTICULARS • REALITY COMES IN DEGREES • THE FORMS ARE CAUSES OF PARTICULARS • PARTICULARS RESEMBLE THE FORMS • PARTICULARS PARTICIPATE IN THE FORMS IN VARYING DEGREES • THE FORMS GROUP PARTICULARS INTO TYPES, MAKING THEM INTELLIGIBLE.

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE � LOVERS OF OPINION & LOVERS OF WISDOM PHILOSOPHERS THE ONE & THE MANY � TWO � EACH IS ONE � THE MANY SIGHTS, DREAMS, OPINION & KNOWLEDGE � LOVERS OF SOUNDS & SIGHTS � LIFE IS A DREAM � ONE IS AWAKE ABSOLUTE BEAUTY FORMS & OBJECTS KNOWLEDGE & OPINION

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE • BEING & NON-BEING ARGUMENT • ONE WHO KNOWS, KNOWS SOMETHING. • ABSOLUTE BEAUTY MAY BE ABSOLUTELY KNOWN. • THE UTTERLY NON-EXISTENT IS UTTERLY UNKNOWN. • ANYTHING THAT CAN BE AND NOT BE WILL BE BETWEEN PURE BEING AND ABSOLUTE NEGATION OF BEING. • KNOWLEDGE CORRESPONDS TO BEING AND IGNORANCE TO NON BEING. • SPHERES & FACULTIES ARGUMENT • FACULTIES ARE POWERS IN US. • WHAT HAS THE SAME SPHERE & SAME RESULT IS THE SAME FACULTY. • WHAT HAS ANOTHER SPHERE & ANOTHER RESULT IS DIFFERENT. • KNOWLEDGE & OPINION ARE BOTH FACULTIES, BUT NOT THE SAME.

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE • KNOWLEDGE & OPINION HAVE DISTINCT SPHERES. • BEING IS THE SPHERE OF KNOWLEDGE. • KNOWLEDGE IS TO KNOW THE NATURE OF BEING. • OPINION IS TO HAVE AN OPINION. • IF DIFFERENCE IN FACULTY IMPLIES A DIFFERENCE IN THE SPHERE & IF OPINION & KNOWLEDGE ARE DISTINCT FACULTIES, THEN THE SPHERE OF KNOWLEDGE & OPINION CANNOT BE THE SAME. • NOT-BEING IS NOT THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF OPINION • AN OPINION IS ABOUT SOMETHING. • ONE CANNOT HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT NOTHING. • ONE WHO HAS AN OPINION ABOUT SOME ONE THING. • NOT-BEING IS NOT ONE THING BUT NOTHING.

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE • OPINION IS INTERMEDIATE • IGNORANCE IS THE CORRELATIVE OF NOT BEING. • KNOWLEDGE IS THE CORRELATIVE OF BEING. • OPINION IS NOT CONCERNED WITH BEING OR NOT-BEING. • OPINION IS INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN IGNORANCE & KNOWLEDGE. • ITS CORRELATIVE IS AND IS NOT AND IS BETWEEN PURE BEING & ABSOLUTE NONBEING. • THE CORRESPONDING FACULTY IS OPINION. • THE OBJECT OF OPINION • THE BEAUTIFUL WILL BE SEEN AS UGLY. • THE IDEAS OF THE MANY ARE HALF-WAY. • OPINION & NOT KNOWLEDGE.

