TOPIC ONE: REASON, TRUTH AND RELIGIOUS MYTHOLOGY The Nature of Religious Mythology Religion has a lot to say

about human nature. The origins of human beings (where we come from), the destiny of human beings (where we go after we die) and the meaning of human life. Most theories of human nature answer those questions. These traditions are still profoundly influential think of the way many people instinctively respond to the prospect of genetic engineering and cloning: Human life is a gift we should not try to play God with human lives. Religious traditions explain their traditions through stories. (Adam and eve). Story of adam and eve show the world fell apart when eve was tempted by the devil (archangel in the body of a snake). After they had eaten the apple they become aware of their nakedness and run away from each other. Blakme each other and is a story of anxiety, strife and jealousy between people/ How should we take these stories? Are they literally true? Or are they simply false? Or is one or other of them true and the others false? Or do we misunderstand them if we take them to be either true or false? Religious rituals: practiced in virtually every culture. Eg. Traditional catholics and the act of sacrament (body and blood of Christ). Is it symbolic? Or really the blood and body of Christ. Are there differences here? Or are all these practices nonsensical? Or is it a mistake to take them literally? If it is, what is the point of them? We can distinguish at least five different views about the truth of religious myths and the rationality religious rituals: A. The Fundamentalist View: Believe their religious myths are literally true Christian Fundamentalists believe that the world was created in 7 days, that God created all species during that time, that the earth is about 6000 years old. Eg. Noah and his family survived the great flood by building an ark and saving two of every animal. Problem: not compatible with scientific fact, is it even possible to carry two of every animal in the world on an ark. B. The Scientistic View: All religious myths and rituals are childish illusions or superstitions which the scientific view of the world has shown to be false. There is something wrong with people who literally believe the story of Genesis (they are trapped/tricked into thinking this way) Problem:Millions of intelligent people take these stories seriouslyso are they all wrong? C. The Wittgensteinian View: he believed that people are mistaken if they take religious myths and rituals as literally true and literally false. He believed that religious myths and rituals were a way of expressing deep emotionsand mysteries of life like death, moral responsibility, guilt, existence of universe and earth. Religious myth cant be wrong or mistaken if they are not taken literally, an expressive view (expressing profound human emotion) D. The Mainstream Christian View: Religious myths are not literally true, but they convey deeper truths. Eg. Deeper truth of adam and eve: humans broke the connection with god when she ate the apple. Problem: is reason alone the only way to determine which myths are true and which are false. E. The Postmodern Relativist View: Religious myths are true, but only within the community that believes them. For example, Christian myths and rituals are true only for Christians, but not for non- Christians. There are no absolute universal truths all truth is relative from one culture to another Problem: Are there not some beliefs that true the earth turns on its axis once every 24 hours and some rituals that are coherent brushing your teeth - no matter what the culture? If so, why cannot some religious myths be universally true and some rituals universally coherent?

TOPIC TWO: PLATO ON THE NATURE OF THE SOUL The Athens of Platos time (429 347BC): A Greek City-State or Polis with a population of about 125,000 60,000 free citizens (men, women and children), 25,000 slaves, and 40,000 foreigners most of whom were resident workers or metics. Only free citizens had rights. (Note: Plato had slaves, about 5 when he died. In his writings he was opposed to slavery, stating that owning slaves caused civil strife. Aristotle thought slavery was fine, some people couldnt gvern their own lives and were therefore naturally slaves) Athens was a direct democracy.Males rich and poor were free citizens and could go to the assembly in Athens and debate questions of the day and pass law. Women didnt participate in public life, mainly confined to the home. Male citizens were free to take on any civic role, they served family first then served city/state. The war with Sparta (the Peloponnesian War that lasted from 431 to 404 BC), the rise of a more selfinterested middle class who became more concerned with protecting their wealth, led to the breakdown of democracy and the rise of demagogues and factions, the rule by the Thirty. Socrates engaged citizens of Athens through dialogue and reason. A search for universal truth through careful reasoning (What do you mean? How do you know?) . He preferred to talk to young men, as they would be the future. Older citizens accused him of corrupting them. He was sentences to banishment, but refused to leave and killed himself for free will. Plato then began writing what Socrates previously taught. Hence Platos rejection of democracy and his central concern with justice in the individual and the State, with knowledge and truth, and with the use of Socratic dialogue as a means of discovering truth The Republic as the ideal State. Plato rejected democracy, it sentenced his friend to death. His most famous writing is the republic. Plato believed that the State is a natural institution because we are social beings by nature and live in communities, we are therefore also political beings. We have to engage in how we will organise ourselves because we cannot avoid this. We want our society and politics to be fair to be governed well. By nature, individuals in any society fall into three major classes or groups we know this by observing the spontaneous play of children: 1. Those with practical skills making and doing tradespeople, craftspeople, merchants, farmers, sailors the majority of society 2. Those with spirit or spiritedness (thumos) intensely competitive, play games, cant keep still a minority of society 3. Those interested in abstract ideas and arguments reading, asking questions very small minority of society Three groups are gender neutral they apply to all human beings. Plato believed that the minority (group 3) were best suited to governing, what he called the Guardian class. The competitive group (group 2) is best suited to protect the state, known as the Auxiliaries. Those with practical skills (group 1) become the tradespeople, what he called the Artisans (Greek word for work). No one class is superior. All are necessary. Those fit for the Guardian class would be selected at around age 20 removed from their family and would then undergo a long education and training until they were ready, at age 50, to legislate for the good of the whole community. The Guardian class would live communally, would not marry, and would own no private property. Justice and harmony in the State means each class minding its own business. The nature of the individual reflects the nature of society. Hence the Tripartite Division or Structure of the Soul.

