Chaffee, 3e Chapter 5

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Knowledge of the Good

Socrates claimed that the virtuous person is one
who knows the Good
It is then of the utmost importance to figure out
how one can actually know the Good

This is the project that Plato takes up
His goal is to try and show how knowledge of the
Good is possible But in order to answer that he must first answer the more general question: how do we know anything?
What is Knowledge?
I parked my car in the lot, do I know where my
car is?
Knowledge requires certainty

Object of knowledge cant change
If what can be known cant change, then

It is in a constant state of flux (becoming)
physical world cant be an object of knowledge
What is Knowledge? II
So, if we are to have real knowledge it must
meet the following requirements

Unchanging
Non-physical
eternal
Platos strategy is to look for an area where there
is some knowledge already and then try to figure out what is going on there
Geometry/mathematics
Theory of the Forms

So, numbers and geometrical shapes exists as
non-physical, eternal, and unchanging objects that are the objects of knowledge reason
We get in touch with these objects via the use of

Plato is a rationalist Knowledge can only be achieved via the use of
reason
These non-physical objects are called Forms
Theory of the Forms II

From the Greek eidos
Means idea, but not in the way that we use the word
These Ideas exist outside of the mind, outside of time and
space The mind is able to grasp these forms

Two more arguments for Forms
Degrees of perfection One over Many
Degrees of Perfection
Degrees of Perfection II
How do you know that the triangles are not
perfect unless you know what the perfect one is like

And you are able to compare
This, says Plato, is true of everything You know that some actions are not perfectly just But how could you know this unless there was Perfect Justice and you knew it? That is the Form of Justice
The Form of Tree
Those are trees
One Over Many

The Forms explain why it is that we categorize
certain objects as male but not others
There is a Form for every thing that objects have in
common The objects must all have something in common, or why else would we put them in a group together? But they dont have anything physically in common
When you see that an object is, say, a desk you
are grasping the Form of that object
The objects are said to participate in the Form

An object can participate is many Forms at the
same time
The Divided Line

The Good
Metaphysics
Higher Forms Understanding
Epistemology
Intelligible World
Lower Forms Reasoning
Knowledge
Visible World
Sensible Objects Images
Perception
Opinion
Imagination
The Allegory of the Cave
READING CRITICALLY Analyzing Platos Allegory of the Cave (1)
In Platos allegory, discarding ignorant beliefs and embracing the truth can
be a disturbing process, as we are forced to see things objectively, illuminated as they really are, rather than shrouded in the shadows of bias and distortion. Describe an experience in which achieving a knowledgeable, truthful insight was a disturbing experience for you.
READING CRITICALLY Analyzing Platos Allegory of the Cave (2)

Plato believes that the view of knowledge embodied in the Allegory of the
Cave has profound and far-reaching implications for education:

Education then is the art of doing this very thing, this turning around, the knowledge of how the soul can most easily and effectively be turned around; it is not the art of putting the capacity of sight into the soul; the soul possesses that already but it is not turned the right way or looking where it should. This is what education has to deal with.
Explain what you believe Plato means by these two contrasting ideas of education. Describe two examples from your own educational experience, one which involved turning your whole soul toward reality and another in which you attempted to put the capacity for sight into your soul.
Evaluating your life as a whole, at what stage in Platos allegory would you
place yourself? Why?

Aristotle
Lives 384-322 BCE
(Socrates dies in 399)
Is the first to realize that we need some criterion
for determining when an argument is good or bad

Deductive arguments are contrasted with
Discovers deductive logic
inductive argument
The Job of Philosophy

For Aristotle philosophy is divided into two parts
Theoretical aims at knowledge Practical aims at some action
Natural philosophy is a theoretical science The goal is to start with particular things and
discern their essential characteristics, which we then use as the first premise in a syllogism
The Method of Science/Philosophy

Principles
Dialectic
Demonstratio ns
Opinions
Conclusions
Explanation
What we want are explanations
An explanation does not merely tell us THAT
something is the case It tells us why it MUST be the case
To really understand something we must be able
to give the reason why it has to be the way that it is

An argument with two premises and a conclusion
These explanation take the form of valid syllogisms
Explanation II
Say I wanted to explain why copper
conducts electricity
Well, copper is a metal And all metals conduct electricity
We can put this as follows

