The term, from the Latin terminus would literally mean the last element into which a proposition may be resolved, namely, the spoken, or the written word.
1. DEFINITION
Term is a sensible conventional sign expressive of a concept.
Sensible: the spoken or written words are sensible, that is, they are perceivable through the senses.
Conventional: this is said by distinction from natural signs. A natural sign is one whose connection with the object it manifest is given by nature: e.g. smoke is a natural sign of fire; heavy dark clouds, of rain. A conventional sign is one whose connection with the thing it manifest is provided by common understanding or agreement, which is usually tacit; e.g. the flag of a nation.
Sign: This is something that manifests another object, aside from itself. If it manifests only itself, it is not a sign.
Expressive of a concept: the term expresses immediately the concept. However, since the concept is essentially expressive of the object, its sign, which is the term, is also expressive of the object.
2. SIGNS
a. Formal sign – one that manifest an object from its likeness or resemblance to it: e.g., a photograph is a formal sign of the physical appearance of a person, or a thing, from the resemblance it bears to the physical appearance of the latter.
b. Instrumental sign – one which manifests an object from any other connection it bears to the latter, aside from resemblance: e.g., footprints, flag, and insignia.
3. CLASSIFICATION OF TERMS
Terms are instrumental signs whereas Concepts are formal signs. The following are some of the classifications of terms.
According To Meaning
a. Univocal or homologous: term bearing the same meaning as applied to several individuals. E.g. man, cat, scientist, student, etc. Pedro is man. Juan is man. Man is taken as a univocal/homologous term.
b. Analogous: term expressing kindred meanings. The Greek word analogy means associated meaning. It may be analogous:
i. BY PROPORTION or by the association of the objects to which the term is applied. It is also known as logical analogy. e.g., the term HEALTHY is analogous by proportion, when applied to a man as subject of health, to climate as factor and to color as sign of health.
ii. BY PROPORTIONALITY, or by virtue of the kindred similarity of the conceptual and formal reasons denoted. It is also known as metaphysical analogy. e.g., between the goodness of a mother and the goodness of a pair of shoes, between the 1/3 of 27 and the 1/3 of 9. Lungs are man and gills are to fish.
The formal reasons of things are intrinsic to them, the said similarity of proportionality is to said to be intrinsic, by distinction from the external or physical similarity of things.
c. Equivocal: term outwardly or apparently the same, but expressing different meanings. The Latin original equivocal denotes sameness as to term only. The term may be equivocal:
i. In pronunciation only. E.g., sweet and suite; week and weak; sun and son; hens and hence; key and quay.
ii. In writing only. E.g., bow [bou] means inclination of head, with or without bending the body and bow [bō] which means weapon shooting arrow; dingy (rowboat or dirty).
iii. In both pronunciation and writing. E.g., ball (spheroid or dance); bat (animal, or club); club (weapon, group, or building); ring (circular device or sound).
d. Metaphorical: term transferred from its proper meaning or object and applied to something lese, on account of the latter’s resemblance to the former and to denote such resemblance. E.g., the king of animals; henpecked husband; tomboy; hand of hand; school head.
According To Extension
a. Common: Term which may be applied indiscriminately to many persons, or objects. E.g., man, house, teacher.
b. Singular or Individual: term which can be applied only to one subject, or to one object. It may be:
i. The proper name: Joseph M. Bello; TTMIST; Senate of the Philippines.
ii. A common term restricted by a particular circumstance of place, time, incident, or object. E.g., the Dean of CMIT; the author of Fundamental logic; the present Pope.
iii. A common term restricted by a demonstrative pronoun. E.g., this computer, that girl.
According To Comprehension
Terms may be concrete, or abstract. Aside from this, term may also be:
a. Generic: when it expresses the common constituent or the common essential feature of the object. E.g., a hammer is TOOL; a man is an ANIMAL.
b. Specific: when it expresses the distinctive constituent or the distinctive essential feature of the object. E.g., man is RATIONAL animal.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
CONTRADICTORY AND CONTRARY CONCEPTS
a. CONTRADICTORY – one of which expresses a positive conceptual reason or formal feature, and the other is negation.
EXAMPLE: White or non – white; Living or non – living.
Between them no intermediate or alternative is possible. a man is either living, or non – living: he may be dying but he is still living.
RULE: one is necessarily true, and the other is necessarily false. Hence, both cannot be affirmed, or denied at the same time of the same thing. If one is affirmed, the other is denied; and vice versa.
E.g., the plant is alive. Therefore, it is not non – alive. The stone is non – alive. Therefore, it is not alive.
b. CONTRARY – concepts that express conceptual reason or formal features which are opposed to each other as extremes in a certain order or class.
EXAMPLE: rich and poor; black and white; clever and stupid.
Between such extremes there are many intermediates possible: a man may neither be white, nor black, but brown; he may not be clever nor stupid, but average.
RULE: both cannot be true; but both can be false. Hence, if one is affirmed, the other must be denied. But, if one is denied, the other is doubtful: it may be affirmed or denied.
E.g., this paper is white; therefore, it is not black. It is not black; it is doubtful if it is white. It cannot be white and black at the same time; but it may not be white nor black.
EXAMPLE: White or non – white; Living or non – living.
Between them no intermediate or alternative is possible. a man is either living, or non – living: he may be dying but he is still living.
RULE: one is necessarily true, and the other is necessarily false. Hence, both cannot be affirmed, or denied at the same time of the same thing. If one is affirmed, the other is denied; and vice versa.
E.g., the plant is alive. Therefore, it is not non – alive. The stone is non – alive. Therefore, it is not alive.
b. CONTRARY – concepts that express conceptual reason or formal features which are opposed to each other as extremes in a certain order or class.
EXAMPLE: rich and poor; black and white; clever and stupid.
Between such extremes there are many intermediates possible: a man may neither be white, nor black, but brown; he may not be clever nor stupid, but average.
RULE: both cannot be true; but both can be false. Hence, if one is affirmed, the other must be denied. But, if one is denied, the other is doubtful: it may be affirmed or denied.
E.g., this paper is white; therefore, it is not black. It is not black; it is doubtful if it is white. It cannot be white and black at the same time; but it may not be white nor black.
IDEA, ABSTRACTION AND PROPERTIES OF IDEAS
Ideas are the building blocks of knowledge and of inference.
Idea is defined as the intellectual “image” or representation of a thing. It is the same as the concept in the mind. The term idea comes from the original Greek which means image. As applied to the idea, the term image be taken metaphorically, in an analogous sense.
The idea is an abstract representation of things, and may be expressed or defined by meaningful terms.