Plato offers the argument from Contradiction that the soul (self) is divided into three parts: something cannot be at rest and in motion at the same time. For example, a person sitting still on a moving train the train is separate from the individual The contradiction between appetite and reason (two parts of the soul).eg. soldier craving for a drink and yet the thirsty individual may be unwilling to drink because he suspects (reason) the water may be poisoned. Plato argues then that reason masters appetite but what controls reason is willpower and the decision- making power of humans the power of will. Is will different from reason? Will controls desire. Plato implies that understanding/reason can give rise to its own motivating desires the desire to preserve ones life instead of drinking from a poisoned well. Critics say it does not. Plato believes that reason corresponds to the Guardian class; Appetite corresponds to the Artisan class; What corresponds to the Auxiliary class? Example: Leontius goes outside the walls of Athens in order to look at the dead bodies of slain soldiers and others condemned to death; however he becomes angry with himself for wanting to look at dead bodies as this is childish, perverse and ghoulish behaviour. Plato states that Leontius anger with himself is his spiritedness and his anger forces himself to go back inside the gates. Therefore, there is a third element of the self spiritedness. Spiritedness opposes appetite, and works in harmony with reason against appetite. There is therefore a three-fold division of the self, which is a reflection of the three-fold division of the State. Spiritedness is connected with self-esteem and shame failure to do the right thing. Is this always the case? Are happy-go-lucky people still competitive and combative even if they do not worry about their self- esteem? However this goes against what Plato defines as spiritedness. More generally: has Platos account of the self left out the will, moods and personality traits? Moods can come for no reason, personality traits like shyness or gregariousness do these fit with appetite, reason or spiritedness? Justice in the individual: each part of the self is minding its own business. Reason is the ruler; Sense of spiritedness supports reason; and reason directs and controls appetite. implications: The soul (self) is a scene of conflict the appetites are unruly and can easily get out of control. Reason is the dominant element however, appetite can overwhelm reason even though we know the damage that might be caused (e.g. a diabetic who knows the implications of eating too many vanilla slices). TOPIC THREE: PLATO ON KNOWLEDGE OF THE GOOD AND IMMORTALITY The theory of the Forms derives from the problem of the one and the many (problem of universals). Platos answer is that all the circles in the physical world must be imperfect copies and/or examples of absolute circularity the perfect abstract circle the Form of the circle. All the things we call just are imperfect copies of the Form of Justice; and all the things we call good are imperfect copies and/or examples of the Form of Goodness or the Form of the Good. There is nothing in this world that is a perfect rectangle, perfectly beautiful, or perfectly good. Physical examples of things can change, decay and become extinct or lost. The Forms, therefore, cannot be physical things as everything that is physical is imperfect in some way. The Forms are the standards of perfection (abstract paradigms) the Forms are therefore spiritual (i.e. non- physical/non-material) realities; they are unchanging and eternal (un-mutable). They can

never change, they can never be annihilated they are eternal. Amongst the Forms, there is one Form that is fundamental the Form of the Good, which is sovereign

. Plato believes that we cannot find perfect goodness in this world. Everything in this world is interchangeable: it is only found/available in the Realm of the Good. Perfect goodness is not a physical thing exists in the non-physical world of the Form. Plato holds a dualistic view of reality and appearance the imperfect, changeable world (appearance) and the realm of perfection (reality). This world (Earth) is only a copy of the ultimate realm the perfect world is the Realm of the Forms. The Guardians are seeking an understanding of the Forms the notion of perfect beauty, goodness and justice. In this world we can only achieve opinions, which can change everyday. no Form can be perceived by the senses. Knowledge and truth are concerned with reality not with appearance. So knowledge and truth can only be found in the contemplation of the Forms; in this world of imperfect appearances we can only achieve opinions. our situation in this world. That is, the shadows are imperfect it is a world of appearances. So only what is itself spiritual and unchanging can know what is spiritual and unchanging the Forms. Hence the rational element of our souls must be like the Forms it sees it must be spiritual in nature and unchanging. Hence the soul as reason is immortal. The Argument from Simplicity. The body is complex and composed of many different elements which may change and dissolve the body will die. But the soul is essentially rational a simple non-physical thing. The soul therefore will not die when the body dissolves into its component parts. It may go on to live in communion with the Forms (its final state) or transmigrate to another body (reincarnation compare Hinduism and Buddhism). What about the tripartite soul? What about appetite and spiritedness? Plato says they are still an important part of being human the crucial part is that your reason can understand and then control/master appetite and spiritedness. Reason can therefore spiritualise appetite and spiritedness. We need reason, spiritedness and appetite for a full human life but reason is the main component of the self. This is what differentiates us from animals the spiritualization of the body. TOPIC FOUR: ARISTOTLE ON FORMS AND HUMAN FULFILMENT Aristotles criticism of Platos Theory of the Forms: Good = is this in reference to only one perfect Goodness? Do they mean different things in different contexts? Multiplication of Forms = is there really a Form for every general term? Like leaves, sock, table? Form of colour = whats the Form of colour, if it is not red, blue or green? Form of Form = is there a Form of Form? What would it look like? Form is a general term too Form of human being = according to Plato, the form of human beingmust be the perfect human being. We are imperfect humans but we share humanity with the perfect human being there must be a third man who must be the form of all we have in common (and son on endlessly) goes on infinitely. This is referred to as the Third Man Problem. Aristotle claims that Plato hasnt solved the problem of the Forms as you have to generate an infinite number of Forms Aristotle says that Plato has not explained how things change in the world the Forms are unchanging but we die and decay.

