Being, Intellectual History, Metaphysics

Russell, Wittgenstein, And Moderate Realism

by Dave Seng

[Note: We will get back to our series on “Mere Metaphysics” and cosmological reasoning soon. Here is a quick study I recently did comparing Russell’s work The Problems of Philosophy with Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations. I hope you enjoy it.]

Those, then, who are to join in argument with one another must to some extent understand one another; for if this does not happen how are they to join in argument with one another? — Aristotle, Metaphysics

Few ideas have been more central to Western philosophy than the discovery of universals. This post will seek to explore, explicate, and navigate the nature of universals and how they shape each of Russell’s and Wittgenstein’s philosophical outlook. When comparing and contrasting Russell’s work The Problems of Philosophy, with Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, it becomes clear that they have two different conceptual schemes for interpreting reality. The difference, I believe, is that each thinker is functioning with different metaphysical assumptions of reality (or being). Russell, coming from the broadly Platonic tradition, views reality through the scheme of realism (the metaphysical principle that essences or universals have objective reality), and Wittgenstein’s way of looking at the most fundamental questions of reality is through nominalism and a metaphysical framework he calls the “language-game,” generally following but going further than Kant, Berkeley, Hegel, and Hume 1. Russell and Wittgenstein differ at the most basic and elementary aspects of reality. I believe an analysis of the most basic and elemental differences between Russell and Wittgenstein will demonstrate how and why they diverge and come to contrasting positions regarding being and the nature of reality. Furthermore, I believe that through an analysis and coming to understand the basic differences between these two great books helps one arrive at a clearer understanding of the world and how we know it, primarily through the perspective of Aristotelian moderate realism (the belief that universals are apprehended in the intellect while they are individualized in objective things in the world). In order to understand and analyze the conversation between Russell and Wittgenstein, it will be helpful to examine the philosophical antecedents regarding universals. Universals are important because they help clarify how language and logic actually work and ultimately how we know reality.

It is the question of universals that is central to understanding Russell, Wittgenstein, and moderate realism. In general, Russell holds to the classical, or broadly Platonic, understanding of universals. A universal is any concept common to a number of things. For example, because a number of things can participate in whiteness and justice, Russell explains, “a universal will be anything which may be shared by many particulars, and has those characteristics which, as we saw, distinguish justice and whiteness from just acts and white things” (271). While there can be many particular acts of justice, and many individually white things, the universal whiteness or justice is that which is common to or are shared with white things and just actions. Russell is clearly drawing on the broadly classical Platonic and Aristotelian tradition. Plato believed that universals exist in a transcendent world, the world of “forms,” while Aristotle held that universals are found in the things themselves. Both Plato and Aristotle believed universals are real and timeless. Like Plato and Aristotle, Russell believes that universals are real, and holds to a position known as “metaphysical realism” (or sometimes just “realism”) because he thinks that forms or essences are objectively real. On the other hand, Russell does not place universals in a transcendent world as Plato does, nor does he find them in things themselves as Aristotle argued for. Instead, Russell believed that universals are found in the order of logic. Russell’s worry is that Plato’s theory of forms leads to a kind of mysticism and is ultimately unrealistic and unhelpful (271). Regarding Plato’s theory of forms, he states, “These mystical developments are very natural, but the basis of the theory is in logic, and it is based in logic that we have to consider it” (271). Russell thinks that Plato was not completely correct with his theory of forms, and points to the fact that logic (and language) requires universals.

Although Russell accepts the idea of universals, and thinks they are real, he believes they are correctly found in the rational order of logic. It is important to understand why Russell comes to this conclusion. There are two basic reasons why, I think, logicians such as Russell are tempted to ground universals in logic. The first reason is that logic is a property of being itself (being, after all, is a universal that many things participate in) and the second reason is that deduction and induction will not function without universals. The logical laws of identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle are inescapable properties of reality. These laws of logic explain that for anything that exists and participates in being, something is what it is (law of identity), something either is or is not (law of excluded middle), and nothing can both be and not be at the same time and same respect (law of noncontradiction). These laws are also metaphysical and epistemological in nature because they explain the basic features of what it means for something to exist (something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time) and how we can know something is true (a statement cannot both be true and not true at the same time and same respect). The laws of logic work because they are properties of being. In a similar way, logical syllogisms do not work without universals. Take, for example, the standard deductive argument:

All humans are mortal

Socrates is a human

__________________

Therefore, Socrates is mortal

It is clear that the argument is based on the universals “human” and “mortality.” When one realizes the essence of humanity, one can know that the argument is valid and correct. Universals are essential to correct logical reasoning.

Induction, as well, is based on universals. If one were to conclude that all humans are mortal based on the fact that Plato is mortal, Aristotle is mortal, Chopin is mortal, I am mortal etc., the universals “human” and “mortality” are necessary for understanding the argument.2 Both deduction and induction demonstrate that there is a metaphysical order to being which includes universals. The laws of logic, or what Russell calls the laws of thought are objective as Russell explains, “The name “laws of thought” is also misleading, for what is important is not the fact that we think in accordance with these laws, but the fact that things behave in accordance with them; in other words, the fact that when we think in accordance with them we think truly” (265 italics in original). Russell is simply echoing the same point Aristotle made centuries earlier, “It is not because we think truly that you are pale, that you are pale, but because you are pale we who say this have the truth” (577 italics in original). Logic and truth are not a product of the mind, nor of language, but an objective property of reality. In the same way, universals are an objective property of being. Truth is simply that which corresponds to reality. This will be important when we come to Wittgenstein and moderate realism.