Example: an igorot may intellectually identify and distinguish a watch from other objects; but if he does not know what it is for, or does not know that it is a mechanical device for telling time, he has no idea of it.
1. IDEA AND PHANTASM
The idea must be carefully distinguish from the phantasm.
Phantasm is a sensible image existing in the imagination, which is one of the internal sense – faculties located in the brain. It is defined as the sensible representation of the material features of a thing, usually a kind of pictorial image, bearing a shape or figure.
The idea is the meaning of the phantasm. In our present condition a phantasm usually accompanies the idea. It helps fixate our thoughts.
In the case of the abstract things, as democracy, rights, science, unity, etc., the idea is accompanied by the respective term in the imagination. Oftentimes, however, we create new phantasms and literary expressions to respond to our new ideas.
The chief differences between IDEA and PHANTASM are:
Idea | Phantasm |
ü Found in the intellect ü Universal ü Constant ü Possible of complex and immaterial things | ü Found in the imagination ü Individual ü Changeable ü Not possible of complex and immaterial things |
2. ABSTRACTION OF IDEA
Imagination External senses sense memory Common sense cogitative sense PERCEPT PHANTASM Agent Intellect Possible Intellect ABSTRACTED NATURE THING IDEA
3. PROPERTIES OF IDEA
a. Comprehension – is the set of thought elements or conceptual features contained in an idea. It is also referred to as the implication, or the connotation of the idea.
Thus, when someone asks for the meaning of a term, he expects an answer from its comprehension. E.g., What is philosophy? – a science of all things by their ultimate causes and principles as known by natural reason alone.
b. Extension – is the range or scope of individuals and classes to which idea may be applied. It is also referred to as denotation, application.
Thus, when a student asks for an example of Philosphy, he expects an answer from its extension, as Logic, Epistemology, etc.
The general law on comprehension and extension of idea is that: THE GREATER THE COMPREHENSION, THE LESS IS THE EXTENSION; AND VICE VERSA. This principle also applicable in Terms.
Comprehension | Extension |
Substance | Spirits, minerals, plants, brutes, men |
Material substance | minerals, plants, brutes, men |
Living material substance | plants, brutes, men |
Sentient living material substance | brutes, men |
Rational sentient living material substance | Men |
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
CHAPTER VIII: LOGIC
Logic is generally given as the first part of philosophy. This is does not mean that Logic is the easiest branch of philosophy. It is quite the contrary.
However, Logic is given in the first part of philosophical study because logic imparts the knowledge of correct inferential thinking, and philosophy makes ample use of inferential thinking. In this manner, the student of philosophy is equipped with the intellectual means for gauging and appreciating the validity of the philosophical inferences and for determining the truth of their conclusions with certainty.
On the other hand, the knowledge of logic empowers us not only to make valid inferences, but also to establish the truth of his own conclusions by way of rational demonstrations. This is not of little importance, considering that philosophy deals with abstract matters, and that in the realm of abstract matters, truth and certainty are rather elusive.
ORGANON
For this reason Aristotle designated logic as organon that is to say, the universal rational instrument for the acquisition of philosophical knowledge. It is also the main instrument for pushing forward the frontiers of philosophical knowledge by expanding its conclusions.
Logic is also useful and necessary for equipping the mind with “knowledgeability” for making correct inferences and determining the correctness of the inferences people make regarding abstract things and topics, as freedom, rights, social justice, etc.
LOGIKE
The founder of logic is Aristotle; however, the actual name of logic was introduced by Zeno the Stoic. Coming from the Greek logike, it would etymologically denote a treatise on matters pertaining to thought.
Really, logic is defined as the science and art directing the very act of reason, through which man in the very act of reason proceeds orderly, easily and without error. Thus, it is commonly defined as the philosophical science of correct reasoning or inferential thinking.
Reasoning and thinking do not refer to the act of the mind proper, BUT to the mental product thereof, namely, the syllogistic argument.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF LOGIC
Natural Logic – is the innate inclination and aptitude of the intellect for right discourse. Common sense is a natural logic.
Artificial Logic – is the doctrine which acquired through study and work and contains an ordered collection of rules, by which the intellect is directed promptly and effectively to right reasoning.
KINDS OF ARTIFICIAL LOGIC
Minor Logic (Dialectics) – is based from the way according to form because it treats on, the rules after which conclusions are legitimately deduced.
Major Logic (Critics/Epistemology) – is based from the way according to form because it treats on the truth of the conclusion and furthermore, it inquires on what constitutes the truth, the ways in acquiring truth and criterion to distinguish the false from the conclusions.
DIVISION OF LOGIC
Logic is commonly divided according to the three acts of the mind, which provide the different elements of the subject – matter and the different bases of the different inferential functions.
I. Apprehension, Idea, Predictability of Ideas.
II. Judgment, Enunciation, Predication of Ideas.
III. Reasoning, Argument, Inference of new predication.
DEDUCTIVE LOGIC AND INDUCTIVE LOGIC
This division is applicable only to the Third Part of Logic. It covers only the discussion about inferential process from the Universal to the Particular (deduction).
Example:
All TTMIST students are intelligent. (Universal)
But, Gorgonia is a student of TTMIST. (Particular)
Therefore, Gorgonia is intelligent. (particular)
And from Individuals to the Universals (induction). It is also an inadequate division of the whole science.
Example:
This bag falls, this book falls, this pen falls, this pad of paper falls.
Therefore, all material/bodily objects fall.
However, Logic is given in the first part of philosophical study because logic imparts the knowledge of correct inferential thinking, and philosophy makes ample use of inferential thinking. In this manner, the student of philosophy is equipped with the intellectual means for gauging and appreciating the validity of the philosophical inferences and for determining the truth of their conclusions with certainty.
On the other hand, the knowledge of logic empowers us not only to make valid inferences, but also to establish the truth of his own conclusions by way of rational demonstrations. This is not of little importance, considering that philosophy deals with abstract matters, and that in the realm of abstract matters, truth and certainty are rather elusive.
ORGANON
For this reason Aristotle designated logic as organon that is to say, the universal rational instrument for the acquisition of philosophical knowledge. It is also the main instrument for pushing forward the frontiers of philosophical knowledge by expanding its conclusions.
Logic is also useful and necessary for equipping the mind with “knowledgeability” for making correct inferences and determining the correctness of the inferences people make regarding abstract things and topics, as freedom, rights, social justice, etc.
LOGIKE
The founder of logic is Aristotle; however, the actual name of logic was introduced by Zeno the Stoic. Coming from the Greek logike, it would etymologically denote a treatise on matters pertaining to thought.