 This is central to Aristotle he wants to explain what happens in this world The alternative: For example, by looking at cats we can see that they are pieces of matter that are organised in a particular way (eg. purr, reproduce), just as humans are organised as human beings The Form of something is not an abstract idea, it is the way something is organised the principle of organisation in any physical and material thing Forms can exist in physical things (the way something is organised) or in the human mind (our understanding of that principle of organisation that makes a particular physical thing) two modes of existence Distinctions between matter/form and potentiality/actuality : Humans have the potential to die and then to become something else (eg. bones/dirt) What happens when something changes is that it takes on a different form eg. an oak seed germinates into an oak tree by a transformation of its form . Eg. burning a lump of wood transforms into ash. Its changed its form . This is how Aristotle explains change in the world the same piece of matter may take on many different forms. It is the form of something that makes it a particular type of thing it is the matter of a thing that makes it an individual thing of that kind. Classifying: When we classify things into various groups it is because we understand the form of these things our minds are able to understand the form of a physical thing. There is a harmony between the human mind and the physical world. The world is therefore understandable to us as humans Living things have the potential to grow and express themselves in activities. The characteristic activity of a living thing reveals its form or soul. What kind of soul does a human being have? Aristotle claims that the soul of a human is shown through our use of reason (rational souls) we are like plants (grow and develop) and animals (have desires) but we are different because we can understand the forms of things and reason about them (engage in debate). A human being is therefore a rational animal its form of organisation is to be rational. The purpose of all living things develop towards their point of maturity ( telos end point/target) Aristotle holds a teleological view of nature and living things. Compare with Darwin: Living things are what they are because of natural selection we do not have a point of maturity. We grow the way we grow purely because of natural selection there is no point of development, as development is the product of natural selection.But dont sexual organs have a telos or function? Isnt the goal of sexual reproduction to produce an offspring that is identical to the parents? the telos and good of a tadpole is to become a frog Why is the end-point or telos of the development of a living thing good? If we accept that the telos is good, does that mean that all living things are therefore good?therefore, knowing the good of something/end point does not make it good! Is there any overall excellence or virtue of human life? Aristotle says there is he calls this virtue eudaimonia. Translation: flourishing (not pleasure or contentment). But what does this mean? What does it mean for a human being to flourish? Aristotle says flourishing means to develop our characteristic activity as far as possible. That is, our rationality, the ability to reason: to become fully reasonable. In practice: We have to develop two kinds of virtues: 1. Intellectual virtues (consistent in arguments, clear in thinking) 2. Moral virtues (practical/day-to-day activities) the virtues of character (courage, justice, moderation and practical wisdom the four classical virtues) The moral virtues lie in the balance between two extremes of excess and deficiency: Courage exists in the middle between recklessness and cowardice Moderation between insensitivity and licentiousness Aristotle says that you have to understand the two extremes in order to find the balance However, Aristotle says that there are some actions and dispositions which could never have a mean e.g. murder, theft, love or envy Practicing the intellectual and moral values: The virtues must be developed and achieved by practice i.e. doing the right thing in the right way at the right and in the right place