Interestingly, however, Russell also pointed out that language itself rests on universals.

Russell’s understanding of language will also help to explain the difference between realism and the nominalism of Wittgenstein. Russell believes that language can not function without universals. Russell explains,

It will be seen that no sentence can be made up without at least one word which denotes a universal. The nearest approach would be some such statement as “I like this.” But even here the word “like” denotes a universal, for I may like other things, and other people may like things. Thus all truths involve universals, and all knowledge of truths involves acquaintance with universals. (272)

Russell believed that most words are universals (272). This has always been a source of fascination for linguists and philosophers. If I point to a triangle someone from Germany, or Nicaragua, or ancient Athens would know what I had in mind even if they have different words for the triangle. The definition seems to be universal across language, place, and time. Similarly, words like love and justice are timeless universals. One can love someone who is dead and hope for love in the future just as one can recognize acts of justice in the past and seek justice in the future. It is the universal and not the word itself with which we are concerned. For Russell, the universal seems to be real and an objective part of reality that makes both logic and language function. Russell does seem to think that the universal is both part of things of physical reality and transcendent across place and time. If there were no triangle, act of justice or love, there would be no universal (271).

With this foundation, we can now understand Wittgenstein’s position regarding universals, language, and metaphysics. First, however, I think it is important to make a few introductory remarks about Wittgenstein’s Philsophical Investigations. It is important to note that the work is aphoristic and somewhat incongruent as complete thoughts or lines of argumentation seem to end abruptly or are unfinished. It reads as if it was a collection of notes. This is not necessarily a negative reflection on the work, since Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations and Blaise Pascal’s Pensees are both collections of notes and considered by many to be great works. Nonetheless, it makes interpretation a difficult and tentative process because Wittgenstein’s thoughts seem to be incomplete at times. In addition, Wittgenstein does not lay out his philosophical starting points as clearly as Russell and it is difficult for the reader to follow his argumentation based on foundational concepts (since they are not stated) in order to get a clear grasp of what he determines to be ultimate when it comes to being, universals, and language. For these reasons, what I give as Wittgenstein’s position can only be viewed as conditional. Nonetheless, I do think there is enough evidence in the Philosophical Investigations to suggest what follows—that Wittgenstein was largely a nominalist and went further than the idealists that preceded him. Wittgenstein largely rejects the idea of foundational concepts and universals which is why he goes further than the idealists such as Kant, Berkeley, and Hegel, who did hold to universals but believe they are just products of the mind or a mind. Two things are fairly clear in the Philosophical Investigations—language is a game, and words are defined not by reference to the universal but by use and convention.

In the Western intellectual tradition, the broadly Platonic and Aristotelian position is not the only conceptual structure for interpreting universals or language (how we talk about reality or universals). Kant, Berkeley, and Hegel, for example, believed that the mind is ultimate in determining reality, that being is mind dependent, and universals are purely mental concepts. For these reasons, these thinkers are called idealists because all reality is reducible to the mind and its ideas. Wittgenstein is a little hard to interpret. To the degree that Wittgenstein thinks language is a mental or societal construct, he is a conceptualist (universals are concepts in the mind alone, not in reality. The idealists held this position). However, I think there is evidence, at least at times, that Wittgenstein goes further than his idealist predecessors and really is a nominalist (the theory that words do not refer to universals but are names we attach to things). The nominalist rejects universals altogether. At other times, Wittgenstein emphasizes the pragmatic nature of words and grounds their meaning not in universals, but simply in how they are used. Wherever he lands, he does not think that words refer to universals. Overall, however, it is clear that instead of focusing on universals which make communication possible, Wittgenstein believed it was best to conceive of language as a type of game.

Wittgenstein believed that language, like games, operate within fixed rules and procedures. As with games, language works within a set of rules whether one is learning a language or using language with another (318). As Wittgenstein explains, “I shall also call the whole, consisting of language and the action into which it is woven the “language-game” (318 – 319). Words are simply like chess pieces which find their meaning when used in accordance with the rules of the game (324 – 325). According to Wittgenstein, “the meaning of a word is its use in the language” (327). The rules of language come from the “forms of life” and custom (320, 360). In fact, Wittgenstein believes that the rules of the language-game are all encompassing and govern all of life,

It is not possible that there should have been only one occasion on which someone obeyed a rule. It is not possible that there should have been only one occasion on which a report was made, an order given or understood; and so on.—To obey a rule, to make a report, to give an order, to play a game of chess, are customs (uses, institutions).

To understand a sentence means to understand a language. To understand a language means to be master of a technique. (360)

According to Wittgenstein all human communication is locked up within a language-game. It is not even possible to get outside the language-game for to do so would require the use of another language-game (333). Like Hegel’s world-soul, Wittgenstein’s language-game is what ultimately controls, defines, and determines reality. The best one can do is master the rules of the given game.

Not surprisingly, Wittgenstein rejects the concept of essences or universals (342). The meaning of words are simply how they are used syntactically. “Essence is expressed by grammar,” according to Wittgenstein (379, italics in original). Contra Russell, Wittgenstein believes that there are no fixed universals or essences which provides meaning to words, rather, words find their meaning in their conventional usage and how they are related to one another in sentences. As Wittgenstein states, “I am saying that these phenomena have no one thing in common which makes us use the same word for all,—but that they are related to one another in many different ways. And it is because of this relationship, or these relationships, that we call them all “language” (333). It is the relationships that exist between words that create their meaning, not their inherent definition, essence, or universal. For Wittgenstein, essences (or universals) are just names, words used as pieces in a language game.