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE LOVERS OF OPINION VS. LOVERS OF WISDOM � THOSE WHO HAVE OPINION BUT NOT KNOWLEDGE SEE THE MANY DO NOT SEE THE ABSOLUTE � THE OBJECTS OF KNOWLEDGE THE MANY & THE ONE � MANY SEEN NOT KNOWN � ABSOLUTE FORM KNOWN NOT SEEN

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE THE EYE ANALOGY � MOONLIGHT � SUNSHINE � THE SOUL IS LIKE THE EYE • TRUTH & BEING • TWILIGHT OF BECOMING/PERISHING THE SUN ANALOGY � THE GOOD � LIGHT & SIGHT ARE LIKE THE SUN, BUT NOT THE SUN. � SCIENCE & TRUTH ARE LIKE THE GOOD, BUT NOT THE GOOD HAS A HIGHER PLACE OF HONOR. PLEASURE IS NOT THE GOOD. � THE SUN IS THE AUTHOR OF GENERATION THE SUN IS NOT GENERATION � THE GOOD IS THE AUTHOR OF KNOWLEDGE, BEING & ESSENCE. THE GOOD IS NOT ESSENCE BUT FAR EXCEEDS IT.

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE � THE FOUR LEVELS OF KNOWLEDGE: THE LINE RULING POWERS � THE GOOD-INTELLECTUAL WORLD. � THE SUN-VISIBLE WORLD. � VISIBLE VS. INTELLIGIBLE. DIVISION OF THE LINE VISIBLE INTELLIGIBLE SECTIONS A&B � A IMAGES � A IS A RESEMBLANCE OF B. � B INCLUDES ANIMALS, GROWING THINGS, AND MADE THINGS. � A&B HAVE DIFFERENT DEGREES OF TRUTH. � THE COPY IS TO THE ORIGINAL AS THE SPHERE OF OPINION IS TO THE SPHERE OF KNOWLEDGE.

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE SECTIONS C & D �IN C FIGURES GIVEN BY D ARE USED AS IMAGES. HYPOTHETICAL INQUIRY. �IN D THE SOUL PASSES FROM HYPOTHESIS TO A PRINCIPLE ABOVE HYPOTHESIS. NO IMAGES, BUT PROCEEDING IN AND THROUGH THE FORMS. SECTION C-HYPOTHESIS �MATH-HYPOTHESIS �BEGIN WITH HYPOTHESIS. �USING FIGURES THINKING OF FORMS. �SOUL SEEKING TO BEHOLD THE THINGS THEMSELVES.

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE SECTION D-THE INTELLIGIBLE � KNOWLEDGE ATTAINED BY REASON BY THE DIALECTIC USING HYPOTHESIS AS HYPOTHESIS AND NOT FIRST PRINCIPLES. INTELLIGIBLE AS STEPS TO A WORLD ABOVE HYPOTHESIS AND TO THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF THE WHOLE. � KNOWLEDGE & BEING CONTEMPLATED BY THE DIALECTIC. � CLEARER THAN NOTIONS OF ARTS PROCEEDING SOLELY FROM HYPOTHESIS. CONTEMPLATED BY UNDERSTANDING & NOT SENSES. UNDERSTANDING DEALS WITH GEOMETRY & COGNITIVE SCIENCES & IS THE INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN OPINION & KNOWLEDGE. FOUR FACULTIES OF THE SOUL � D REASON � C UNDERSTANDING � B BELIEF � IMAGING

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE � THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE DESCRIPTION � CAVE � CHAINED � FIRE � WALLS � VESSELS � SHADOWS � THINK THEY ARE NAMING WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEFORE THEM. � TO THEM, THE TRUTH IS NOTHING BUT THE SHADOWS OF THE IMAGES. RELEASE OF THE PRISONERS-1 ST STEP: FREE IN THE CAVE � THE LIGHT IS PAINFUL. � CANNOT SEE THE REALITIES PREVIOUSLY SEEN IN SHADOWS. � APPROACH NEARER TO BEING & HAVE CLEARER VISION. � PERPLEXED IF ASKED TO NAME OBJECTS. � WILL INITIALLY THINK THE SHADOWS ARE TRUER THAN THE OBJECTS.