Therefore, the virtues are hexes (habits of the heart) dispositions to think and feel, choose and act reasonably Individuals who have achieved virtue then become wise and competent judges of what is reasonable in practical and moral matters they are trustworthy guides to others Cowards will not see the world or judge experience in the same way as courageous and virtuous people The moral education of the young by the family and school in the context of the State is essential to help the young understand what is truly good for them and what is truly desirable their genuine fulfillment/flourishing Will is an intellectual appetite we are able to judge what is good and are naturally drawn to/desire it because it is good. Pleasure intensifies our interest in activities Aristotle does not believe that pleasure is good or bad in itself, but rather that there are good and bad pleasures because there are good/virtuous and bad/vicious activities. Virtuous individuals take pleasure in the good (reason) they are therefore fully integrated personalities as thinking, feeling, choosing and acting are all working in harmony with each other. Aristotle sees moral weakness and wrongdoing as a lack of integration between thought and feeling and between judgment and choice or action. For example, the pleasure an individual derives from committing an evil or heinous act overwhelms any reasonable judgment and choice. Note: this is different to Socrates and early Platos understanding of moral w eakness and wrongdoing as a lack of knowledge of what is true justice/goodness. Aristotle believed that intellectual contemplation (philosophy) in the company of friends is the only activity that achieves the good of reason more than others.Question: can we justify the elevation of theoretical reason over practical reason think, for example, of choosing Socrates over Mother Theresa? Who achieves the good of reason more? Aristotle perfectly virtuous individual was the magnanimous (great souled) man he expects/receives the praise of others, does not carry false modesty and does not suffer fools gladly. Magnanimity is a worldly virtue which depends on the public appreciation of the magnanimous individual this is in stark contrast to the Christian virtue of humility, where service to others is hidden/not on display to receive appreciation. General question: Are the virtues always consistent? Consider cut-throat and ruthless business people or army generals who may need to be ruthless in their public roles, but are very different in the private lives. TOPIC FIVE: ARISTOTLE AND AQUINAS ON BODY AND SOUL AND LIFE AFTER DEATH Aristotles view of the soul the soul cannot be separated from the body Soul plus body constitutes the animal, so it indubitably follows that soul is inseparable from its body I am this living body which grows, senses, desires, understands, reflects and decides Aristotle speculates that our rational soul (mind/power to think) could survive the death of the body as it is a different kind of soul (eternal vs. perishable) St Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274): Thought to be the greatest Christian philosopher He further developed Aristotles thoughts Believes we are destined for an eternal life with God after we die Aquinas was not comfortable with Platos dualism of body and soul if the body is something to escape from, why did Jesus Christ, the Son of God, become a full man? He prefers Aristotles theory of the unity of matter and form, body and soul life after death is possible in the idea of the special nature of the human soul as a principle/power of understanding and thought Aquinas believed that the body is limited in what it can know: The human mind/intellect can grasp the general idea of a physical/material thing (eg. dog, cat, tree, wind) or non-material things like numbers. However, our bodily senses can only perceive specific aspects of the physical world in a certain place/time, so it is therefore limited in what it can understand at any given time. Therefore, the mind cannot be limited to a specific physical organ (like the brain) it must be an incorporeal power (i.e. not composed of matter), which enables it to function away from the body. o In Aquinas words: To think cannot be the activity of the body, nor of any bodily power, because everything bodily is restricted to the here and now Therefore, the soul (principle/power of reason)

or the mind/intellect can and does exist after ones death: the intellectual principle which we call the mind or intellect has an operation of its own apart from the body. Now only a self-subsisting thing can have an operation of its own; for nothing can operate but what is actua l But what about the brain do we not think with our brains?Aquinas: although we depend on our brains to think, the electrical/chemical activity in our brains is not the same as thoughts/thinking thoughts and power of thinking are a spiritual phenomena. The brain is used by the mind/intellect as a sense organ, but the mind itself is not a bodily organ. It is the whole form of human bodily life the rational form. That is, it is the whole person who thinks, not just the brain (i.e. the organ). Therefore, it is the whole person who thinks not just the brain. Aquinas recognises that thinking is inseparable from sense experience, imagination and emotion our body and soul are one, our unified selves. After death, my power of thought will not be a full human thought because it is no longer connected to the body. Therefore, when the soul has separated from the body it is not the full self (the full me), and the only way to exist as I again, is to be re-united with my body (not just any other body, but mine) through resurrection the reunion of soul and body. However, only God has the power to resurrect us back into our bodies after we have died. Note: This is different to the idea of reincarnation of the soul into a different body. Conflicting alternatives: Understanding gives rise to a clear choice between conflicting alternatives a free choice. Aquinas believed that it is the capacity for free will that gives rise to a moral responsibility, and ultimately makes us properly human and different from animals. Free choice: Because free choice is not subject to physical action it is therefore another aspect of a nonmaterial/spiritual dimension of what it means to be human, which means that it could survive after the physical body has died. This means that even though we have the free choice to make decisions, we do not always have to act on them so therefore our capacity to make free choices based on reasoning and understanding will survive after we have died. Aquinas believed that Gods Eternal Law for human beings explains why some things are good for people, and why some things harm them note that this is different to Aristotles view that it was just a given that some things are either good or harmful for human beings. The inherent concupiscence (strong desire) of all human beings is a primal human sin i.e. The Fall from the Garden of Eden and one that has separated us from God and weakened the original integrity/harmony of our nature. This explains why our reason is at times in conflict with our appetite and desire parts of ourselves or why we choose the ill-advised course of action. Therefore, Aquinas believes that human beings are naturally flawed in this sense and by our own efforts will never achieve moral goodness/virtue we need Gods help and grace to become fully virtuous. Ultimate happiness and fulfilment: Aquinas believed that because we cannot exclude evil from our/others choices and that this life is temporary (and its goods do not last) we cannot ever achieve ultimate happiness/fulfilment in this life it lies in living a resurrected eternal life in communion with God (source of all that is good). Topic six: Hobbes on materialism and the nature of society Before hobbes it was mostly classical humanist tradition (Socrates, Aristotle, plato and Aquinas) whereas hobbes was alive during the scientific revolution. Materialistic and mechanist view Adopts a strictly scientific view Materialistic view: life is simply a matter of mechanical motion; explains the movement of the planets and applies to humans Human life is simply a matter of mechanical motion Mechanistic view of human beings: explains human nature with the principles of mechanist/physics Order of natural world Hobbes abandons Aristotle and Aquinas teleological view of human nature: hobbes believes there is no sence of purpose and goodness built into nature, no sense of natural order