A few brief thoughts need to be made about Wittgenstein’s philosophical outlook. First, Wittgenstein’s philosophy can be seen as nominalist in perspective because he held that words and things do not have essences or refer to a universal. In addition, Wittgenstein believed there are several language-games available to human experience (318). Since an essence is only expressed through grammar, the essence of a word could completely change if a different language game were to be applied to it. From the moderate realist perspective, however, if essences are fluid and not fixed, they are not essences nor universal. For Wittgenstein, there are no fixed universals to things and language. It all depends on the language-game that is being deployed. The worry here is what Aristotle pointed out so long ago, that if there are no fixed universals to words, communication would be impossible. Aristotle put it this way, “If, however, … one were to say that the word has an infinite number of meanings, obviously reasoning would be impossible; for not to have one meaning is to have no meaning, and if words have no meaning our reasoning with one another, and indeed with ourselves, has been annihilated” (525). Later in his Metaphysics, Aristotle concludes,

Those, then who are to join in argument with one another must to some extent understand one another; for if this does not happen how are they to join in argument with one another? Therefore every word must be intelligible and indicate something, and not many things but only one; and if it signifies more than one thing, it must be made plain to which of these the word is being applied. (590)

Aristotle would certainly disagree with Wittgenstein about the nature of universals. Without universals, communication is impossible. Furthermore, because there is a matter and form (essence) composition to all things, including human beings, communication is possible.

This brings us to Aristotelian moderate realism which sheds further light on both Russell and Wittgenstein. In metaphysics, the doctrine that forms, or essences, possess objective reality. In modern philosophy, realism is the concept (contrasted with idealism) that physical objects exist independently of perception, the mind, or theory of reality. For realists, theories of reality or perceptions are logically separate from objective reality itself.

The name itself was given to a certain philosophic way of thought first inaugurated by Plato and Aristotle, developed and refined in the Middle Ages, and still living at the present time. This view includes three basic theses: 1. The world is made up of substantial beings really related to one another, which exist independently of any human opinions or desires. 2. These substances and relations can be known by the human mind as they are in themselves. 3. Such knowledge can offer sound and immutable guidance (the law of nature) for individual and social action. Classically understood, human beings have the capacity or potential for comprehending universals or essences. It is a rational property of being human. In the order of knowing, the mental concept of something is not the being of the external object, it is the essence. Being or that which is in act (what Aristotle calls “complete reality”) is always matter and form3. The concept resides in the intellect as the essence or universal abstracted from external reality through the senses. The process by which the intellect grasps the essence or universal is what classical or moderate realists call simple apprehension: apprehension, because the mind receives and comes to understand the essential nature of the sense object; simple because the mind naturally takes in the intentional concept without affirming or denying it though the faculty of judgment (a secondary process). The operation of simple apprehension is the first act of knowing. The universal exists as that which is common to many in the intellect, while it exists as particular in the individual object. However, it is important to understand that what one perceives is not the concept but the object itself (or abstraction would be impossible). In short, the form is universalized in the intellect and has its foundation in things. What this means is that the form universalized in the intellect, is what makes communication possible. If there were no universals, no communication can take place. Furthermore, this means that the philosopher who is investigating the nature of universals and language needs to keep in mind both the realm of the intellect and physical reality. The form universalized in the intellect is abstracted from the form in the physical object. Moderate realism seeks to achieve this balance between the intellect and objective reality. Wittgenstein, however, seems to miss this important point. If the universal is a product of a language-game, or one’s intellect alone, there is no way to know external reality. (One will never know Kant’s thing-in-itself, for example.) One’s reality would simply be a result of one’s language-game. If many language-games are at work, there will be no communication, unless, ironically, one language-game is decided upon and used universally. But Wittgenstein also misses an important epistemological aspect to being, one that is also grounded in realism. Our senses are the only connection we have to reality. And reality has its own intractable way of being regardless of our mental constructions or language-games about it (one’s construction or language-game, could be wrong, for example). Through sense perception, one abstracts the universal.

The roles of the mind and sense perception is a point of debate between many of the great thinkers of Western philosophy. There have been philosophers such as Kant, Berkeley, and Hegel who emphasize the intellect and the function of the mind in determining reality. Others such as Aristotle, Aquinas, and perhaps Locke, who emphasize the role of the senses and begin their philosophical inquiries empirically. Sometimes this difference in philosophical outlook is illustrated by Rafael’s painting, the “School of Athens” where Plato is depicted as pointing up to the unchangeable world of Being, while Aristotle is pointing down signifying the importance of physical reality. Other philosophers, such as Russell help us to understand that both perspectives are important and necessary. Russell points out that both schools of thought appeal to different philosophical temperaments but both need to be held together in a delicate balance in order to achieve a correct understanding of reality. As Russell puts it,

According to our temperaments, we shall prefer the contemplation of the one or of the other. The one we do not prefer will probably seem to us a pale shadow of the one we prefer, and hardly worthy to be regarded as in any sense real. But the truth is that both have the same claim on our impartial attention, both are real, and both are important to the metaphysician. Indeed no sooner have we distinguished the two worlds than it becomes necessary to consider their relations. (274)

Moderate realism is an attempt to bring language, intellect, and reality together holistically. It provides the necessary balance between Russell and Wittgenstein. The intellect and sense experience are two wings of the same bird. It would be tragic to exclude one or the other. It is a difficult balance to achieve but the only way to fully understand reality as it is.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Metaphysics. Translated by W. D. Ross. The Great Books of the Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., Vol. 7. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1996.