All metals conduct electricity Copper is a metal So copper conducts electricity
Now I understand why copper has to
behave the way it does
First Principles
The first principles of a science are known
directly by reason in a way that does not need any further proof
Exactly like geometry: that the shortest distance
between two points is a straight line is self-evident
For instance what Aristotle calls the law of non-
contradiction
Nothing can be both true and false at the same time
Does not need any evidence or support other
than itself
Once one understands the words one just come to
see, with reason, that it HAS TO BE true
Necessary
The law of non-contradiction is supposed to
be a necessary truth about reality

It is impossible for it to be false
This law has two interpretations

A metaphysical interpretation And a Logical interpretation
As a metaphysical principle it says that
opposite properties cannot simultaneously exist in the same object

As a logical principle it says that no sentence is
both true and false at the same time
Reductio ad Absurdum
Accordingly to show that some claim results in a
contradiction is to show that it cannot possibly be true logic
This, together with another basic principle of

The law of the excluded middle Every sentence is either true or false; there is no third
alternative
Gives us a powerful way to argue to show that something is true we by assume that it is false and showing that it leads to a contradiction So the original assumption must be false
Platos version
Plato tries to give an explanation This thing is a human being because it
participates in the Form Human Being
The Form is eternal, perfect and unchanging It is the essence of what it means to be a human
being It is the perfect human being
Aristotle focus on participation
Intelligible World Non-physical Eternal unchanging The Form of Human Being
Visible world physical Finite Constantly changing
Participation
The Third Man Argument

The Form is supposed to explain why it is that we call
some things by the same name,
But the name must also apply to the Form itself
It is the thing that all instances of the Form have in common
But now we have a new group, all of the objects and
the Form
They must have something in common, and so on.

This generate what Aristotle called an infinite regress Since there is no end to the regress we never get an
explanation for why humans differ from (say) dogs We are simply told that they resemble something that resembles something that resembles something.
Aristotle
So he rejects Platos metaphysics and ontology He also rejects atomism
The idea of void is contradictory as it implies that
what does not exist exists If it were true the world would not be explainable We would not be able to say why the stuff around us MUST be the way that it is since according to atomism everything is the result of chance For Aristotle, the world is ordered & law governed
Starting Over
Aristotle agrees that we want knowledge of
essences
He has a theory of forms, but his forms are in the
objects around us
All objects are composed of two parts

Form Matter
These two things are separable in thought
but not in reality
Aristotle thinks that each red object has (the very
same) form (of redness) It is simultaneously located at different locations
Starting Over II
For each red object we can separate the
redness (the form of red) from the material

But this is an ability that the mind has Platos mistake was to think that these forms existed
apart from the objects they are located in
But still, the form of red is real It exists as part of the object This becomes part of his response to Parmenides He is going to argue that change consists in material coming to have a form that it did not have before
The Reason(s) Why

Remember from before that to really know
something Aristotle thinks that we must be able to

and cannot be any other way
Explain why the thing has to be the way that it is
That is, we need to be able to give the
reasons why the change happened
The word Aristotle uses, aitia, is translated as
cause But he really means reasons that explain why the thing happened the way that it did Or is the way that it is
The Sculpture
So, consider some sculpture of Socrates What are the reasons that this particular sculpture is the way that it is?
The sculpture is the result of a process and
has four causes each which partially explain why it is the way it is
Part of the answer is that it is made from a certain
material If it were made from spaghetti it would be very different Part of the answer is that it has a certain shape It resembles Socrates Part of the answer is that someone sculpted it
ARISTOTLES FOUR CAUSES
Material cause: the matter of
which a thing is made.

Formal cause: the embedded
form that gives shape and purpose to the matter.

Efficient Cause: the triggering
action that sets the thing in motion.

Final Cause: the ultimate
purpose for which a thing exists.

The 4 Causes
Material
The thing that is the same before and after the
change
Formal
The thing that is different before and after the
change
Efficient
The thing that does the changing
Final
that for the sake of which the change is done
Change
To give an explanation of a change we need to
specify all of these causes

1. Sculpture
Examples
Material-stuff being sculpted (say, Marble) Formal-shape sculptor intends to make
Efficient-the artist doing the sculpting