In other words because nature has no purpose it has no value built into it. If the world is really just bits of matter in motion, then what are the key elements of motion in human beings? Hobbes gives two: vital motion blood flow, breathing, nutrition, excretion and animal/voluntary motion the decision of the individual to do something (speak, move, act) is preceded by thought Thinking Thinking depends on sense experience and is closely connected with imagination. Sense experience is simply the light hitting objects and light bouncing onto our eyes (mechanistic view), then we get the movement of nerve endings in our eyes which are connected to our brain. Thinking is a mechanical motion in the brain. Mind-brain identity theory we experience thinking and meaning as different from physical events but they are essentially the same thing. The mind and the brain are the same thing chemical and electrical reactions in our brains. Contrast: Remember Aquinas when we speak, other people understand our meaning, but this is not the same as the sound we make. Thinking cant just be a chemical and electrical reaction in our brain, but it cant be the thinking thinking has to be more than a chemical and electrical reaction in the brain. Determinism Thinking and willing are reactions in our brain, so what follows is pre determined, isnt any free will. We are determined to do this by the mechanics of our bodies. Human decisions are simply made based on appetites and aversions some appetites or aversions are innate or a given (hunger, thirst) and others are learned from experience (fears). Nature has no value, so value comes from appetite and aversion. What we desire we call good, what we are averse to we call evil. For hobbes: moral jusgement and beliefs are expressions of feelings and desired. No objective right or wromng. This is Hobbes scientifically based explanation of human morality of good and evil. Hobbes adopts a Subjectivist view of ethics Aristotle, Plato and Aquinas hold an objective view of ethics.Hobbes is a Voluntarist (understanding of good and evil is voluntary) and a subjectivist (morality is in ourselves). Nominalism Doesnt believe in essential nature of things. There is nothing in nature which dictates how we should group the individual things we perieve. In the state of nature, humans always follow their own self-interest their fundamental true nature. Even selfless or altruistic acts are motivated by self-interest; Hobbes says that altruism is an illusion and does not exist. Psychological Egoism Hobbes believes that human generosity/altruism are illusions, humans are ultimately driven by self-interest. If we are all driven by self-interests, there will inevitably be conflict in the human experience between individuals, families, local groups or nations of people. There are three ultimate sources of conflict: 1. Competition wanting what another person has; 2. Diffidence desire to protect what you have; 3. Glory desire to defend/enhance our reputation and honour amongst others.

In the state of nature, we are naturally at war with one another reflection of Hobbes time (English Civil War). Hobbes: The state of war: Every man against every man. For Hobbes, civil society is not a natural institution the State is a result of an artificial contract/covenant between individuals and groups. How do we avoid civil war then? We have to reach an agreement (e.g. social contract) to stop fighting amongst each other there has to be a contract between each human being in a society. But how are we all to agree on a contract? The only way for this to be achieved is to agree on who is the strongest amongst us and settle our differences/impose order this person will be our designated leader. This fits with Hobbes English Civil War experience he saw that Oliver Cromwell was strong enough to rule England. Hobbes calls this person the Leviathan, who establishes a commonwealth where the people agree to follow the rules of their leader. This, says Hobbes, is the only way to achieve final peace and security. What then becomes of right and wrong? The Leviathan must dictate what is right and wrong justice is simply a matter of what the ruler dictates. Hobbes is agnostic (officially) about the possibility of an after life does not answer the question of the after life directly. Topic Seven: Hume on freedom and the self Established empiricism: the empirical method of philosophy, the truth of any statement can be proven by observation and experience Follows on from Hobbes scientific view of the world Seperates humne from classical humanist philosophy of plato, Aristotle and Aquinas, who believed that reason is a non material entity that can be separated from body after death. Cause and effect Hume applies his empirical method to cause and effect (causality), which is central to science a cause must be continuous with its effect. That is, the cause must be spatially near to the effect. E.g. a wooden cue and a billiard ball, This theory of Humes led to the notion that there can be no action at a distance. a cause always precedes its effect e.g. one billiard ball moves another ball, and moves it on.Is this always true? Take for example the recent explosion in Boston: causes and effects appear to be simultaneous. Is Hume right about this example? (the most controversial): can you see any necessary connection between cause and its effect? Hume concludes that there is no necessary connection between cause and effect all we observe is the constant conjunction of similar objects (or two events). Hume believes that cause and effect are matters of custom therefore they do not occur anywhere else in the universe. Hume defines a cause as: an object precedent and contiguous (near to another) t o another, and so united with it in the imagination that the idea of the one determines the mind to form the idea of the other, and the impression of the one to form a more lively idea of the other 'Cause and effect are complementary terms. This is just the way we have constructed our language. The idea of cause and effect are connected, but two events in the world need not always go together, but some things do in these cases we find the constant conjunction of events.