Russell, Bertrand. The Problems of Philosophy. Great Books of the Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., Vol. 55. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1993.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Great Books of the Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., Vol. 55. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1993.

1 Here, Aristotle would fall into the category of “broadly Platonic” because he believed that forms are universals and real. As will be explained below, Wittgenstein falls into nominalism because he believes that words do not refer to essences or universals.

2 This is also why great imaginative literature works so profoundly. It appeals to the universals found in the human condition.

3 See Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Vol. 7, pg. 572.

Intellectual History, Philosophy, Uncategorized

Excursus: William James and the Examined Life

by Dave Seng

[Note: In this post, we are taking a break from exploring the basics of metaphysics. This post is a result of my recent reading through a couple of works by William James and I will be drawing from his Principles of Psychology and Pragmatism. In this post I do not address the errors of pragmatism as a philosophy. Rather, I examine some important insights James offers regarding the philosophic life. We will get back to metaphysics soon.]

Philosophy’s results concern us all most vitally—William James

William James opens his series of lectures on pragmatism with a lecture titled, “The Present Dilemma in Philosophy” in which he argues that everyone has a philosophy whether one realizes it, or not. In other words, James believed that everyone has a set of basic ideas through which they interpret the world and evaluate human action. This set of foundational beliefs function as a conceptual scheme, or grid, that shapes and influences how one thinks and acts in the world. In this post, we will explore James’s argument that everyone has a basic perspective about the universe which, in turn, influences how one acts in the world. Additionally, the conversation will be augmented with what other great authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas said about one’s basic assumptions about the world, the philosophic life, and the innate human tendency to be curious about the universe and important questions of life. These thinkers believe in the practical relevance of philosophical commitments and examination. For Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and James, thought and action are complementary and ought to be closely related. Finally, we will discover why human rationality is considered a gift by these thinkers and why self-reflection is a necessary part of understanding the Socratic Dictum, one of the most famous ideas that Socrates gave to the world: the unexamined life is not worth living for mankind.

Self-examination and critical dialogue requires the proper use of reason. Reason, or what is known as Western rationalism generally, is simply the view that affirms the use of evidence, examination, and logical evaluation as instructive in matters of belief and human action. Philosophy, which is the rational and critical discussion of basic ideas can bring one (if one is willing) to a greater understanding of the human spirit and its own existential potentialities for independent thought and personal freedom. Critical discussion and self-examination are deeply human activities and have important consequences impacting the meaning, purpose, and significance of human life. Through rational reflection and critical discussion, one might discover the freedom from being bound to erroneous ideas and beliefs. It is important to understand, then, how one’s philosophy and reasoning about the world has significant practical and existentially meaningful implications.

To start, we will examine James’s notion that everyone has a philosophy. This idea is often overlooked. James, however, thought that one’s philosophy, worldview, or conceptual scheme for interpreting reality was the most important thing for any individual and has important real world ramifications. To illustrate this, James quotes a passage from G. K. Chesterton:

There are some people—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy’s numbers, but still more important to know the enemy’s philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether, in the long run, anything else effects them. (1)

James believes that one’s philosophical outlook is the most important thing about a person and determines how one views and interprets the world. According to James, “I know that you, ladies and gentlemen, have a philosophy, each and all of you, and that the most interesting and important thing about you is the way in which it determines the perspective in your several worlds” (1). James thinks there are many important ramifications resulting from one’s philosophical position. I think that James is correct in his view that one’s basic assumptions about the world has an important impact on one’s life and actions. For example, if one views the universe as lacking a moral structure, significant consequences can occur. Thieves could justify theft because stealing is simply part of their concept of existence. Racists could be allowed to discriminate because as they define moral law and the universe, only members of their ethnicity should be treated fairly. The same holds true for how one defines life. Terrorists could kill their enemies because, by their definition of human life, their enemies are not human. One’s philosophical assumptions about life and the nature of the universe have important practical implications. On this analysis, we find that it is possible to be directed by incorrect views of reality.