To get a statue with a certain shape
4 Causes II
2. Heating a pan Material-THE PAN! Formal-heat Efficient-fire (or something hot) Final- to get a hot pan When the pan is (actually) cold it is potentially
hot
This means that the material, the pan, is able to
receive the form of heat So, the pan is not potentially an eagle
4 Causes III
In order to become actually hot the pan needs
to come into contact with something that is itself already actually hot
In his terminology, this thing must already posses
the form of heat This thing then transmits, or transfers the form to the material, thereby causing the pan to become actually hot
So, in a sense the cold and hot do exist in the
same object; one is actual one is potential
READING CRITICALLY Analyzing Aristotles Concept of Reality (1)

Plato believes that Forms occupy the highest level of reality in the
eternal realm of Being. Thus, the perfect Idea of horse is the most real element in his metaphysic, the actual horse the least real. Aristotle inverts this hierarchy of reality: the individual horse is the most real element in his metaphysic, whereas the abstract concept of horse the least real. Explain which view you find to be most intelligible and the reasons why.
Aristotle criticized Platos concept of participation, calling it a
mere empty phrase and a poetic metaphor. Do you agree with his critique? How do you think Plato would defend himself?
READING CRITICALLY Analyzing Aristotles Concept of Reality (2)

Plato believed that the human soul is immortal, existing before birth and
continuing after death. Aristotle believed that the soul is a natural phenomenon that gives form and purpose to the body, but ceases to exist after the body dies. Which view of the soul do you find most compelling? Why?
Aristotle believed that the entire universe is purposeful, both individually
and collectively. Do you agree with this contention? Explain why or why not and provide an example to support your perspective.
Although Aristotle does not believe in a supernatural Creator or God, he
does conclude that there must be a first (Final) cause, a prime mover, pure thought, thinking thought. Evaluate the cogency of Aristotles idea and the reasoning he uses to reach this conclusion.
REN DESCARTES How do You Know Whether or Not You are Dreaming?
The Rejection of Aristotle

Galileo 1564-1642 CE Descartes 1596-1650
Newton-- 1643-1727
At this time in history the dominant philosophy
would have been a Christianized version of Aristotles philosophy and physics

Invention of telescope
But recent empirical work suggested otherwise
The Rejection of Aristotle II

Heliocentric view of the universe Galileo times objects as they roll down hill and
discovers that they all accelerate at the same rate

John Locke 1632-1704 George Berkeley 1685-1753 David Hume 1711-1776
This is the beginning of the Empiricist movement
Descartes
But Descartes is still a Rationalist He is very critical of Aristotles views (but is also in
some ways still in the Aristotelian tradition)

philosophy
He is a champion of what is called mechanistic

The world is a giant machine Objects do not move themselves He accuses Aristotle of putting mind into nature
Descartes II
His goal is to find a foundation on which all other
knowledge can be built certainty
He agrees with Plato that knowledge requires But rejects Platos idea that the physical world is
not knowable
Certainty
But what does it mean to be certain?
It is being unable to doubt Something that cannot possibly be doubted is
certain
So, his strategy is to adopt the Method of Doubt
(MoD)
This method instructs us to take our beliefs and
subject them to doubt If it is possible to doubt them we treat them as false
MoD
This does not mean that he thinks that they are
actually false
The point is that we treat them as false until we
find a foundation which is indubitable
And then we build up everything on top of that
By possible to doubt he means any possibility
what so ever
We are to try and think of the most far-fetched,
wacky, way out scenarios we can come up with
MoD II
This will guarantee that whatever cant be
doubted really is certain
If we could find something that was truly
indubitable in this sense we could use it in a valid argument (like a syllogism)
The conclusion of which would be that the world
exists in the way that we think it does

of the physical world
Or in other words, that we could have knowledge
Step One: Doubting the Senses

Descartes begins by pointing out that our senses
are unreliable
Straight things look bent
Round things look oval

Square things look round Mountains look purple The Sun looks small, etc.
So, we can doubt that what our senses tell us is
accurate and so they cannot be the foundation
Which Line is Longer?
They Are the Same Length!
Step Two: Doubting the Physical World

But, you might think, though it may be the case
that the senses are unreliable,
We must be able to trust them generally, right? Surely I cant doubt that there is a table here in this room, can I? Yes I can I have seen tables in my dreams, I could be
dreaming now
How can I rule this out?
Step Two II
I cant rule it out Anything I would cite as evidence would be something that would also be true in the dream So, if I say I see the table, I hear it, I feel it or whatever, that is, if I cite my experience of the table as evidence, It would look, sound, etc, exactly the same in my dream Except in my dream there is no table at all, just my experience as of a table
Step Two III