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE THE RELEASE OF THE PRISONERS-2 STEP: OUTSIDE THE CAVE ND � PAINED & DAZZLED IN THE SUN. � NEED TO GROW ACCUSTOMED SHADOWS REFLECTIONS IN WATER OBJECTS LIGHT OF THE STARS AND MOON THE SUN � ARGUE THE SUN IS THE CAUSE OF ALL THE FREED PERSON � PRAISE HIMSELF & PITY OTHERS. � NOT CARE FOR THE HONORS � IF HE RETURNED, HIS EYES WOULD BE FULL OF DARKNESS. � FARE POORLY IN THE CONTESTS. � MEN WOULD THINK IT BETTER NOT TO ASCEND. � IF ANYONE TRIED TO FREE ANOTHER, THEY WOULD PUT HIM TO DEATH.

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE • THE ALLEGORY • CAVE: WORLD OF SIGHT • LIGHT OF THE FIRE: SUN • JOURNEY UPWARDS: THE ASCENT OF THE SOUL TO THE INTELLECTUAL WORLD.

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE � THE GOOD � UNIVERSAL AUTHOR OF ALL THINGS BEAUTIFUL & RIGHT � PARENT & LORD OF LIGHT IN THE VISIBLE WORLD. � IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF REASON & TRUTH IN THE INTELLECTUAL. THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN THE GOOD � UNWILLING TO DESCEND � BEHAVE RIDICULOUSLY COURT OF LAW ABSOLUTE JUSTICE � BEWILDERMENT � ONE WHO REMEMBERS

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE � KNOWLEDGE CANNOT BE PUT INTO THE SOUL THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE LIKE SIGHT INTO BLIND EYES. � THE POWER & CAPACITY OF LEARNING EXISTS IN THE SOUL ALREADY. � EYE ANALOGY AS THE EYE WAS UNABLE TO GO FROM DARKNESS TO LIGHT WITHOUT THE WHOLE BODY THE INSTRUMENT OF KNOWLEDGE MUST BE TURNED FROM BECOMING TO BEING BY THE MOVEMENT OF THE WHOLE SOUL. LEARN TO ENDURE THE SIGHT. � THE ART THAT EFFECTS THIS CONVERSION DOES NOT IMPLANT THE FACULTY OF SIGHT IT EXISTS, BUT IS FACING THE WRONG WAY.

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE � KNOWLEDGE CANNOT BE PUT INTO THE SOUL THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE LIKE SIGHT INTO BLIND EYES. � THE POWER & CAPACITY OF LEARNING EXISTS IN THE SOUL ALREADY. � EYE ANALOGY AS THE EYE WAS UNABLE TO GO FROM DARKNESS TO LIGHT WITHOUT THE WHOLE BODY THE INSTRUMENT OF KNOWLEDGE MUST BE TURNED FROM BECOMING TO BEING BY THE MOVEMENT OF THE WHOLE SOUL. LEARN TO ENDURE THE SIGHT. � THE ART THAT EFFECTS THIS CONVERSION DOES NOT IMPLANT THE FACULTY OF SIGHT IT EXISTS, BUT IS FACING THE WRONG WAY.

PLATO’S LINE & ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE • OTHER VIRTUES OF THE SOUL ARE AKIN TO BODILY QUALITIES • IF NOT INNATE, THEY CAN BE IMPLANTED LATER BY HABIT & EXERCISE • THE VIRTUE OF WISDOM CONTAINS A DIVINE ELEMENT WHICH ALWAYS REMAINS. • BY THIS ITS CONVERSION BECOMES USEFUL & PROFITABLE OR HURTFUL & USELESS. • THE NARROW INTELLIGENCE OF THE CLEVER ROGUE • HIS PALTRY SOUL CLEARLY SEES THE WAY TO HIS END. • HE IS THE REVERSE OF THE BLIND. • HIS KEEN SIGHT SERVES EVIL AND HE IS MISCHIEVOUS IN PROPORTION TO HIS CLEVERNESS.