Everyone holds some basic ideas on important social and political issues. For example, how one thinks about human nature is relevant to criminal justice. If there are no free actions and determinism is right, why would society hold anyone responsible for their crimes? Why bother with criminal rehabilitation if all human action is determined anyway? Almost any position, or debate of the day reveals philosophical assumptions. At first glance, it might seem that philosophy has little to do with one’s everyday life of work, the news cycle, technology, political parties, love, automobiles, economics, law, war, or anything else. Philosophy, to some, might seem very far removed from one’s daily life and struggles. “What does philosophy have to do with my life,” someone might ask? This conception of the disconnect between philosophy and everyday life is both common and very old. In his play titled, The Clouds, the ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes mocked Socrates for always having his head in the clouds and portrayed him incapable of managing normal everyday life. Philosophy sometimes seems remote, or distant from actual lived experience. This understanding of philosophy is a mistake, however. Many everyday concerns involve one in philosophical reflection. Whenever one is asked about a particular war abroad, reasons about why the war is just, or unjust are usually discussed. One’s basic assumptions about the war, or nature of war, are revealed. Usually during the conversation, reasons for those reasons are then given in support of one’s position. The dialogue might turn to the question of “what is a just war, anyway”? This is an act of philosophy. Philosophy is a rational discussion of the most basic and foundational questions of life. Everyone has foundational ideas about the world. Whether it is a political issue such as war, abortion, school vouchers, or the merits of certain kinds of art, people inevitably give reasons for taking a certain position on the issue.On any significant topic of discussion, one’s basic assumptions about moral philosophy (ethics), philosophy of education, or aesthetics are quickly revealed. Philosophical reflection is not something from which we can escape. What we think about life’s big issues whether it be the existence or nonexistence of God, the nature or origin of the universe, how right and wrong is discovered, what is a just war, or what happiness is and how it ought to be achieved, determines how we live and interact with others and the world.

The truth is, many people engage in philosophical reflection without even knowing it. Everyday topics of art, economics, politics, science, or religion (concerns we face everyday) often draw people into thinking more deeply, or questioning their convictions on an issue. We seem naturally compelled to think and reflect about the issues that matter the most to us. For example, the economics student interested in investing in cryptocurrency may find himself reflecting on the essential properties of currency and whether scarcity alone is a genuine indicator of value. The Dutch Reformed student might ask her philosophy professor how she really knows that her Christian faith is real, or if it is simply a product of her family upbringing and acculturation. The mom who is concerned about her communist son, might find herself reading Marx’s Communist Manifesto and discover that she needs to re-evaluate, or further develop, her ideas about capitalism and communism. The county commissioner might start to consider what justice is after investigating certain zoning laws. Or, the physicist who believes matter is the ultimate foundation of the universe might begin to ask himself why non-material entities such as the principles and axioms of mathematics correspond so closely to real world applications and start to explore what the ultimate properties of reality might be. The examples could go on infinitely because every serious issue of life has philosophical implications. It is clear, however, to see how everyday issues can draw one into philosophic reflection. If looked at honestly, any important everyday issue one faces requires careful thinking and reasoning if one is going to have a greater awareness of that issue. The reason we are so easily drawn into discussion and inquiry, especially about the ultimate questions of life, is because it is one of the most defining characteristics of what it means to be human.

James rightly points out that philosophy is a natural human enterprise. One cannot escape from philosophical reflection because it is basic to our human nature. Humans have engaged in philosophical investigation and questioning from the beginning of civilization. Many philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas believe that the human propensity to wonder at the universe and to formulate questions about it was the beginning of philosophy. “For wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder,” wrote Plato (519), and Aristotle opened his Metaphysics by saying “All men desire to know” (Vol. 7, 499). Aquinas held that “there resides in every man a natural desire to know… and from this wonder arises in men” (Vol. 17, 51). James, belonging to this tradition, believes that human beings have a natural curiosity to investigate life’s ultimate questions even if they do not fully understand them:

There is, it must be confessed, a curious fascination in hearing deep things talked about, even tho neither we nor the disputants understand them. We get the problematic thrill, we feel the presence of the vastness. Let a controversy begin in a smoking-room anywhere, about free-will or God’s omniscience, or good and evil, and see how everyone in the place pricks up his ears. Philosophy’s results concern us all most vitally and philosophy’s queerest arguments tickle agreeably our sense of subtlety and ingenuity. (1)

The ability to wonder, formulate questions, and reason about life’s ultimate concerns is a natural human response to the world. Plato believed that the human ability to reason was a gift from the gods, “from this source we have derived philosophy, that which no greater good ever was or will be given by the gods to mortal man” (455). It is, however, the human ability to reason which is such a great gift. It is a gift because anyone can reason and discuss basic and foundational ideas. Nothing keeps the average individual from investigating the questions they are curious about.1 The innate ability to give reasons for something is found in every child on the playground arguing about whether something is or is not the case. Additionally, reason is a gift because it can lead to personal freedom. If done well, it can free one from false understandings and misconceptions about the world. Through the right use of reason, one can become free from error which has important personal and existential ramifications.

Everything else in our practical lives is dictated, in some way by our basic assumptions about life and the world around us. James also believed that one can not live well without philosophy. James reminds his audience:

Philosophy is at once the most sublime and the most trivial of human pursuits. It works in the minutest crannies and it opens out the widest vistas. It “bakes no bread,” as had been said, but it can inspire our souls with courage; and repugnant as its manners, its doubting and challenging, its quibbling and dialectics, often are to common people, no one of us can get along without the far-flashing beams of light it sends over the world’s perspectives. These illuminations at least and the contrast effects of darkness and mystery that accompany them, give to what it says an interest that is much more than professional. (1 – 2)

James holds the view that everyone is a philosopher in some way and that how one thinks about life’s ultimate questions directs the rest of one’s life. He also thinks that philosophy is not strictly for the professional philosopher, because everyone has a philosophy and is capable of critical discussion. Philosophy is something everyone can engage in.

Following James, it is then necessary to examine one’s basic beliefs. Plato, too, held that critical discussion and examination is something that anyone can do and has practical implications for one’s life. This is why Socrates said that philosophical reflection is the “greatest good of man” and “the unexamined life is not worth living” (210). Another translation of the Socratic Dictum is worth pointing out, “the unexamined life is not worth living for men.”2 The examined life is good for everyone and everyone has some capacity, or potential to engage in critical discussion and the examined life. In order to achieve this examined life one must understand why human rationality is an important part of life and why self-reflection or examination necessarily corresponds to it.