Descartes takes this to the extreme by imagining
that there is an Evil Genius

But who is not good
Someone who has the powers of God
This evil genius is determined to deceive you into
thinking that there is a physical world when there isnt one

Akin to the matrix The Machines are the evil geniuses
Step Two III

Except in Descartes version there is no outside
the matrix
Everything would seem to you just like it does right
now but none of it would be real He does not actually believe that this is true His point is that we cannot use this as the foundation of our knowledge because there is this (albeit small) possibility that we cant rule out
Step Three: Doubting Mathematics

But surely 1+1=2 must be certain!
Whether there is really a physical world or not the
mathematical truths should be true This is where Plato looked for certainty Descartes thinks that he can imagine a scenario in which 1+1 does not equal 2
We are all familiar with making mistakes in
mathematics
Step Three II
You do some problem, get some answer that
seems to be absolutely correct
Only to find out that the answer is wrong
In fact we also are familiar with doing the
problem, getting an answer, checking your work, getting the same answer
Only to find out that the answer is wrong Because we are making the same mistake, but not
noticing it
Step Three III

So, couldnt it be possible that in reality 1+1=3
(say, the point is that it is something other than 2)

and the evil genius is tricking me into thinking that
1+1=2 is true By hiding some mistake from me every time I count or do mathematics
1+1=(step)3
1.) Let x=1 2.) Then x2=x (i.e. one squared is one) 3.) Now lets subtract 1 from each side Then (x2-1)=(x-1) 4.) Now lets factor the left hand side Then (x-1)(x+1)=(x-1) 5.) Now lets divide each side by (x-1) Then (x+1)=1 6.) Lets add 1 to each side Then (x+2)=2 7.) But since x=1 we have 3=2 Another way to write 2 is 1+1,
so we have 1+1=3
Review
Descartes developed a method designed to
deliver certainty
The Method of Doubt For the purposes of the method, if we can doubt a belief then we treat that belief as false He doubts that the world is the way that it
appears
That there is a physical world at all And finally the mathematical truths
Cogito ergo Sum

However, the one thing that he cannot doubt Is that while he is doubting he must exist Even if there were and Evil Genius and Even if he were deceiving me into thinking that there was a physical world when there in fact wasnt one It couldnt be the case that I think that there is a physical world if there werent a me to be deceived So when I am thinking I know I exist, this cant be doubted
The Foundation
So now he has discovered something certain He exists as a thinking thing Whether there is a physical world or not he cannot doubt that he exists This is the foundation on which he plans to build
back all of the stuff he previously doubted
He then notices that this piece of knowledge has
a certain quality that he calls being clear and distinct
Clear and Distinct Ideas

An idea is clear if it is manifest to an attentive
mind
If you were awake and attentive, well fed, not
distracted, etc, you would see that it is true
An idea is distinct if it contains nothing but things
which are themselves clear
Descartes concludes that the truth that he has
discovered, I think therefore I am is clear and distinct because it is a self-evident truth
The Road Back

He then concludes that all clear and distinct
ideas are true
These ideas are self-evident necessary truths Their truth is apprehended by rational intuition This is, of course, the way in which he is still in the
Aristotelian tradition
He now has a foundation and a way to verify his
results
The Next Step

His next step is to see how he can extend what
he has got so far
He knows that he exists and that his essential
characteristic is thinking
It is possible that he exist without a body But not possible that he exist without thinking
By thinking he means any form of mental activity

Include feeling pain, seeing blue, etc Phantom Limb pain
The Wax Argument

Take this piece of wax, it has certain physical
properties
A smell
It has a taste Makes a sound A certain shape And hardness
But take this wax and hold it next to a fire and all
of those physical properties change
The Wax Argument II

It no longer has the same shape, smell, size,
taste, feel, etc
Everyone of its physical properties change
But we know that it is the same wax throughout
this process
It is the same wax before and after the melting
How do we know this?