Really, logic is defined as the science and art directing the very act of reason, through which man in the very act of reason proceeds orderly, easily and without error. Thus, it is commonly defined as the philosophical science of correct reasoning or inferential thinking.
Reasoning and thinking do not refer to the act of the mind proper, BUT to the mental product thereof, namely, the syllogistic argument.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF LOGIC
Natural Logic – is the innate inclination and aptitude of the intellect for right discourse. Common sense is a natural logic.
Artificial Logic – is the doctrine which acquired through study and work and contains an ordered collection of rules, by which the intellect is directed promptly and effectively to right reasoning.
KINDS OF ARTIFICIAL LOGIC
Minor Logic (Dialectics) – is based from the way according to form because it treats on, the rules after which conclusions are legitimately deduced.
Major Logic (Critics/Epistemology) – is based from the way according to form because it treats on the truth of the conclusion and furthermore, it inquires on what constitutes the truth, the ways in acquiring truth and criterion to distinguish the false from the conclusions.
DIVISION OF LOGIC
Logic is commonly divided according to the three acts of the mind, which provide the different elements of the subject – matter and the different bases of the different inferential functions.
I. Apprehension, Idea, Predictability of Ideas.
II. Judgment, Enunciation, Predication of Ideas.
III. Reasoning, Argument, Inference of new predication.
DEDUCTIVE LOGIC AND INDUCTIVE LOGIC
This division is applicable only to the Third Part of Logic. It covers only the discussion about inferential process from the Universal to the Particular (deduction).
Example:
All TTMIST students are intelligent. (Universal)
But, Gorgonia is a student of TTMIST. (Particular)
Therefore, Gorgonia is intelligent. (particular)
And from Individuals to the Universals (induction). It is also an inadequate division of the whole science.
Example:
This bag falls, this book falls, this pen falls, this pad of paper falls.
Therefore, all material/bodily objects fall.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
CHAPTER VII: THEODICY
SPECIAL METAPHYSICS / THEODICY
As we have discussed recently, metaphysics deals/elucidates/demonstrates or studies beings which are beyond nature. Thus, questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, God, space, time, causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical issues.
This part is called special metaphysics because it specializes or focuses solely about God and those that are related to God. Hence, special metaphysics is also known as Theodicy which literally mean the science of God (Theos).
As a branch of philosophy theodicy does not mention the true name of God neither discusses who really the true God is. But theodicy demonstrates, through reason and not faith, the existence of the Supreme Being known as God. Hence, it differs from theology.
1. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
From time immemorial people are divided by geographical locations, principles, traditions, social status and even in faith.
Some believes in one God (monotheism), some believes in many gods (polytheism), some denies the existence of God (atheism), while others contend that human beings do not have sufficient evidence to warrant either the affirmation or the denial of God’s existence (agnosticism). The agnostics believe that we lack knowledge of the existence of God. In this, the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists, differs from the atheist, who denies that god exists.
Nowadays, most of us believe in God. In fact we always profess our faith that He exist every time we say the Creed: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty…” (Credo in Deum, Patrem Omnipotentem).
But let us take some of the questions concerning God and His existence.
v Do you believe in God?
v What if bible were not written or was burned during the persecution of Christians, are we still going to believe in God?
v Is our belief about God’s existence based on faith or reason?
v And most importantly, does God really exist?
v And if you answer it with affirmative, can you demonstrate God’s existence aside from faith?
Let us consider first the following definition before we elucidate the above questions.
v Existence – that which actualizes an essence and sets it outside its cause as a thing produced.
v Demonstration – reasoning out of truth so thoroughly and completely that the person who understands every step of the process is compelled to recognize it.
v a priori argument – is an argument that is taken to reason deductively from abstract general premises
v a posteriori argument – is an argument that relies upon specific information derived from sense perception.
v Essence – that which makes a thing to be it is.
v Faith – the assent to truth on account of the authority of God.
Note well that the true essence of God is incomprehensible. Thus, we will never know the totality of God’s essence but ONLY SOMETHING ABOUT HIS ESSENCE.
God’s existence can be demonstrated through a posteriori and through the five ways known as the quinquae viae of St. Thomas Aquinas, viz.
v Cause and Effect
v Design/Teleological argument
v Motion
v Moral Order
v History
CHAPTER VI: ONTOLOGY
1. GENERAL METAPHYSICS / ONTOLOGY
Metaphysics as a term is derived from the two Greek words “meta” (meta) which means “beyond” or “after” and “physika” which literally mean “nature” (jusika). Thus, etymologically speaking, metaphysics is a study of all things which are beyond nature.
Really, metaphysics is defined as a Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being as such, otherwise stated as the study of beings as being.
Ontology on one hand is defined as a branch of metaphysics concerned with identifying, in the most general terms, the kinds of beings that actually exist.
Thus, questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, God, space, time, causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical issues.
2. BEING
Being is that which exists or has the capacity of existence.
THE NOTION OF BEING
Being is the participle of the verb to be and means that which is or that which has to be or a thing having to be.
3. KINDS OF BEING
a. ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL BEING:
v Actual – that has actual existence in the real order. E.g. Philippines
v Potential – has the capacity of existing in the real order. E.g. Dragon
b. INFINITE AND FINITE BEING:
v Infinite Being – a being that possesses all perfections without limits. E.g. God
v Finite Being – are beings that possess perfection with certain limits. E.g. Created beings
c. NECESSARY AND CONTINGENT BEING:
v Necessary Being – that which is impossible for it not to exist. Its very nature requires the being to exist. E.g. God
v Contingent Being – is a being that exists and it would be possible for it not to exist. It very nature does not require it to exist. E.g. man
d. IMMUTABLE AND MUTABLE BEING
v Immutable Being – is that which is not subject to change. It possesses all actuality.
v Mutable being – being that can become another being or other than it is. It possesses actuality and potentiality. It is thus subject to change.
e. ETERNAL AND TEMPORAL BEING:
v Eternal Being – that which has no beginning and no ending and not subject to time.
v Temporal being – being that has beginning and it has no ending.
f. ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE BEING:
v Absolute Being – is that which is in itself sufficient and independent to anything else and is therefore capable being without reference to anything else.
v Relative Being – is that which has some reference to something and it cannot have being independently of that to which it is referred.
NOT UNDER REAL BEING
v Mental being – inside the mind and has the capacity to exist outside the mind.
v Logical being – purely in the mind.