Along with wonder and the innate desire to know, another essential feature of mankind is rationality. Aristotle believed that the human ability to reason (among other things) is unique to human kind. When comparing human beings to other life forms, Aristotle held, “Man has rational principle, in addition, and man only” (Vol. 8, pg. 537). For Aristotle, in addition to everything else that humans might be conceived as having, only humans are rational animals.3 He did not believe that everyone always acted rationally, rather, he believed it was an innate human potential that could be activated if carefully attended to (book 1, chapter 13 of the Nicomachean Ethics makes this clear). Because most people have the ability to give reasons for their foundational ideas and beliefs, no matter how feebly, everyone has some potential and ability to reason. Many philosophers in the classical Western tradition have held that the human ability to give reasons for what one believes by supplying evidence and arriving at conclusions through careful examination, and evaluation, (including analyzing the thought processes involved when thinking through decisions or attending to tasks) separates mankind from other animals. Any project humans set themselves to requires a certain amount of rationality. Again, James belongs to this traditional and classical view of humanity. In fact, James believes that humans are the only “metaphysical animal.” Other animals, are only conditioned by habit:

They are enslaved to routine, to cut-and-dried thinking; and if the most prosaic of human beings could be transported into his dog’s mind, he would be appalled at the utter absence of fancy which reigns there. Thoughts will not be found to call up their similars, but only their habitual successors. Sunsets will not suggest heroes’ deaths, but supper- time. This is why man is the only metaphysical animal. To wonder why the universe should be as it is presupposes the notion of its being different, and a brute, which never reduces the actual to fluidity by breaking up its literal sequences in his imagination, can never form such a notion. He takes the world simply for granted, and never wonders at it at all. (Principles of Psychology, 681 – 682)

Deep reflection and wonder seem to be properties unique to humans. Rationality and metaphysical wonder are integral and important factors of an intentional and critically examined human life. Socrates, Aristotle, and James understood the existential importance of developing one’s rational potential.

A second part of the Socratic Dictum needs to be explored. If the unexamined life is not worth living for a man or woman, then careful reflection on the basic ideas one holds is, possibly, the most important activity one could pursue. Because one’s basic assumptions about life have practical ramifications, the examination, or questioning of these basic assumptions for their correctness and correspondence to reality is necessary and has important existential consequences. Plato taught that, “the discovery of truth is a common good” and has many important benefits for everyone (283). It may be that the thief’s view of existence is inadequate, or the terrorist’s view on the nature of human life is wrong. Or put more positively, critical self-reflection and examination could bring about a change in one’s most fundamental beliefs about one’s view of the world and their system of values. A change in one or both of these could have an important effect on one’s happiness, goals regarding one’s career, relationships with others, or simply choices about lifestyle. One’s most fundamental ideas of life impacts how they find meaning, purpose, and significance in life. It takes a certain amount of Socratic critical self-examination for one to determine what a meaningful life is. According to many of the great philosophers, careful and thoughtful reflection on the basic ideas of life leads to a life worth living. Philosophy is not just for the professional academic, it is something available to anyone and thoughtful self-reflection is something anyone can do. It is necessary for a flourishing life. If done well, it leads to a life of wisdom (the virtue of using our knowledge well), what many philosophers think is life’s highest good. The question everyone must answer, then, is not whether or not one has a set of basic beliefs about reality (because we all do) but, rather, are one’s foundational beliefs going to be based on careful and thoughtful reflection? To put it another way, the question is not whether one has a philosophy, but how exactly does one’s philosophy shape and effect everything else in one’s life? Careful thoughtful self-reflection is the best way to understand one’s basic presuppositions about life.

We have seen how one’s basic beliefs about life and the world have significant personal, existential, and societal implications. As James reminds us, “philosophy’s results concern us all most vitally” (1). There is, however, a final practical and personally meaningful implication of the examined life. A properly examined life frees one from tyranny. Unless we foster an attitude of wisdom and self-reflection, we run the risk of being bound to a harmful, wrong, and tyrannical view of reality. We could become captives of our own erroneous conceptual schemes or those of society if accepted blindly and uncritically. Every idea that comes to us from culture, politics, or the media has philosophical implications. If we take ideas unreflectively and without conscious examination, we might become victims of either ourselves or society. On the other hand, if we develop our rational potential and help others to do so as well, human freedom is possible. In the end, the decision to be made is to accept ideas uncritically and run the risk of living like habitual animals (as James indicated), or to seek freedom through self-examination and critical inquiry. Tyranny or freedom, that is the ultimate existential choice.

1Here, of course, we are considering the vast majority of humanity with normal cognitive capacities. Also, it could happen that someone prevents someone else from developing their rational abilities. That, however, would be tragic to their human potential.

2 Plato, Five Dialogues, trans. G. M. A. Grube, second edition (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2002), 41.

Other translations read “for a man,” meaning all humanity.

3The definition of the human being often attributed to Aristotle, “man is a rational animal” is not precisely found in the GBWW translation. Nonetheless, he often refers to the “rational principle” as an innate feature of human kind. Two quick examples can be found in Vol. 8, pgs. 474 and 495. The definition, “man is a rational animal” may have Scholastic, roots but the phrase does accurately capture Aristotle’s meaning.