Not via the senses but via rational intuition
The Wax Argument III

What we have is some appearances
The wax looks a certain way
On the basis of these appearances we make a
judgment that there is a physical object out there
But, strictly speaking, we do not have any contact
with the object We perceive the real nature of the wax solely with our mind
Descartes Philosophy of Mind

The mind is a distinct, non-physical entity whose
essential characteristic is thinking
The Evil Genius Argument; it is possible that I exist
without a body this is clear and distinct so true
Physical objects never think Their essential characteristic is extension (taking up space) and are purely mechanical The Wax argument; the real nature of the wax is grasped by the mind as a substance which can change shape
Descartes Philosophy of Mind II

So what YOU are, really, is an immaterial mind What you interact with are ideas (your
experiences), which are mental (i.e. nonphysical), mental life, which you have immediate and unfailing access to
The procession of these ideas makes up your
The question then is,

Does my experience accurately represent reality?
The Common Sense Picture
Descartes Picture
Judgment
Causation
Causation
The Evil Genius
Judgment
Causation
Causation
An Analogy
Imagine that you have been raise in a room
where you are never allowed to leave
In this room you have a television monitor that
shows you scenes out on Van Damn St.
Based on these images you conclude that there
are people out there doing various things

out on Van Damn St.?
But how do you know that the camera really is
An Analogy II
It might be the case that someone wants us to
think that there are people out there who are doing various things, to fool us
But in reality it is all just a Hollywood set designed

We cannot leave the room and go outside to
check, so how do we know?
Descartes argues that God exists and wouldnt
deceive us so we can trust the way things appear
The Evil Genius
Judgment
Causation
Mission Accomplished
Since God exists, and He is not a deceiver I can
have knowledge of the physical world
But this knowledge consists in the innate a priori
clear and distinct truths (math, geometry, physics, logic, philosophy)
Information obtained via the senses is obscure
and confused
Real knowledge is achieved by rational intuition
READING CRITICALLY Analyzing Descartes Radical Doubt (1)

Have you ever had the
experience of wondering whether much of what you had been brought up to believe as true was in face unreliable? If so, identify some of the main beliefs or values that you called into question. Was there a particular event that stimulated the process of doubt and examination? What was the outcome of your reflective questioning?
READING CRITICALLY Analyzing Descartes Radical Doubt (2)

Try to replicate Descartes reflective process. Describe your current
situation as you are reading this text, just as he does. Then try to trace the pattern of thinking: Can you imagine that what you think is real is actually a dream? How can you be sure? Havent you had dreams that were at least as realistic as the current situation in which you find yourself? Is there any clear criteria you can use to differentiate between when you are dreaming and when you are awake?
Try to replicate Descartes foundational starting point, I think,
therefore I am. Does your ability to think convince you, for once and for all, that you exist? What does it mean for you to say, I exist? Exactly how would you describe the I that exists?
CRITERIA FOR JUSTIFICATION OF BELIEFS
To what extent is the belief supported by sound reasons and
compelling evidence derived from reliable sources?

How effectively does the belief explain what is taking place? To what extent is the belief consistent with other beliefs you have
about the world?

How effectively does your belief help you predict what will happen in
the future?
Is the belief falsifiable?

Chaffee, 3e Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chaffee, 3e Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Knowledge of the Good

who knows the Good

It is then of the utmost importance to figure out

how one can actually know the Good

His goal is to try and show how knowledge of the

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Knowledge requires certainty

If what can be known cant change, then

physical world cant be an object of knowledge

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

meet the following requirements

Platos strategy is to look for an area where there

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Theory of the Forms

We get in touch with these objects via the use of

These non-physical objects are called Forms

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Theory of the Forms II

space The mind is able to grasp these forms

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

perfect unless you know what the perfect one is like

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Form of Tree

Those are trees

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

One Over Many

certain objects as male but not others

There is a Form for every thing that objects have in

When you see that an object is, say, a desk you

are grasping the Form of that object

The objects are said to participate in the Form

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Divided Line

Sensible Objects Images

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Allegory of the Cave

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

READING CRITICALLY Analyzing Platos Allegory of the Cave (1)

READING CRITICALLY Analyzing Platos Allegory of the Cave (2)

Cave has profound and far-reaching implications for education:

place yourself? Why?

Is the first to realize that we need some criterion

for determining when an argument is good or bad

Discovers deductive logic

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Job of Philosophy

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Method of Science/Philosophy

something is the case It tells us why it MUST be the case

To really understand something we must be able

to give the reason why it has to be the way that it is

These explanation take the form of valid syllogisms

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Well, copper is a metal And all metals conduct electricity

We can put this as follows

Now I understand why copper has to

behave the way it does

Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

between two points is a straight line is self-evident

For instance what Aristotle calls the law of non-

Nothing can be both true and false at the same time