PLATO’S COSMOLOGY • INTRODUCTION • UNIVERSE IS GOVERNED BY PRINCIPLES OF RATIONAL ORDER • PHILEBUS: MOTION OF CELESTIAL OBJECTS INDICATES INTELLIGENCE • TIMAEUS: PLATO’S ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION AND ORDERING OF THE WORLD • A LIKELY STORY • DIFFICULTY OF ORIGIN STORIES • “LIKELY STORY”

PLATO’S COSMOLOGY • THE DESIGN ARGUMENT (TIMAEUS) • ARGUMENT • “EVERYTHING THAT BECOMES OR IS CREATED MUST OF NECESSITY BE CREATED BY SOME CAUSE. ” • GIVEN THE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE WORLD, THE CAUSE MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY POWERFUL AND INTELLIGENT. • THIS IS GOD OR DEMIURGE (“CRAFTSMAN”). • POINTS • NOT OMNIPOTENT • NO EX NIHILO CREATION

PLATO’S COSMOLOGY • THE DESIGN ARGUMENT (CONTINUED) • RECEPTACLE IS FORMLESS AND CHAOTIC • FORMS • THE DEMIURGE ORDERED THE WORLD BECAUSE IT IS GOOD. • LACKS JEALOUSY • WANTS ALL THINGS TO BE AS LIKE IT AS IT COULD MAKE THEM. • PHILOSOPHERS ACT FROM THE SAME MOTIVE

PLATO’S COSMOLOGY • DUALISTIC WORLD • LIVING CREATURE • VISIBLE (BODY) & INVISIBLE (SOUL) • ONGOING CREATION • TELEOLOGICAL WORLD • IMPERFECTION OF THE VISIBLE WORLD • ORDER: FORMS • DISORDER: CHANCE

PLATO’S COSMOLOGY • IMPERFECTION OF THE VISIBLE WORLD (CONTINUED) • DISORDER IS NECESSITY • NECESSITY IS CAUSE WITHOUT PURPOSE OR RATIONALITY, A RANDOM CAUSE. • IMPLICATIONS OF IMPERFECTION • IMPERFECT PHYSICAL WORLD • RANDOMNESS • DEFECTS AND EVIL STEM FROM MATTER

CLASSIC PROBLEMS WITH THE FORMS • FROM THE PARMENIDES • DISGUSTING FORMS • PLATO PRESENTS FORMS OF JUSTICE, BEAUTY, GOODNESS AND SO ON. • PARMENIDES ASKS IF THERE ARE FORMS OF HAIR, MUD, FILTH AND SO ON. • THEY SEEM TO REQUIRE FORMS. • THIS CLASHES WITH THE NOTION THAT THE FORMS ARE IDEAL AND PERFECT.

CLASSIC PROBLEMS WITH THE FORMS • THE PROBLEM OF PARTICIPATION • HOW DOES IT WORK? • A FORM CANNOT BE “BROKEN” INTO PARTS SO THAT EACH PARTICULAR GETS A “PIECE. ” • THE WHOLE FORM CANNOT RESIDE IN EACH PARTICULAR SINCE THIS WOULD CONTRADICT THEIR TRANSCENDENT A NATURE. • SUNLIGHT ANALOGY • PARMENIDES’ SAIL ANALOGY-FRAGMENT PROBLEM

CLASSIC PROBLEMS WITH THE FORMS • THE THIRD MAN • GEORGE AND JOHN ARE BOTH MEN BECAUSE THEY PARTICIPATE IN THE FORM OF MAN. • BUT IF THE FORM OF MAN IS WHAT MAKES GEORGE AND JOHN MEN (THE FIRST MAN), THEN IN VIRTUE OF WHAT ARE THEY SIMILAR TO THE FORM OF MAN (THE SECOND MAN)? • THIS WOULD SEEM TO REQUIRE A FORM OF THE FORM OF MAN (THE THIRD MAN). • THIS WOULD START AN INFINITE REGRESS-FOR EACH FORM OF LEVEL N, A FORM OF LEVEL N+1 WILL BE REQUIRED. • THIS WOULD RESULT IN A SITUATION IN WHICH PARTICIPATION IS NOT EXPLAINED. • IT WOULD ALSO SEEM TO PREVENT PARTICIPATION -THERE WOULD BE NO MEN.