Metaphysics as a term is derived from the two Greek words “meta” (meta) which means “beyond” or “after” and “physika” which literally mean “nature” (jusika). Thus, etymologically speaking, metaphysics is a study of all things which are beyond nature.
Really, metaphysics is defined as a Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being as such, otherwise stated as the study of beings as being.
Ontology on one hand is defined as a branch of metaphysics concerned with identifying, in the most general terms, the kinds of beings that actually exist.
Thus, questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, God, space, time, causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical issues.
2. BEING
Being is that which exists or has the capacity of existence.
THE NOTION OF BEING
Being is the participle of the verb to be and means that which is or that which has to be or a thing having to be.
3. KINDS OF BEING
a. ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL BEING:
v Actual – that has actual existence in the real order. E.g. Philippines
v Potential – has the capacity of existing in the real order. E.g. Dragon
b. INFINITE AND FINITE BEING:
v Infinite Being – a being that possesses all perfections without limits. E.g. God
v Finite Being – are beings that possess perfection with certain limits. E.g. Created beings
c. NECESSARY AND CONTINGENT BEING:
v Necessary Being – that which is impossible for it not to exist. Its very nature requires the being to exist. E.g. God
v Contingent Being – is a being that exists and it would be possible for it not to exist. It very nature does not require it to exist. E.g. man
d. IMMUTABLE AND MUTABLE BEING
v Immutable Being – is that which is not subject to change. It possesses all actuality.
v Mutable being – being that can become another being or other than it is. It possesses actuality and potentiality. It is thus subject to change.
e. ETERNAL AND TEMPORAL BEING:
v Eternal Being – that which has no beginning and no ending and not subject to time.
v Temporal being – being that has beginning and it has no ending.
f. ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE BEING:
v Absolute Being – is that which is in itself sufficient and independent to anything else and is therefore capable being without reference to anything else.
v Relative Being – is that which has some reference to something and it cannot have being independently of that to which it is referred.
NOT UNDER REAL BEING
v Mental being – inside the mind and has the capacity to exist outside the mind.
v Logical being – purely in the mind.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
CHAPTER V: NATURE OF TRUTH
1. NATURE OF TRUTH
Plato wrote, Socrates, the most influential philosopher in the history of western of thought, died knowing only one thing about the truth, that is, he did not know anything about the truth.
Truth is the final cause of philosophy. All the branches of philosophy endeavors to know the truth. However, truth is too elusive. The quest for truth has started long before the advent of philosophy and this quest continue until this post modern period.
But for purposes of the present discussion, let try to “understand” truth from the standpoint of Epistemology.
2. EPISTEMOLOGY
The word epistemology is derived from the two Greek words Epistem (episthmh) + Logos (logoz). Epistem means knowledge while Logos means science. Hence, it is etymologically defined as science of knowledge.
As a branch of philosophy, epistemology is defined as that which studies the sources, validity and limits of knowledge. It inquires into perception, meaning and truth.
Epistemology investigates the human knowledge itself from the standpoint if certainty, validity and truth – value of such knowledge.
3. ASIDE FROM KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS NECESSARILY TRUE, THERE IS ALSO KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS CONTINGENTLY TRUE.
Necessary truth is when there is a necessary conformity between the object and the knowledge.
Contingent truth is when sometimes there is no conformity or there exists a conformity between the object and knowledge.
Knowledge is an inner grasp and possession of reality or of an object.
Knowledge is necessarily true from the very perfection and nature of the object when it reacts certainly about the object which cannot be otherwise.
Knowledge is contingently true when somebody may affirm that someone for example he knows that he is accustomed to study such hour. Having presumed, therefore, that he is studying, the affirmation is but only contingently true; for some proposition can also be pronounced, even if he, on accounts of some other later besides the habit, is playing, and in this case, the affirmation did not conform to the object.
4. TRUTH IS AN ABSOLUTE THING
Truth is the conformity of thought and thing.
Absolute means perfect in itself; fixed; unchanging.
A thing is said to be absolutely true when it does not change with times, place and persons.
But, truth does not change with times, places, and persons.
Therefore, truth is an absolute thing.
a. This could be proven by experience. For example, it was once believed that the earth is flat; nevertheless, the earth is not flat. Nor was it flat when it was believed to be so.
What was true when such belief prevailed, is still true, and will be true forever. A mistaken judgment has been corrected but truth has not changed.
b. There are also statements which is fix in a point of time and it must always be understood with reference to that fixed point; such as twelve years ago I said “I am a little boy,’ and the statement was true. If pronounce the same statement today, it is not true. What was said twelve years ago was true. It will forever be true and will remain unchanged.
c. THERE ARE SIX STATES OF THE MIND WITH REFERENCE TO TRUTH
Truth is the conformity of thought and thing otherwise stated as the agreement between the judgment of the mind and objective thing judged.
State of the mind is the condition of the mind in reference to truth.
CLASSIFICATION OF THE STATES OF THE MIND
a. An indecisive state of mind is when the mind does not give a definite or positive judgment.
b. A decisive state of mind is when the mind has already made a decision or judgment and rests in it.
Indecisive State of Mind
IGNORANCE – the lack of knowledge in a subject capable of possessing it.
a. Privative Ignorance – lack of knowledge which one ought to have and reasonably be expected to have and so indicated a real privation in the subject.
b. Negative Ignorance – ignorance of knowledge which one is not reasonably expected to possess, so constitutes no real privation in the subject.
DOUBT – when the mind hesitates between contradictory judgments, unable to deliver either one or the other is true. Doubt, unlike ignorance, involves the presence of some knowledge in the mind.
a. Positive Doubt – the mind is in doubt by reason of apparently equal argument or reasons for each of the two contradictory judgments.
b. Negative Doubt – the mind is in doubt when there appears no good argument or reason for deciding either ways.
SUSPICION – when the mind begins, however slightly, to incline towards one of the contradictories, without definitely accepting it or rejecting the opposite judgment.
Decisive State of Mind
OPINION – when the mind definitely decides for one of two contradictory judgments having reasons for its decisions, bur realizing that, after all, the opposite judgment maybe the true one. Opinion involves definite pronouncement of judgment by the mind, but the judgment is not wholly.
CERTITUDE – is the unwavering assent of the mind to known truth. It implies no fear that; after all, the opposite may be true; instead it rigorously excludes such fear.
ERROR – the state of the mind in which that false is judged to be true, or that which is true is judged to be false.
Plato wrote, Socrates, the most influential philosopher in the history of western of thought, died knowing only one thing about the truth, that is, he did not know anything about the truth.
Truth is the final cause of philosophy. All the branches of philosophy endeavors to know the truth. However, truth is too elusive. The quest for truth has started long before the advent of philosophy and this quest continue until this post modern period.