Hume is therefore an atheist based on his analysis of causation. Contemporary science (quantum mechanics) supports this theory something can pop into existence without a cause (i.e. the Big Bang). Problems with Humes view: Medical science we must look at the underlying cause of the ailment not just the constant conjunction of two events, in medical science we must look at the underlying cause of the disease. Medical science distinguishes between symptoms and causes. Our minds are simply determined to link two events together. Why are our minds determined like this? This seems to make the analysis of cause and effect a circular one... this is a problem with Humes view. Personal what of personal causation? If a person decides to speak or not, the decision is purely with the person. Is there a cause before we speak, or dont? Cause and effect and human nature There are regular springs of human action and behaviour. Such as: ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit and the same motives always produce the same actions. This is the basis of the social sciences (psychology, sociology and economics). that human beings act in regular ways. E.g. you do not expect your friends to rob you when you invite them over to your house for dinner. Hume defines the human will as: the internal impression we feel and are conscious of when we knowingly give rise to any new motion of our body, or new perception of our mind and liberty as the power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will Liberty in this sense is opposed to constraint but are we free in the sense that Aristotle and Aquinas say that we are free? Liberty of indifference: we are free to choice between two causes of action, but Hume denies this. Hume believes that we are free in the sense that we are not constrained. Hume is a determinist: we act voluntarily without constraints Motives: Hume believes that our strongest motive helps us to decide what choice to make. People will know what their strongest motive is by observing their previous experiences i.e. a shepherd, who leaves his flock of sheep to a wolf, may have shown himself to be a coward in the past. Our behaviour changes when we dont know a persons motivations. We have liberty of spontaneity we are not constrained. Nobody is forcing us to do one thing or another. But do we have liberty of indifference? Are we freely able to choose between two causes of action? Hume says no: whatever we do will be caused by our strongest motive. Humes is a psychological determinist our actions are determined by our strongest motivation. This is based on our experience and observations of other people. Hume on reason and passion Hume is a subjectivist in ethics he does not believe there is any objective right or wrong, good or

evil. He is like this because of experience and observation the empirical method. Moral right and wrong can be found in your feelings of disapproval e.g. you hate terrorist bombings, so therein lies your sense of moral right and wrong. Right = what we approve of; wrong = whatever we disapprove of. This is the basis of Humes subjectivism. Morality is the same as judgements of beauty and ugliness can we see the beauty of something we call beautiful, or the ugliness of something we call ugly? No says Hume, it is a subjective judgement. Hume says the same thing about judgements of tastes (e.g. sour and sweet), they are human reactions which are subjective. The size and shape of things are objective but judgements about the qualities of things are subjective. There are no objective values in the world according to Hume no objective good and evil, right and wrong. There are no scientific facts to be discovered about issues of morality, there are only human reactions. Qualities arent in objetcts, but depend on how our sences react to the physical world. Because of this, Hume says that we have to make a fundamental distinction between description and evaluation, fact and value. We cannot say what we ought to do simply by describing the facts of the matter. Hume is not a relativist he thinks we share the same feelings the world over: same motives, same actions. E.g. all humans are outraged by cruelty to children or innocent people. Hume is a universal subjectivist. Morality is still important to us because we still have deep feelings it matters a lot to us because we share the same passionate feelings. Since reason cannot tell us what is worth our attention and commitment - what is worth our caring about - reason cannot determine the goals or ends of human life . The goals or ends of human life can only be determined by our feelings or affections or sentiments or passions Darwin on human evolution Theory of Evolution based on the principle of natural selection: those creatures on this planet who are best suited to the environment in which they live, they and their offspring will survive. Concerned with species of individuals living in certain environments the survival of the fittest. Completely blind process no purpose and no meaning. The individuals which are best suited to their environment will survive (and their offspring). This eventuated into the emergence of human beings as we know them today could easily have been another being. Darwins theory developed from visiting the Galapagos Islands he noticed that finches lived in the Galapagos Islands that he knew lived in South America, but they were different (i.e. had longer beaks to adapt to their environment in order to survive) Human beings are not created directly by God at all we have evolved from apes under the principle of natural selection

Human intellectual and moral capacities have also arisen through natural selection so those individuals/tribes with the best hunting skills were better able to survive than those without. E.g. those who first invented tools and hunting equipment became better tribesmen than tribes who did not. Human moral capacities have developed from social instincts the tribe that values friendship, trust and courage when out hunting will look after their injured tribesmen. This is how our moral senses have developed over time. A basic moral principle: do unto others as you would have them do unto you this moral principle grew out of the necessity of staying alive Humans developed like any animals in a state of savagery, but over centuries have developed social instincts that became moral instincts i.e. the emergence of human culture. This is a new kind of science a continuation of Hobbes and Humes view. Marx Was more directly influential (than Darwin) in the last events of the last century due to the Communist Revolution in Russia and China. Marxs thoughts were profoundly influential around the world. Primitive communism Essential characteristics of human beings: species life: is out capacity for free, creative work within a community. tribal groups reflect this ideal, where all resources and tools are shared, and no private property is allowed. This was Marxs first notion of Communism. However, if one member of the tribe usurps this agreement of shared resources (i.e. stealing ideas and selling them for profit) and amass private property and wage-slaves (workers), then that person is a capitalist, according to Marx. This is the origin of original sin according to Marx the first ruthless human being who begins to amass goods of the world without sharing with others, and who treats other people as workers to make himself rich. The first step in this process is alienation i.e. workers are not making things for themselves, they are making them for their boss to sell in order for profit. Those workers are now alienated from their work as they dont share in the wealth and the products of their work. Marx says that the things are made by the workers only belong to the boss this came to be the labour theory of value. First things are valued because of the labour that went into them, then that quickly becomes the money theory of value. Marx: Money is the absolute essence of mans labour and life, and this alien essence dominates him as he worships it The Marxist view: The very way we think is governed by the social relations in your community i.e. justifying slaves because all people have slaves. Aristotle said that some people were natural born slaves the way he thought was governed by the existing social conditions of his time. Marx: What does this teach us? To not rock the boat in this life, in order to get our heavenly reward upon dying. This fits perfectly with a capitalist world no-one will challenge the injustices around them, because everything will be perfect in the next life