Works Cited

Aquinas, Thomas. The Summa Theologica. Translated by Father Laurence Shapcote of the Fathers of the English Domincan Province. The Great Books of Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., vol. 17, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990.

Aristotle. Metaphysics. Translated by W. D. Ross. The Great Books of the Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., vol. 7, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990, pp. 499-626.

——– Politics. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. The Great Books of the Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., vol. 8, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990, pp. 445-548.

James, William. Pragmatism. The Great Books of the Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., vol. 55, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990, pp. 1 – 64.

——- The Principles of Psychology. The Great Books of the Western World, Edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., vol. 53, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990.

Plato. Apology. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. The Great Books of the Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., vol. 6, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990, pp. 200-212.

——- Gorgias.Translated by Benjamin Jowett. The Great Books of the Western World, edited by Mortimer J. Adler et al., vol. 6, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990, pp. 252-294.

Being, Ontology, Philosophy

Mere Metaphysics Part Three: The Principle of Identity

by Dave Seng

For the introduction to this series click here.

For the first part of this series, click here.

For the second part of this series, click here.

Man is the only metaphysical animal.–William James, Principles of Psychology

One of the premises of this blog is that the laws of thought and logic are properties of being, or reality. Not all logicians hold to this view but it is the position, I think, which corresponds most closely to reality. This post is related to our previous post on the principle of existence (the undeniable principle that being is). As we have seen, a principle is that which something else in its order follows. For example, in order to perform calculations correctly, one must first understand the underlying principles and axioms of mathematics. Principles are the foundation of any science and every other human activity.

The principle we come to now, in our explication of the argument from being (click here if you want a condensed form of it), is the principle of identity.

The principle of identity is simply that being is identical to being, or a thing is identical to itself. A thing is what it is. In a syllogism, the middle term must always have the same meaning and not be equivocal (undergo a change of meaning) in order to be valid. When it comes to reality, the law of identity applies when we are talking about dogs with the understanding that we are discussing animals which belong to the class of canines and not fish, hamsters, or monkeys. My cat cannot be a cephalopod. By virtue of it being a cat, and having all the properties a cat has, it cannot be another species or something else. Anything that exists at all is identical to itself and not to another. A thing can be similar to another (analogically or perhaps metaphorically) but it cannot be univocally the same. The law of identity states that A is A. As we will discover later, the law of identity is related to the law of noncontradiction (A cannot be non-A in the same sense and same relationship.) At the very basic and fundamental level of reality, we all know that there is a difference between A and non-A. A must be A, a thing is what it is.

What might the principle of identity have to do with cosmological reasoning? The answer is that it is a basic property of reality. The principle of identity is true of the cosmos (it does exist, it is what it is) and of every thing within it. It is one of the principles and axioms of reality.

Furthermore, it is an undeniable principle of reality. To say that A is not identical to A assumes that each A is identical. It is self-refuting to deny the principle of identity.

The principle of existence and the principle of identity are important aspects of reality. The truth is, we use these concepts everyday. Being is the most fundamental and basic idea to our existence. Dr. Mortimer Adler, explains it this way,

… You and I and everybody else uses the word ‘exists’ or ‘is’—there’s no commoner word in any language than the ontological predicate ‘is’ or ‘is not’—you and I day in and day out say that is or that does not exist, and when we say something does not exist we are thinking of nothing in its place sometimes. So I think the concept of being and not being or existence and nothingness are, shall I say, part of the very heart of human thinking. (36)

Indeed, the principles of existence and identity are essential to human thinking about reality. It is absolutely impossible to deny that being is. This establishes our first premise in our cosmological argument.

In our next post we will apply the law of noncontradiction to cosmological reasoning.

Works cited

Dzugan, Ken, editor. How to Prove There Is a God: Mortimer J. Adler’s Writings and Thoughts about God. Open Court, 2012

Being, Metaphysics, Philosophy

Mere Metaphysics: An Introduction

by Dave Seng

‘Being’ and ‘Unity’ are among the number of attributes that follow everything.—Aristotle.

This post is simply presented as an introduction or prolegomenon to a series of posts I will call “Mere Metaphysics” which will explicate the most fundamental concepts in metaphysics.

What I would like to call “mere metaphysics” is along the lines of C. S. Lewis’s work entitled Mere Christianity. Lewis, of course, wanted to explain the basic themes and ideas that were common to all of the Christian family, regardless of denomination. He was eager to show the truth of Christianity itself. Once one has entered the house of faith, one is then free to explore the particular rooms and denominations. The next series of posts will explicate and define the most basic and foundational metaphysical principles—concepts which everyone takes for granted and, upon reflection, are impossible to deny. These basic and foundational principles are called “first principles” by classical philosophers and are still accepted and used by philosophers today. They are the first principles needed for making sense out of the world.

Dr. Mortimer Adler defined philosophy as the rational discussion of basic ideas. Metaphysics, then, is simply the branch of philosophy which rationally discusses the most basic ideas and fundamental nature of being or reality. Some of the mere metaphysical principles we will explore in future posts are the laws of logic—noncontradiction, excluded middle, and identity, along with other principles like being and nonbeing, act and potency, the principle of existence, principle of causality, principle of analogy, and principle of predictive uniformity among others. These, and others, are properties of being. Metaphysicians understand being to be the totality of the universe or reality. It includes everything within temporal reality, including the past, present, and future. (As we will discover, all things composed of form and matter have an immaterial aspect to them along with a material component. And because of the form or essential element to being, there may well be a timeless element to reality as well.) Put a little more simply, for now, all we need to know is that which has being is the individual and the external world.