But for purposes of the present discussion, let try to “understand” truth from the standpoint of Epistemology.
2. EPISTEMOLOGY
The word epistemology is derived from the two Greek words Epistem (episthmh) + Logos (logoz). Epistem means knowledge while Logos means science. Hence, it is etymologically defined as science of knowledge.
As a branch of philosophy, epistemology is defined as that which studies the sources, validity and limits of knowledge. It inquires into perception, meaning and truth.
Epistemology investigates the human knowledge itself from the standpoint if certainty, validity and truth – value of such knowledge.
3. ASIDE FROM KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS NECESSARILY TRUE, THERE IS ALSO KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS CONTINGENTLY TRUE.
Necessary truth is when there is a necessary conformity between the object and the knowledge.
Contingent truth is when sometimes there is no conformity or there exists a conformity between the object and knowledge.
Knowledge is an inner grasp and possession of reality or of an object.
Knowledge is necessarily true from the very perfection and nature of the object when it reacts certainly about the object which cannot be otherwise.
Knowledge is contingently true when somebody may affirm that someone for example he knows that he is accustomed to study such hour. Having presumed, therefore, that he is studying, the affirmation is but only contingently true; for some proposition can also be pronounced, even if he, on accounts of some other later besides the habit, is playing, and in this case, the affirmation did not conform to the object.
4. TRUTH IS AN ABSOLUTE THING
Truth is the conformity of thought and thing.
Absolute means perfect in itself; fixed; unchanging.
A thing is said to be absolutely true when it does not change with times, place and persons.
But, truth does not change with times, places, and persons.
Therefore, truth is an absolute thing.
a. This could be proven by experience. For example, it was once believed that the earth is flat; nevertheless, the earth is not flat. Nor was it flat when it was believed to be so.
What was true when such belief prevailed, is still true, and will be true forever. A mistaken judgment has been corrected but truth has not changed.
b. There are also statements which is fix in a point of time and it must always be understood with reference to that fixed point; such as twelve years ago I said “I am a little boy,’ and the statement was true. If pronounce the same statement today, it is not true. What was said twelve years ago was true. It will forever be true and will remain unchanged.
c. THERE ARE SIX STATES OF THE MIND WITH REFERENCE TO TRUTH
Truth is the conformity of thought and thing otherwise stated as the agreement between the judgment of the mind and objective thing judged.
State of the mind is the condition of the mind in reference to truth.
CLASSIFICATION OF THE STATES OF THE MIND
a. An indecisive state of mind is when the mind does not give a definite or positive judgment.
b. A decisive state of mind is when the mind has already made a decision or judgment and rests in it.
Indecisive State of Mind
IGNORANCE – the lack of knowledge in a subject capable of possessing it.
a. Privative Ignorance – lack of knowledge which one ought to have and reasonably be expected to have and so indicated a real privation in the subject.
b. Negative Ignorance – ignorance of knowledge which one is not reasonably expected to possess, so constitutes no real privation in the subject.
DOUBT – when the mind hesitates between contradictory judgments, unable to deliver either one or the other is true. Doubt, unlike ignorance, involves the presence of some knowledge in the mind.
a. Positive Doubt – the mind is in doubt by reason of apparently equal argument or reasons for each of the two contradictory judgments.
b. Negative Doubt – the mind is in doubt when there appears no good argument or reason for deciding either ways.
SUSPICION – when the mind begins, however slightly, to incline towards one of the contradictories, without definitely accepting it or rejecting the opposite judgment.
Decisive State of Mind
OPINION – when the mind definitely decides for one of two contradictory judgments having reasons for its decisions, bur realizing that, after all, the opposite judgment maybe the true one. Opinion involves definite pronouncement of judgment by the mind, but the judgment is not wholly.
CERTITUDE – is the unwavering assent of the mind to known truth. It implies no fear that; after all, the opposite may be true; instead it rigorously excludes such fear.
ERROR – the state of the mind in which that false is judged to be true, or that which is true is judged to be false.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
CHAPTER IV: ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY
1. BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA:
Nature of Philosophy: Their philosophy is more religious in character for it is accompanied with their polytheistic belief. For them, every object or every force in nature possessed a spirit (Zi) which could be controlled by the magical exorcism of Shaman, a sorcerer priest. Some of these spirits has been elevated to the dignity of gods. That’s why, they had Anu (the sky), Mul – ge, or Enum (the earth) and Hea (the deep). Among these gods, El was considered as the supreme. But later on during the reign of Assurbanipal, this primitive symtem of theology began to develop into a system of Cosmology when they fostered this belief that the universe emerged from an eternal chaos of waters.
2. EGYPT
Belief on Man and Moral Ethics: Man has three (3) parts namely, the Khat (body), the Khu (spirit), which is the emanation from divine essence, and the soul which is sometimes represented as Ka, living in the mummy or statue of the deceased and sometimes also as Ba (disembodied soul), which ultimately returns to its home in the lower world. They believed in the immortality of the human soul and the day of resurrected wherein the soul, body and spirit shall be reunited again.
3. CHINA
Nature of Philosophy: Before the time of the sages in China, there was a state religion which worshipped the spirits of various kinds and Thian (heaven) as the supreme Lord (Shang – ti). These spirits silently and simply yet inexorably carried out their work in the order of the world. The Chinese always inclined to look towards the past rather than towards the future. They have a high regard on the continuation of the family life which the individual actions were reflected back and made to ennoble a whole line of ancestors. They thought less on the personal immortality in the life after death.
But Chinese Philosophy was highlighted by the two great sages, Confucius and Lao-Tzu. The former told men what to do but discouraged the effort to think out the causes and reasons of things while the latter went to the opposite by advocating the practice of contemplation. He thought deeply about the world and its origin into a materialistic pantheism and about man’s duty of harmonizing himself with nature by imitating Tao.
Morality: both the two taught that conduct is to be guided by a knowledge of the unalterable discriminating, intelligent order of heaven and earth. However, they were distinct in their means to obtain the knowledge of the eternal order on which morality depends for Confucius encouraged the study of writings and institutions of antiquity, while Lao – Tzu advocated the speculative contemplation of Tao.
4. INDIA
The Indian philosophy is contained in the Upanishads. This philosophy can be summarized into six points of doctrine:
ü The identity of all being in Brahman.
ü The existence of Maya (illusion), to which is referred everything which is not Brahman.
ü The excellence of the knowledge of all things in Brahman or Atman.
ü The immortality and transmigration of soul.