CLASSIC PROBLEMS WITH THE FORMS • OTHER PROBLEMS • MYSTERIOUS GAP BETWEEN THE FORMS AND THE MATERIAL WORLD. • THE FORMS DEVALUE THE MATERIAL WORLD. • THE EPISTEMIC SUPREMACY OF THE FORMS DEVALUES THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES. • PHYSICAL SCIENCES CANNOT YIELD KNOWLEDGE.

PLATO’S IMPORTANCE “THE SAFEST GENERAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE EUROPEAN PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION IS THAT IT CONSISTS OF A SERIES OF FOOTNOTES TO PLATO. ” -ALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD

ARISTOTLE BACKGROUND • BACKGROUND (384 -322 B. C. E. ) • ATHENS & MACEDONIA • ARISTOTLE • MACEDONIA • ACADEMY • ALEXANDER • LYCEUM FOUNDED IN 322 B. C. E

ARISTOTLE BACKGROUND • BACKGROUND (CONTINUED) • PLATO & ARISTOTLE • ARISTOTLE TRIED TO PROVIDE MORE COHERENT SOLUTIONS • VIEW OF PLATO • PLATO’S MATHEMATICS-THE PERFECT IDEAL • GOETHE: LIKE A FLAME SHOOTING UP TO HEAVEN • ARISTOTLE’S BIOLOGY • GOETHE: A SYSTEMATIC PYRAMID BUILT ON A BROAD BASE OF EARTH

ARISTOTLE BACKGROUND • BACKGROUND (CONTINUED) • PLATO & ARISTOTLE • ARISTOTLE TRIED TO PROVIDE MORE COHERENT SOLUTIONS • VIEW OF PLATO • PLATO’S MATHEMATICS-THE PERFECT IDEAL • GOETHE: LIKE A FLAME SHOOTING UP TO HEAVEN • ARISTOTLE’S BIOLOGY • GOETHE: A SYSTEMATIC PYRAMID BUILT ON A BROAD BASE OF EARTH

ARISTOTLE LANGUAGE THOUGHT & REALITY • SAME STRUCTURE • LANGUAGE THOUGHT & REALITY • KNOWLEDGE MATCHES THE STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD • KNOWLEDGE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE • REASONING • SPEAKING ABOUT THE WORLD REQUIRES SIMILARITY BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND REALITY • LANGUAGE “DIVIDES THE BEAST OF REALITY ALONG ITS JOINTS. ” • LANGUAGE MUST BE SIMILAR TO THOUGHT SINCE ONE CAN SPEAK OF THOUGHTS.

ARISTOTLE CATEGORIES • THE CATEGORIES • GOAL: FIND THE STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE, THOUGHT AND THE WORLD. • REVELATION OF CATEGORIES.

ARISTOTLE THE TEN CATEGORIES • SUBSTANCE • TIME • QUANTITY • POSITION • QUALITY • STATE • RELATION • ACTION • PLACE • PASSIVITY

ARISTOTLE SUBSTANCE • AN INDIVIDUAL THING • “THEY ARE THE ENTITIES WHICH UNDERLIE EVERYTHING ELSE…AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS EITHER PREDICATED OF THEM OR PRESENT IN THEM. ” • SUBJECT WHICH IS PREDICATED TO THE OTHER CATEGORIES • CAN EXIST APART FROM SPECIFIC PROPERTIES • PROPERTIES CANNOT EXIST APART FROM SUBSTANCES