Religion is the opium of the people where the rich have all the power Marxs materialism: Ideas and thoughts are determined by the material forces in any society arise from our social position in a society Not a materialist like Hobbes It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness These material and economic forces and the subsequent class conflict follow a pattern that is dialectical (from Platos dialogues between Socrates and people on the street) Invention of the computer changed everything again o People can now work from home using computers and the internet Marxist theory is called dialectical materialism Capitalism: Marx: Capitalism will not survive capitalists are always too greedy! Their whole objective is to make money, and more of it there is a fatal flaw in that system: When capitalists get too greedy the system breaks down Marx says that capitalism will never work Socialism will be the only thing that will work the government will have to nationalise all the banks; and the eventual return to advanced communism; we return to the notion of working for the good of the whole community There will be a guiding principle in such a system: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need This is a utopia the Kingdom of heaven here and now no-one is entitled to earn more than three times the lowest paid worker Darwin and Marx have been profoundly influential: Darwin is more like Hobbes and Hume, thinks of human life through scientific terms Marx is different he is scientific as well as emphasising creativity (more like classical humanist traditions) Freud Freuds model of human beings is based on Plato: Tripartite division of the soul the Id, the Ego and the Superego The Id: unconscious/instinctual (not instinctive) drives that we are normally unaware of: The Pleasure Principle Eros principle of sexual life, Thanatos Greek God of Death (aggression, self-preservation, thrillseeking, self-destructive) They provide human beings with energy, motives for actions (cause and meaning of behaviour) All three drives are called the libido

Freuds evidence: They are found in: Unconscious motivations: Everyday experiences Hypnosis (hypnotic suggestion) Psychosomatic illnesso Here motives are causes of behaviour Slips of the tongue: The husband who accidentally calls his wife by his mistress name In jokes and free association (just saying things freely e.g. during psychoanalysis) Dreams: Dreams are symbolic of deeply hidden desires e.g. dreaming of flying is a desire to escape dreams give meaning to experiences The way those three primal impulses are developed is crucial to the person we become the key determining factor in an adults life: Every child passes through 3 stages:Oral putting things in their mouths/suckling (0-1yrs) Anal (1-3yrs) Phallic pleasure from genitals (3yrs to puberty) Oedipus complex: Phallic stage is when the childs emotional development is determined young boys are naturally attracted to their mothers, and resent their fathers (this is the Oedipus complex) Fathers are all powerful, young boys learn to fear them they eventually abandon their yearning for their mother, and identify with their father If boys do not pass through this phase then they will not achieve emotional maturity Electra complex: Girls also pass through this phase. They are their fathers favourite; girls have penis envy they must overcome this envy This can lead young women to marry someone like their father if they do not mature emotionally (this is the Electra complex) Freud: Claims that if at any of those three stages, if the unconscious desires are thwarted, denied or repressed, then they do not go away they are forms of energy If they are repressed, it reappears in neurotic behaviour cause of neurosis in human beings E.g. a young girl who is told that masturbation is bad and evil this is a repressed instinctive desire, but it will reappear in neurotic and compulsive behaviour There is only one way to escape this type of neurosis: Someone to interpret the behaviour first stage of psychoanalysis: what does this behaviour mean? Take the child back in time/return to their childhood and show them that there was a series of events which made them neurotic second stage of psychoanalysis: what is the cause? The closer the analyst gets to the cause of the behaviour, the more the person will deny it, until they finally admit the cause profound release of emotion when they face the truth (can be unconscious/denied) The individual can now control their emotions the Ego can control the emotions This appears to be more of a classical humanist tradition than psychology... The Ego: The point of mediation between the Id and social reality the Ego controls the emotions To know the truth is understand what is real The Ego is the self it is the conscious part of us that is closely bound up with the unconscious forces of the Id The Ego is the tip of the iceberg Like Plato, Freud uses the image of the horse and rider the rider is the Ego and the horse is the energy (instinctive drives of the Id), which the Ego controls The Superego: The voice of conscience what tells us right and wrong, comes from our social world (what is taboo - socially unacceptable behaviour) The conscience is judgemental social norms of our community dictate what is right and wrong The superego can become compulsive, too judgemental or overbearing destroys the Egos efforts to achieve stability The goal of individual and social development is harmony between the three elemnets of the personality: the Id, Ego and Superego: Instinct cannot be repressed but it may be conscious supressed and channelled by the Ego into activities that the Superego judges to be socially beneficial e.g. an artist who denies himself sexual pleasure in the creation of art; young men channel their aggression and risk-taking into sports Culture is formed through these acts of self-denial these are not repression but are sublimated