ü Mysticism and deliverance of bondage. In this, they recognized the existence of evil and suffering and so they are concerned with the problem of deliverance by means of knowledge.
But with the rise of Buddhism this problem was given a solution through the abolition of desire which is the cause of suffering
Belief on Man: man undergoes a series of purification through that transmigration until he is purified and is proclaimed to be in union with Brahman or Atman.
5. PERSIA
Their philosophy is again religious in character. Their religion was at first monotheists in tendency due to the influence of the Aryan invaders. But this monotheistic tendency gradually developed into dualism when they accepted two important divinities. Devas, recognized as evil deities and Ahuras, as deities friendly to man. This dualistic conception was furter developed by Zoroaster, a great religious reformer into two principles of good and evil in the universe. The good principle is called Ahura – Mazda (Ormuzd) while the evil principle is called Anra – Mainyu (Ahriman). The former is conceived as light and day, the latter as darkness and night. There is battle between these two opposing principles. But at the end of twelve thousand (12,000) years, the present cosmic period will come to an end and Ormuzd will finally triumph over Ahriman.
Belief on Man and Moral Duties: man’s duty is to worship Ormuzd by prayer, sacrifice and the oblation of Home (juice of sacred plant). It is also his duty to cultivate the soil and to promote the like and growth of Ormuzd’s creatures and to destroy the works of Ahriman.
Nature of Philosophy: Their philosophy is more religious in character for it is accompanied with their polytheistic belief. For them, every object or every force in nature possessed a spirit (Zi) which could be controlled by the magical exorcism of Shaman, a sorcerer priest. Some of these spirits has been elevated to the dignity of gods. That’s why, they had Anu (the sky), Mul – ge, or Enum (the earth) and Hea (the deep). Among these gods, El was considered as the supreme. But later on during the reign of Assurbanipal, this primitive symtem of theology began to develop into a system of Cosmology when they fostered this belief that the universe emerged from an eternal chaos of waters.
2. EGYPT
Belief on Man and Moral Ethics: Man has three (3) parts namely, the Khat (body), the Khu (spirit), which is the emanation from divine essence, and the soul which is sometimes represented as Ka, living in the mummy or statue of the deceased and sometimes also as Ba (disembodied soul), which ultimately returns to its home in the lower world. They believed in the immortality of the human soul and the day of resurrected wherein the soul, body and spirit shall be reunited again.
3. CHINA
Nature of Philosophy: Before the time of the sages in China, there was a state religion which worshipped the spirits of various kinds and Thian (heaven) as the supreme Lord (Shang – ti). These spirits silently and simply yet inexorably carried out their work in the order of the world. The Chinese always inclined to look towards the past rather than towards the future. They have a high regard on the continuation of the family life which the individual actions were reflected back and made to ennoble a whole line of ancestors. They thought less on the personal immortality in the life after death.
But Chinese Philosophy was highlighted by the two great sages, Confucius and Lao-Tzu. The former told men what to do but discouraged the effort to think out the causes and reasons of things while the latter went to the opposite by advocating the practice of contemplation. He thought deeply about the world and its origin into a materialistic pantheism and about man’s duty of harmonizing himself with nature by imitating Tao.
Morality: both the two taught that conduct is to be guided by a knowledge of the unalterable discriminating, intelligent order of heaven and earth. However, they were distinct in their means to obtain the knowledge of the eternal order on which morality depends for Confucius encouraged the study of writings and institutions of antiquity, while Lao – Tzu advocated the speculative contemplation of Tao.
4. INDIA
The Indian philosophy is contained in the Upanishads. This philosophy can be summarized into six points of doctrine:
ü The identity of all being in Brahman.
ü The existence of Maya (illusion), to which is referred everything which is not Brahman.
ü The excellence of the knowledge of all things in Brahman or Atman.
ü The immortality and transmigration of soul.
ü Mysticism and deliverance of bondage. In this, they recognized the existence of evil and suffering and so they are concerned with the problem of deliverance by means of knowledge.
But with the rise of Buddhism this problem was given a solution through the abolition of desire which is the cause of suffering
Belief on Man: man undergoes a series of purification through that transmigration until he is purified and is proclaimed to be in union with Brahman or Atman.
5. PERSIA
Their philosophy is again religious in character. Their religion was at first monotheists in tendency due to the influence of the Aryan invaders. But this monotheistic tendency gradually developed into dualism when they accepted two important divinities. Devas, recognized as evil deities and Ahuras, as deities friendly to man. This dualistic conception was furter developed by Zoroaster, a great religious reformer into two principles of good and evil in the universe. The good principle is called Ahura – Mazda (Ormuzd) while the evil principle is called Anra – Mainyu (Ahriman). The former is conceived as light and day, the latter as darkness and night. There is battle between these two opposing principles. But at the end of twelve thousand (12,000) years, the present cosmic period will come to an end and Ormuzd will finally triumph over Ahriman.
Belief on Man and Moral Duties: man’s duty is to worship Ormuzd by prayer, sacrifice and the oblation of Home (juice of sacred plant). It is also his duty to cultivate the soil and to promote the like and growth of Ormuzd’s creatures and to destroy the works of Ahriman.
Retrospect
The second period of the Greek philosophy is characterized as Subjective – Objective philosophy.
Socrates (Concept) – concerned with the inquiry into the conditions of scientific knowledge and the basis of Ethics.
Plato (Idea) – scientific study of reality; a system of Metaphysics.
Aristotle (Essence) – the fundamental dualism of matter and form.
Socrates (Concept) – concerned with the inquiry into the conditions of scientific knowledge and the basis of Ethics.
Plato (Idea) – scientific study of reality; a system of Metaphysics.
Aristotle (Essence) – the fundamental dualism of matter and form.
Aristotle
He was born in the year 384 B.C. at Stagira, Chalcidice, Macedonia. He was a noble person & high – minded, thoroughly earnest, devoted to truth. He was diligent and attentive pupil of Plato for 20 years; after the latter’s death he founded his own school “the Lyceum”. He died in the year 323.
His writings: Logical Treatises (Organon); Metaphysical Treatises; Physical; Psychological; Ethical; Rhetorical and Poetical Treatises.
One of his philosophies is his philosophy on knowledge. Originally Aristotle concurred with the idea of Plato on the theory of Knowledge. In fact he wrote decisive treatises on the said matters when he was still in the academy of Plato. However, when he left the academy, Aristotle criticized his master’s philosophy by introducing a new set of idea on knowledge. He believed that “nothing comes from the mind without passing through the senses.” This philosophy is far from Plato’s philosophy. If you recall, Plato believed that we have innate knowledge.
