The unexamined life is not worth living for a man — Socrates.
For those interested in the fading of Western Civilization and the role higher education has played in this situation, here is a helpful study published by the National Association of Scholars. Although a few years old, it is still relevant.
Not everything Professor Cocks writes about over at the Orthosphere is correct. With this one, however, he hits it out of the park. Enjoy!
This is part three of a three part examination of Berkeleyan subjective idealism. Part two can be found here. Part one can be found here.
When it comes to epistemology, the mind through its innate intellectual capacity to make judgments, utilizes the laws of logic as the starting points of understanding reality. The first principles of knowledge are innate intellectual capacities or functions of the mind by virtue of the mind’s ability to know reality and make judgments about it. Realists, therefore, are innatists, meaning that certain functions of the mind are innate, simply because the mind is an essential feature of being human. Judgment is a natural part of the human intellect. One may not immediately understand the first principles they are using, but they may be easily affirmed and recognized through education and reflective questioning just as Plato demonstrated with the slave-boy in the Meno dialogue, and as Aristotle affirms as intuitively correct in his Posterior Analytics1. Therefore, the human mind has an innate, or natural capacity to understand reality through judgment but knowledge is developed explicitly through discussion, questioning, examination, and education. Even the empirically-minded Aquinas believes that the mind has a natural tendency for understanding first principles. Aquinas explains, “Each power of the soul is a form or nature, and has a natural inclination to something. Therefore each power desires by the natural appetite that object which is suitable to itself” (Ia q. 80, a. 1, ad. 3). And, “The natural appetite is that inclination which each thing has, of its own nature, for something” (Ia, q. 78, a. 1, ad 3). For Aquinas, and most forms of realism, human beings have innate first principles or cognitive functions of the intellect. When these mental capacities are given the content of sense experience, human beings are able to come to a correct knowledge of reality. This also means that deductive rational reasoning and empirical experience work together symbiotically.
Of course, one could examine many other first principles of reality such as the law of universality, the principle of causality, the principle of finality, or the more narrow principles of induction or empiricism, but the most important are the laws of logic because they apply equally to metaphysics and epistemology. Just as there are different faculties of the mind, there are logical first principles which are related ontologically and epistemically. These first principles come from the innate cognitive faculty of judgment and are derived from reality itself because one cannot deny what is. In fact, the foundational principles of knowing and logic are properties of being itself. Aquinas thinks that understanding the basic first principles of being is an act of wisdom,
“Now to know the meaning of being and non-being, of whole and part, and of other things which follow on being, which are the terms of which indemonstrable principles are constituted, is the function of wisdom … And so wisdom makes use of indemonstrable principles which are the object of understanding not only by drawing conclusions from them, as other sciences do, but also by passing its judgment on them, and by vindicating them against those who deny them.” (I-II, q. 66, a. 5, ad. 4)
Here, it becomes important to review the first (or primary) laws of logic, because they relate to both existence (what can or cannot be), and how one knows it (what can or cannot be known). The laws of logic have both metaphysical and epistemic implications. As such, they set forth the first principles of reality and knowledge. The first principle of knowledge is the law of noncontradiction. The law of noncontradiction states that nothing can both be, and not be at the same time and same respect. This is a metaphysical and ontological claim because being cannot both exist, and not exist in the same manner (no object has that property including being itself). This principle is simply expressing the notion that being and nonbeing are ontologically different things and is why the law of noncontradiction is a property reality itself. The first judgment the mind makes when it experiences anything is that something is rather than is not, which makes it also an epistemic principle of reality. The law of excluded middle is equally important. The law of excluded middle is the principle that something either is, or it is something else, but cannot be both at the same time.2 Something must either be, or not be. A sea creature is either a fish, or a cephalopod, but not both at the same time or something in-between. Metaphysically, something cannot both be and not be in the same manner. Language depends on this principle as well—a statement is either true or false, but not both at the same time. If that were not the case, all meaningful communication would collapse into incoherence. Finally, the law of identity indicates the unity of things and being itself. Metaphysically, the law of identity draws one’s attention to the fact that a thing is what it is. The unity of being speaks to the fact that being is, and is intelligible. There are fundamental universal consistencies of being which make something what it is and intelligible to the mind. Epistemologically, a true statement must be true, a false statement must be false. These are the first principles of reality and all human knowledge. These principles are not mind dependent, they are properties of objective being and reality.
The innate ability of the mind to make determinations and judgments about reality does not mean that the mind is ultimate in determining reality. Contrary to Berkeley, being is not a construct of the mind. The mind apprehends being, but does not create it. Rather, the first principles of knowledge point to the fact that the mind is subservient to being. It first receives being, then makes a judgment according to what is or is not (the law of noncontradiction). But “what is” is unaffected, unchanged, and essentially untouched whether or not it is perceived. The only reason I can say that Los Angeles is in California and that I exist is because reality is that way. Berkeleyan idealism holds that all reality is mind-dependent and a construct of mental perception (whether one’s own or an eternal spirit’s). Realists maintain that the mind does not construct reality, it conforms to it. When I fly on an airplane to Los Angeles, I must adjust to this objective reality—including the ultimate principles that will get me there—the principle of causation, the principle of predictive uniformity, and various other laws of physics which are properties of being, and exist completely independently of what I think about them, or whether or not I perceive them. Berkeley’s subjective idealism reduces being to mind alone, and fails to account for the ontological first principles of objective external reality.
Works Cited
Aquinas, Thomas. The Summa Theologica: 1. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 17. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.