instincts Religion: Freud: has some value in some periods of civilisations when a civilisation is new Serves as a useful form in which to embody the norms, taboos and ideals of a particular society There is no God Freud says religion only satisfies our desires for a perfect father and/or mother in heaven We have to grow beyond religion religion is an illusion Topic ten: Sartre on personal freedom and authenticity One of the founders of Existentialism developed the form of Atheistic Existentialism in combination with Marxism Sartre: modern science and philosophy agrees that there is no infinitely perfect being i.e. the creator of the universe Universe: no meaning or purpose; existence of human beings in the universe has no meaning or purpose (chance) Human life: absurd (meaningless) Sartre rejects the classical tradition of human nature and the pure source of beauty, truth and justice Human consciousness Judgements are the basis of human consciousness what is the case and what is not the case; human beings have endless choices (e.g. I can do x, or I dont do x) Reflection: human beings have the ability to reflect on a current situation and develop different possibilities for the future (which do not exist now) something the present lacks, a nothingness Defining feature: humans have a capacity for free choice the freedom/capacity to choose from and enact a desirable possibility from a variety of different possibilities available Being human is being free Sartre: reasserts classical humanist tradition (Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas) different to empirical scientific traditions of Hobbes and Hume. Humans are not subject to natural causes we transcend nature through our free choices Radical Freedom Temptation: humans become conscious of their radical freedom when we are faced with temptation For example, when a gambler is able to choose whether to gamble now or to walk away... Meaning and value: our use of free choice provides meaning and value of the world any meaning and value in the universe is the meaning and value we give to things through our choices For example, when we have to choose between two incommensurable alternatives, the option we select determines the value of our choice Sartre: human beings existence precedes their essence what we choose determines what we are We create ourselves through our fundamental commitments our major choices that make sense of

the smaller choices Bad Faith and Authenticity When we fail to accept our responsibility to create our own meaning value, this is referred to as Bad Faith For example, the young girl who pretends that her date has not put his hand seductively on her knee as a prelude Authenticity is the opposite of Bad Faith recognising the reality of ones situation and dealing with it honestly and without pretence The anguish of being a free self-determining individual can be a painful process Transparency of consciousness: an awareness of our self-deception to ourselves (when we hide things from ourselves) Self-deception and self-denial always involves an awareness of what is being avoided or denied We are guilty of bad faith if we cannot remember traumatic experiences we have denied that these experiences happened, but they can still be recalled under analysis Sartre: there is no Freudian unconscious (no hidden causes/meaning of choices/actions) human beings are always aware of the meaning of their experience; we can choose freely between a variety of courses of action All cases of so-called unconscious motivation are in face cases of bad faith Topic Elevel: Charles taylor on language and the self Contemporary Canadian philosopher influenced by Plato, Martin Heidegger and Ludwig Wittgenstein Taylors view strongly correlates with the Classical Humanist view of philosophy a way of integrating different strands of theories of human nature Taylors view of human nature: Human beings are embodied agents that are primarily engaged with the practical business of coping with a physical world Human beings exist within a social space that mainly consists of all the social creations (language/meaning) that help us to engage in/with the world and act effectively within it Human beings exist within a moral space our identity as a person is defined by our commitments, what we think is the most important or valuable as opposed to what we think is worthless or unimportant Human selves are partly constituted by their orientation within the moral space to the good what individuals take to be good will inevitably vary For example, Mother Theresa values service to the poor, whereas a surfer values a good wave A self without orientation to the good without an answer to the question what do you live for? What is important to you? is pathological Hence the notion of an identity crisis moving from one

set of fundamental commitments to another Consider, for example, a Muslim woman who abandons her subservience to her husband afterreading radical feminist literature The self cannot be an object of scientific study like a physical object: It cannot be understood without reference to its own self-interpretation, its own understanding of what is good this is different to examining a heart or liver in the same respect Our values and commitments are articulated in languages that are rich in meaning we can never fully grasp all of our assumptions the self is not able to be fully captured in explicit description, like a heart or liver can The self cannot be considered apart from its surroundings the self is partly constituted by language and exists in the social space of a language community o One is a self only among other selves my self definition is answer to the question of who I am. And this question finds its original sense in an exchange of speakers. A self only exists within webs of interlocution (dialogue/conversation) The good is something we seek we move towards or move away from this ideal: We can be a better or worse person if we choose to be The life of the self has a narrative structure it is a quest with a history In order to have a sense of who we are, we have to have a notion of how we have become, and of where we are going. The self cannot be neutral (like Freuds Ego that only calculates satisfactions and has no essential orientation to the good), nor can good be something we can invent/create through our choices (like Sartre). What is significant in my life? What is worth my commitment? these are the questions we must face in order to have a self, and which exist independently of us Plato: the notion of good is inescapable that is, we cannot have a self that is disengaged from the question of the good Reason cannot be defined (like Hobbes and Hume say) in purely instrumental terms, as giving us the means to an end that is provided by passion We cannot avoid reflection on what we should be passionate about on what really deserves our respect, care and commitment, on what is a fitting object of our deepest feelings Fat ego (Murdoch) prevents our attempts to discover the true good: our habit of self-regarding, self-interested consciousness that must be purified