Aristotle argued that we acquired knowledge through the process of abstraction. Our senses perceived the things and through the process of abstraction we acquired idea. Thus, ideas come into our mind not because we have learned this in the realm of ideas but through abstraction of the things by the our external senses.
Historical Position
1. His philosophy is the synthesis and culmination of the speculations of Pre-Socratic and Socratic schools.
2. The first one who formulates the theory of syllogism as a series of rules of validity
3. Founder of Logic, Author if the First Treaties on Scientific Psychology, First Natural Historian, Father of Biological Science.
4. It was left for scholastic philosophy to add the pinnacle to the structure which Aristotle had formulated and carried as far as human thoughts could build unaided.
His writings: Logical Treatises (Organon); Metaphysical Treatises; Physical; Psychological; Ethical; Rhetorical and Poetical Treatises.
One of his philosophies is his philosophy on knowledge. Originally Aristotle concurred with the idea of Plato on the theory of Knowledge. In fact he wrote decisive treatises on the said matters when he was still in the academy of Plato. However, when he left the academy, Aristotle criticized his master’s philosophy by introducing a new set of idea on knowledge. He believed that “nothing comes from the mind without passing through the senses.” This philosophy is far from Plato’s philosophy. If you recall, Plato believed that we have innate knowledge.
Aristotle argued that we acquired knowledge through the process of abstraction. Our senses perceived the things and through the process of abstraction we acquired idea. Thus, ideas come into our mind not because we have learned this in the realm of ideas but through abstraction of the things by the our external senses.
Historical Position
1. His philosophy is the synthesis and culmination of the speculations of Pre-Socratic and Socratic schools.
2. The first one who formulates the theory of syllogism as a series of rules of validity
3. Founder of Logic, Author if the First Treaties on Scientific Psychology, First Natural Historian, Father of Biological Science.
4. It was left for scholastic philosophy to add the pinnacle to the structure which Aristotle had formulated and carried as far as human thoughts could build unaided.
Plato
Plato (427 – 347) was born in Athens, Greece, and his young mind turned towards idealistic themes of organization. He devoted much of his attention to beauty and he was for eight years a disciple of Socrates. He was twenty nine years old when Plato drank the deadly hemlock. He founded his own school “the Academy.” Phaedrus, Protagoras, The Banquet, Gorgias, The Republic, Timaeus, Theaetatus and Phaedo were Plato’s authentic writings.
*The allegory of the Cave: Far and away the most influential passage in Western philosophy ever written is Plato's discussion of the prisoners of the cave and his abstract presentation of the divided line. For Plato, human beings live in a world of visible and intelligible things. The visible world is what surrounds us: what we see, what we hear, what we experience; this visible world is a world of change and uncertainty. The intelligible world is made up of the unchanging products of human reason: anything arising from reason alone, such as abstract definitions or mathematics, makes up this intelligible world, which is the world of reality. The intelligible world contains the eternal "Forms" (in Greek, idea ) of things; the visible world is the imperfect and changing manifestation in this world of these unchanging forms. For example, the "Form" or "Idea" of a horse is intelligible, abstract, and applies to all horses; this Form never changes, even though horses vary wildly among themselves—the Form of a horse would never change even if every horse in the world were to vanish. An individual horse is a physical, changing object that can easily cease to be a horse (if, for instance, it's dropped out of a fifty story building); the Form of a horse, or "horseness," never changes. As a physical object, a horse only makes sense in that it can be referred to the "Form" or "Idea" of horseness.
Plato imagines these two worlds, the sensible world and the intelligible world, as existing on a line that can be divided in the middle: the lower part of the line consists of the visible world and the upper part of the line makes up the intelligible world. Each half of the line relates to a certain type of knowledge: of the visible world, we can only have opinion (in Greek: doxa); of the intelligible world we achieve "knowledge" (in Greek, epistemŽ). Each of these divisions can also be divided in two. The visible or changing world can be divided into a lower region, "illusion," which is made up of shadows, reflections, paintings, poetry, etc., and an upper region, "belief," which refers to any kind of knowledge of things that change, such as individual horses. "Belief" may be true some or most of the time but occasionally is wrong (since things in the visible world change); belief is practical and may serve as a relatively reliable guide to life but doesn't really involve thinking things out to the point of certainty. The upper region can be divided into, on the lower end, "reason," which is knowledge of things like mathematics but which require that some postulates be accepted without question, and "intelligence," which is the knowledge of the highest and most abstract categories of things, an understanding of the ultimate good.
* The allegory of the cave is found in the Republic, one of Plato’s authentic writings.
*The allegory of the Cave: Far and away the most influential passage in Western philosophy ever written is Plato's discussion of the prisoners of the cave and his abstract presentation of the divided line. For Plato, human beings live in a world of visible and intelligible things. The visible world is what surrounds us: what we see, what we hear, what we experience; this visible world is a world of change and uncertainty. The intelligible world is made up of the unchanging products of human reason: anything arising from reason alone, such as abstract definitions or mathematics, makes up this intelligible world, which is the world of reality. The intelligible world contains the eternal "Forms" (in Greek, idea ) of things; the visible world is the imperfect and changing manifestation in this world of these unchanging forms. For example, the "Form" or "Idea" of a horse is intelligible, abstract, and applies to all horses; this Form never changes, even though horses vary wildly among themselves—the Form of a horse would never change even if every horse in the world were to vanish. An individual horse is a physical, changing object that can easily cease to be a horse (if, for instance, it's dropped out of a fifty story building); the Form of a horse, or "horseness," never changes. As a physical object, a horse only makes sense in that it can be referred to the "Form" or "Idea" of horseness.
Plato imagines these two worlds, the sensible world and the intelligible world, as existing on a line that can be divided in the middle: the lower part of the line consists of the visible world and the upper part of the line makes up the intelligible world. Each half of the line relates to a certain type of knowledge: of the visible world, we can only have opinion (in Greek: doxa); of the intelligible world we achieve "knowledge" (in Greek, epistemŽ). Each of these divisions can also be divided in two. The visible or changing world can be divided into a lower region, "illusion," which is made up of shadows, reflections, paintings, poetry, etc., and an upper region, "belief," which refers to any kind of knowledge of things that change, such as individual horses. "Belief" may be true some or most of the time but occasionally is wrong (since things in the visible world change); belief is practical and may serve as a relatively reliable guide to life but doesn't really involve thinking things out to the point of certainty. The upper region can be divided into, on the lower end, "reason," which is knowledge of things like mathematics but which require that some postulates be accepted without question, and "intelligence," which is the knowledge of the highest and most abstract categories of things, an understanding of the ultimate good.