Aristotle. The Works of Aristotle: 1. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 7. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.
Berkeley, George. The Principles of Human Knowledge. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 55. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and the Modern World. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 55. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.
1For Plato’s account of the slave-boy see Plato, Vol. 6, 180 – 184. Aristotle acknowledges that rational deduction is one part of knowing reality and affirms Plato’s account in his Posterior Analytics, Vol. 7, 97. Aristotle, however, fine tunes Plato’s argument and suggests that both rational deduction and inductive empirical observation are needed to come to a true and full understanding of reality.
2The principle of either/or is what makes logic gates and modern digital computing possible.
This is part three of three posts on Plutarch’s Lives. Part two can be found here.
That Plutarch and Aristotle connect morality with politics or society is neither uncommon nor hard to understand. For the ancients, the purpose of virtuous action aims at “eudaimonia” which means “well-being” or “happy-life.” The virtues are habits of conduct that provide happy well-being. Essentially this is achieved by finding the mean in ethical reflection and action. However, Aristotle’s starting point (along with much of ancient political philosophy) is that man is primarily a political animal. Moral excellence is not only necessary at the individual level but also at the social level because society is made up of individuals and all forms of moral excellence (individual and social) strive for the common good – that which is good for everyone. Ancient moral philosophy stresses the idea of the “polis,” or social community, which is formed for the realization of the common good and, as in the individual, the virtues are conducive to the common good, or well-being of the community (Miller 557). In other words, the polis or state is then responsible for nurturing moral excellence and enacting laws contributing to the common good and well-being. The morally responsible individual contributes to the common good by encouraging the state or community to pass laws and behave in ways that support moral excellence and human well-being.
A core value for the ancient Romans was the Stoic notion of “officium.” This was a strong sense of commitment to fulfill the responsibilities the individual was born to fulfill within the state for the common good. Stoic moral philosophy is also based on the view that the world, as one great city, is a unity. Man, as a world citizen, has an obligation and loyalty to all things in that city. He must play an active role in world affairs, remembering that the world exemplifies virtue and right action (Britannica 2006). Therefore Stoic political philosophy corresponds with much of Aristotle’s political thought in the emphasis of virtuous action aimed toward the common good, natural law, and a moral life based on rational reflection.
From the classical perspective, modern American individualism looks very strange. Classical ethical theory is focused on the larger community and the shared, common good to which the individual participants in that community contribute through their virtuous activity (Miller 558). Much more holistic in its approach, classical virtue theory would question much of modern American individualism focused simplistically on the rights of individuals. No one can pursue their own good completely isolated and independent from their social community or government.
It would go beyond the scope of this post to fully analyze every ethical system conceived in Western thought. I have simply tried to show the intellectual climate and historical background in which Plutarch wrote and outline a few implications from his ideas. There are several important insights we can learn from Plutarch and the first is that in classical virtue philosophy, moral values are inextricably fused to political values. The emphasis on virtue holds larger implications on the social community and state, which is why Plutarch wrote his biographies.
Also, a recovery of virtue ethics has practical ramifications for today. Society and the world of commerce should be interested in recovering the virtues. Capitalism itself should be aware of corporate leaders who lack virtue and make thousands of dollars while at the same time their company stock prices fall and workers are laid off. A recovery of the common good and virtue will be a healthy corrective to predatory capitalism. Some kind of recovery of classical virtue theory is needed in contemporary social and ethical thought.
Finally, Plutarch helps one to understand the intersection of history and moral philosophy. Plutarch falls within the tradition of the Roman historians Livy, Pliny the Younger, and Tacitus (among others) who insisted that the purpose of history is to teach us something by contemplating examples of morality. The first-century Greek philosopher Dionysius Halicarnassus even said, “History is philosophy, teaching by example” (Lukacs 40). When a historian such a Plutarch places before his readers examples of virtuous action it is natural to inquire what exactly is meant by moral excellence. It is helpful to use the analytical tools of reason and logic developed by philosophers to investigate moral conduct.
History also helps one to think philosophically in another sense. By contrasting and comparing (as Plutarch does with his lives) one discovers how to make similar comparisons to his or her own time. By looking across time and investigating the past, one discovers a broader perspective and will be able to offer correctives to one’s own contemporary situation. Sometimes the ancients made the same mistakes that we make today. Other times they do things in a superior manner which we should learn from. The study of history opens one to new ways of thinking and offers possibilities of viewing the world that spans across time and space.
History strengthens and enriches the human spirit. There seems to be something ennobling and inspiring when one reads Herodotus’ account of the battle of Marathon or the three hundred Spartans at Thermopylae. These ancient Greeks understood what it meant to sacrifice for the common good. Likewise, Plutarch’s accounts of Alexander or Caesar are equally edifying. History takes on existential implications when one reads Thucydides’ account of human nature and realizes that humans have always been driven by the same passions, desires, and appetites. History has a way of showing us who we are and what it means to be human. Plutarch understands history as a way to improve the human spirit and has a way of making his readers think through some of the enduring questions of life. For this Plutarch is correctly listed among the great authors.
Works cited/consulted
Aristotle. The Basic Works of Aristotle. ed. by Richard McKeon. New York: Random House, Inc., 2001.
Lukacs, John. A Student’s Guide To The Study Of History. Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2001.
Miller, Ed. Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy. 4th ed. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1996.
Plutarch. The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952.
Pojman, Louis. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. 2nd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995.
“Stoicism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD 5 July 2006.
Thornton, Bruce. Humanities Handbook. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 2001.
Recent Comments