ARISTOTLE FIRST PRINCIPLES • REGRESS • IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE EVERYTHING DEDUCTIVELY. • IF EVERYTHING HAD TO BE PROVEN DEDUCTIVELY, AN INFINITE REGRESS WOULD ARISE. • DEDUCTIVE PROOFS REQUIRE FIRST PRINCIPLES-PREMISES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SUPPORT. • WHAT FIRST PRINCIPLES ARE NOT • ARBITRARY • INNATE

ARISTOTLE FIRST PRINCIPLES • INDUCTION • REVEALS THE UNIVERSAL AND NECESSARY FEATURES IN THE CHANGING WORLD OF PARTICULARS. • LIKE EXPERIENCES STRENGTHEN LIKE TRACES. • KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNIVERSAL QUALITIES. • THE MIND EXTRACTS UNIVERSALS FROM PARTICULARS UNTIL THE CATEGORIES ARE REACHED. • INDUCTION + INTUITION YIELDS FIRST PRINCIPLES.

ARISTOTLE INTUITION • WORLD HAS A RATIONAL ORDER • EXPERIENCE • INTELLECTUAL INTUITION TAKES US BEYOND PARTICULARS TO UNIVERSAL AND NECESSARY TRUTHS. • UNIVERSALS ARE NOT BASED ON THE PARTICULARS. • ARISTOTLE REPLACES PLATO'S RECOLLECTION WITH RECOGNITION. • TWO TYPES OF PRINCIPLES • SCIENCE • LOGIC

ARISTOTLE FIRST PRINCIPLES • FIRST PRINCIPLES OF THE SCIENCES • FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND DEFINITIONS OF THE SCIENCES. • MATH, MEDICINE, PHYSICS, ETHICS AND THE OTHER SCIENCES. • FIRST PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC • FUNDAMENTAL TO ALL REASONING, REGARDLESS OF THE SUBJECT. • LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION: A CANNOT BOTH BE B AND NOT B. • THE LAW OF EXCLUDED MIDDLE: A MUST BE EITHER B OR NOT B. • THE LAW OF IDENTITY: A IS A. • THESE PRINCIPLES DESCRIBE THE LAWS OF THOUGHT, LANGUAGE AND REALITY.

ARISTOTLE METAPHYSICS • FIRST PHILOSOPHY • “AFTER PHYSICS”

ARISTOTLE CRITICISM OF PLATO'S FORMS • PLATO’S VIEW • FORMS ARE PERFECT, UNCHANGING AND ETERNAL. • PARTICULARS ARE IMPERFECT, CHANGING AND MORTAL. • EXPLANATORY POWER AND COMPLEXITY • 1. THE FORMS LACK EXPLANATORY POWER-THEY DO NOT EXPLAIN THE NATURAL WORLD. • 2. ADDING A REALM OF FORMS DOUBLES THE REALMS THAT ARE IN NEED OF EXPLANATION. • 3. RATHER THAN CREATING A UNITY, POSTULATION OF THE FORMS ADDITIONAL MULTIPLICITY. • CHANGE AND MOVEMENT • 1. THE FORMS DO NOT APPEAR TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARTICULARS. • 2. THE FORMS DO NOT CAUSE MOVEMENT OR CHANGE IN THE PARTICULARS. • 3. IF THE FORMS ARE THE BASIS OF ALL EXPLANATION, THEN “THE WHOLE STUDY OF NATURE HAS BEEN ANNIHILATED. ”

ARISTOTLE CRITICISM OF PLATO'S FORMS • SUBSTANCE • BEING SEPARATE FROM THE PARTICULARS, THE FORMS CANNOT BE THEIR ESSENCE OR SUBSTANCE. • PARTICIPATION • 1. PARTICIPATION IS A MYSTERY. • 2. TALK OF PARTICIPATION “IS TO USE EMPTY WORDS AND POETICAL METAPHORS. ” • THE THIRD MAN