A few other prefatory remarks need to be made. The opposite of being is nonbeing or that which does not exist, nothing. Being and nonbeing are essential components to classical metaphysics. In addition, classical philosophy uses the term “becoming” for that which is in a state of change. That which is becoming is an admixture of being and nonbeing. The artist who carves a block of marble takes away part of the stone in order to form it into a beautiful sculpture. Some of the block’s being is removed. There is an element of nothingness, or certainly absence, involved in the removal of the stone. In one way or another, we live in a world of change, becoming, and mutable being.

The hope is that by examining these mere metaphysical principles, we will be reminded of the basic structure of the universe that ultimately finds its foundation in God. However, in order to approach the question of God, one must first understand the basic metaphysical structure of reality. One can only engage in a project of natural theology when a proper metaphysics is in place.

One of the oldest and most perennial questions of human existence is, why is there something rather than nothing? Or, put a bit more philosophically, how did being come to be? This is not a strictly scientific question or one that can be analyzed by repeated observation (how does one apply the scientific method to past events?) In order for science to succeed, it must assume prior metaphysical principles such as the ones mentioned above. The question of being, then, is a more fundamental and philosophical question concerning reality. Science can be a helpful tool, to be sure, but the question of reality evades a strictly scientific approach. Part of the question of being, or reality, is the exploration of what makes science possible in the first place. Being and its properties are prior to everything else.

For centuries philosophers have puzzled over one of the most all-embracing metaphysical questions of human existence—what is the cause of being? From the time of the Pre-Socratics (those philosophers who lived before Socrates) to the current day, important thinkers have rationally and carefully thought about the nature of existence and how it might have come about. In different ways, Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus, Cicero, Augustine, Plotinus, Anselm, Aquinas, Spinoza, Locke, Descartes, Leibniz, and those in the modern and contemporary scene such as Joseph Owens, Mortimer Adler, John Knasas, Brian Davies, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Stephen Davis, and Edward Feser (among others) have engaged in a rich dialogue about the cause of reality. Much of the discussion centers around what is known as cosmological reasoning, or reasoning from the fact of existence (being) to a creator God.

Sometimes this form of reasoning is called the cosmological argument. However, over the centuries many different versions of the cosmological argument have been put forward. Aquinas, himself, gave several different ways to argue for God’s existence based on the cosmos or world. I made a distinction between two different and popular forms the cosmological argument in a recent post.

The general line of thought for cosmological reasoning goes like this (premises that are common to most forms of the cosmological argument):

1. The world exists. Space and time exist. I exist. Something exists. Being is.

2. Being can not be the cause of itself.

3. Being can not come from nonbeing (nothing).

4. Being could not be an effect in an infinite series of causes and effects.

5. Therefore, it must be caused by something outside space and time, something uncaused and ultimate.1

Or put more concisely in the form of a categorical syllagism:

1. All contingent (or caused) being depends for its existence on some uncaused being.

2. The cosmos is a contingent being.

3. Therefore, the cosmos depends for its existence on some uncaused being. (Aquinas would say, “to which everyone gives the name of God”.)

This form of the cosmological argument is called the argument from contingency because it focuses on the caused and contingent (dependent) nature of existence.

Another form of the argument goes like this:

1. Every part of the universe is dependent.

2. If every part is dependent, then the whole universe must also be dependent.

4. Therefore, the whole universe is dependent right now on some independent Being beyond it for its present existence.2

This argument is focused on what philosophers call ontological dependence. It is less concerned with arguing that the universe has a beginning in time, and more focused on the ontological dependence that things demonstrate here and now in reality. An interesting part of this argument is that even if reality is somehow infinite, it is no less ontologically dependent here and now than a finite one.

These are just a few examples of philosophical cosmological reasoning. In future posts we will explore a little more carefully how these premises can be presented and defended. Because there are many different versions of the cosmological argument, the one we will be using moving forward will be the one used by Norman Geisler in his book, God: A Philosophical Argument From Being. Here is the shortened version of what Geisler calls an argument from being:

1. Something exists (e.g., I do)

2. Nothing cannot produce something.

3. Therefore, something exists eternally and necessarily.

A. It exists eternally because if ever there was absolutely nothing, then there would always be absolutely nothing because nothing cannot produce something.

B. It exists necessarily because everything cannot be a contingent being because all contingent beings need a cause of their existence.

4. I am not a necessary and eternal being (since I change).

5. Therefore, both God (a Necessary Being) and I (a contingent being) exist. (= theism)

Of course, no conclusion in a deductive argument can be stronger than its premises. Many have posed doubts, critiques, challenges, and questions regarding this argument and its premises. Indeed, many have asked, why cannot something be the cause of itself? Why cannot something come from nothing? And why cannot something be the product of an infinite series? These are questions that have been discussed and debated throughout the centuries of human civilization. The answers have profound and far reaching effects. In our next series of posts, we will consider the mere metaphysical concepts that show the validity of the argument from being.

1Ed L. Miller and Jon Jensen, Questions That Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy, 5th ed (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004), 272.

2 Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 1999), S.V. Cosmological Argument.