ARISTOTLE SUBSTANCE • FORMS BROUGHT TO EARTH • PLATO: TRANSCENDENT UNIVERSALS • ARISTOTLE: IMMANENT UNIVERSALS • EXPLANATIONS • REALITY IS A COLLECTION OF SUBSTANCES • WHATNESS • THE PROPERTIES A SUBSTANCE POSSESSES-WHAT MAKES A THING WHAT IT IS IN TERMS OF TYPES. • WHATNESS IS NOT WHAT INDIVIDUATES

ARISTOTLE SUBSTANCE • THISNESS • INDIVIDUATES THE THING • MAKES IT DISTINCT FROM ALL OTHERS OF THE SAME TYPE • FORM AND MATTER • WHATNESS: FORM • THISNESS: MATTER

ARISTOTLE SUBSTANCE • FUNCTION & FORM • FORM IS BASED ON FUNCTION • FORM IS ESSENCE-THE SET OF PROPERTIES THAT MAKE IT WHAT IT IS. • MATTER • BASIS OF INDIVIDUATION • ACTUALIZED POSSIBILITIES

ARISTOTLE POTENTIALITY & ACTUALITY • CHANGE • THE ACORN • POTENTIALITY & ACTUALITY • CHANGE IS GOING FROM POTENTIALITY TO ACTUALITY • POTENTIALITY IS ASSOCIATED WITH MATTER • ACTUALITY IS ASSOCIATED WITH FORM • POTENTIAL-CAPACITY TO CHANGE

ARISTOTLE CHANGE • UNDERSTANDING CHANGE • FOUR CAUSES • MATERIAL CAUSE: THE MATTER THAT COMPOSES THE THING. • A. EXAMPLE: THE STONE THAT MAKES UP A STATUE. • EFFICIENT CAUSE: THE ORIGIN OF THE PROCESS THAT PRODUCED THE THING. • A. THE CAUSE THAT ACTUALIZES THE THING’S POTENTIAL. • B. EXAMPLE: THE PARENTS OF A CHILD.

ARISTOTLE CHANGE • FOUR CAUSES CONTINUED • FORMAL CAUSE: THE ESSENCE OF THE THING. • A. THE FORM THAT IS ACTUALIZED WHICH MAKES THE THING WHAT IT IS. • B. EXAMPLE: THE FORM OF A HUMAN CAUSES THE BABY TO BECOME A HUMAN ADULT AND NOT A SQUIRREL. • FINAL CAUSE: THE END, PURPOSE OR FUNCTION OF THE THING. • A. NATURAL OBJECTS HAVE PURPOSES, ENDS AND FUNCTIONS. • B. EXAMPLE: THE FINAL CAUSE OF THE ACORN IS BECOMING A TREE THAT WILL CREATE MORE ACORNS.

ARISTOTLE THE UNMOVED MOVER • A WORLD OF ENDS • ACTUALIZATION OF POTENTIAL • MATTER IS A COLLECTION OF POTENTIALS • OBJECTS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO MOVE • THE ETERNAL UNIVERSE • ASSUMED AN ETERNAL UNIVERSE • SOURCE OF MOTION FOR EVERYTHING • INFINITE REGRESS

ARISTOTLE THE UNMOVED MOVER • THE UNMOVED MOVER IS NOT GOD • IF IT COULD CARE IT COULD BE MOVED • THE UNMOVED MOVER IS UNMOVING • NOT IN MOTION, SO NOT AN EFFICIENT CAUSE • FINAL CAUSE • ALL THINGS TRY TO BE LIKE THE UNMOVED MOVER • UNMOVED

• THE UNMOVED MOVER HAS THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF REALITY • UNREALIZED POTENTIAL • NEED NOT CHANGE • HIGHEST ACTIVITY-THOUGHT ARISTOTL E THE UNMOVE D MOVER • RATIONALITY OF HUMANS MAKES THEM THE HIGHEST CREATURES • ANALOGY • CANNOT BE THINKING ABOUT PARTICULARS • THINKING ABOUT WHAT IS UNCHANGING AND UNIDIVIDED • THINKING ON THINKING • NEOPLATONISTS