* The allegory of the cave is found in the Republic, one of Plato’s authentic writings.
Socrates
The growing power of Athens had frightened other Greek states for years before the Peloponnesian War broke out in 431. During the war, Pericles died in the plague of Athens (429); fortunes of war varied until a truce was made in 421, but this was never very stable and in 415 Athens was persuaded by Alcibiades, a pupil of the Athenian teacher, Socrates, to send a huge force to Sicily in an attempt to take over some of the cities there. This expedition was destroyed in 413. Nevertheless Athens continued the war. In 411 an oligarchy ("rule by a few") was instituted in Athens in an attempt to secure financial support from Persia, but this did not work out and the democracy was soon restored. In 405 the last Athenian fleet was destroyed in the battle of Aegospotami by a Spartan commander, and the city was besieged and forced to surrender in 404. Sparta set up an oligarchy of Athenian nobles (among them Critias, a former associate of Socrates and a relative of Plato), which because of its brutality became known as the Thirty Tyrants. By 403 democracy was once again restored. Socrates was brought to trial and condemned to die by drinking a deadly hemlock in 399 B.C.
Socrates (469-399), despite his foundational place in the history of ideas, actually wrote nothing. Most of our knowledge of him comes from the works of Plato (427-347), and since Plato had other concerns in mind than simple historical accuracy it is usually impossible to determine how much of his thinking actually derives from Socrates.
Socrates wrote nothing because he felt that knowledge was a living, interactive thing. Socrates' method of philosophical inquiry consisted in questioning people on the positions they asserted and working them through questions into a contradiction, thus proving to them that their original assertion was wrong. Socrates himself never takes a position; in The Apology he radically and skeptically claims to know nothing at all except that he knows nothing. Socrates and Plato refer to this method of questioning as elenchus, which means something like "cross-examination" The Socratic elenchus eventually gave rise to dialectic, the idea that truth needs to be pursued by modifying one's position through questioning and conflict with opposing ideas. It is this idea of the truth being pursued, rather than discovered, that characterizes Socratic thought and much of our world view today. The Western notion of dialectic is somewhat Socratic in nature in that it is conceived of as an ongoing process. Although Socrates in The Apology claims to have discovered no other truth than that he knows no truth, the Socrates of Plato's other earlier dialogues is of the opinion that truth is somehow attainable through this process of elenchus
He doesn't seem to be a radical skeptic, though. Scholars generally believe that the Socratic paradox is actually Socratic rather than an invention of Plato. The one positive statement that Socrates seems to have made is a definition of virtue (areté): "virtue is knowledge." If one knows the good, one will always do the good. It follows, then, that anyone who does anything wrong doesn't really know what the good is. This, for Socrates, justifies tearing down people's moral positions, for if they have the wrong ideas about virtue, morality, love, or any other ethical idea, they can't be trusted to do the right thing.
Socrates (469-399), despite his foundational place in the history of ideas, actually wrote nothing. Most of our knowledge of him comes from the works of Plato (427-347), and since Plato had other concerns in mind than simple historical accuracy it is usually impossible to determine how much of his thinking actually derives from Socrates.
Socrates wrote nothing because he felt that knowledge was a living, interactive thing. Socrates' method of philosophical inquiry consisted in questioning people on the positions they asserted and working them through questions into a contradiction, thus proving to them that their original assertion was wrong. Socrates himself never takes a position; in The Apology he radically and skeptically claims to know nothing at all except that he knows nothing. Socrates and Plato refer to this method of questioning as elenchus, which means something like "cross-examination" The Socratic elenchus eventually gave rise to dialectic, the idea that truth needs to be pursued by modifying one's position through questioning and conflict with opposing ideas. It is this idea of the truth being pursued, rather than discovered, that characterizes Socratic thought and much of our world view today. The Western notion of dialectic is somewhat Socratic in nature in that it is conceived of as an ongoing process. Although Socrates in The Apology claims to have discovered no other truth than that he knows no truth, the Socrates of Plato's other earlier dialogues is of the opinion that truth is somehow attainable through this process of elenchus
He doesn't seem to be a radical skeptic, though. Scholars generally believe that the Socratic paradox is actually Socratic rather than an invention of Plato. The one positive statement that Socrates seems to have made is a definition of virtue (areté): "virtue is knowledge." If one knows the good, one will always do the good. It follows, then, that anyone who does anything wrong doesn't really know what the good is. This, for Socrates, justifies tearing down people's moral positions, for if they have the wrong ideas about virtue, morality, love, or any other ethical idea, they can't be trusted to do the right thing.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
CHAPTER III: THE IONIAN PHILOPHERS
The birthplace of philosophy was the seaport town of Miletus, located across the Aegean Sea from Athens, on the western shores of Ionians, and for this reason the first philosophers are called either Milesians or Ionians. By the time the Milesians philosophers began their systematic works, roughly c.585 B.C., Miletus had been a crossroads for both seaborne commerce and for cosmopolitan ideas. Its wealth made possible the leisure without which the life of art and philosophy could hardly develop, and the broad-mindedness and inquisitiveness of its people created a congenial atmosphere for the intellectual activity that was to become philosophy.
The three Ionian philosophers are Thales, Anaximander and Anaximines. These three Ionian philosophers or the first philosophers were also known as the Ionian physicists.
1. THALES
Thales was born in Miletus. Although the exact date of his birth is unknown, the information we have about him point to the conclusion that he began his philosophical career at the start of the c.6th B.C.
Thales is traditionally regarded as the first philosopher, and, in a way, is put forward as the prototype of the wise man. According to several testimonies, he played an important role in public and academic life; he excelled in politics, mathematics and astronomy.
About his philosophical doctrine, however, there is little information. Thales did not commit his thought to writing, and the little we know about him as a philosopher comes mainly from Aristotle. Aristotle says that Thales taught two basic philosophical ideas: that water is the first absolute principle, and that the soul is the principal motor. (History of Philosophy by Ignatius Yarza pp. 13-14)
2. ANAXIMANDER
Anaximander was born in Miletus around the year 611 B.C., and was a disciple of Thales. He wrote a book entitled On Nature. Like his master, he has a keen interest in cosmology. He differed, however, from Thales in his choice of the first principle. For Anaximander, it was not water but the ápeiron – “the infinite” or “the unlimited” – which constituted the first principle. (History of Philosophy by Ignatius Yarza p. 15)
“Anaximander, son of Praxiades, and who hailed from Milesia, was among those who affirmed that the first principle in one, moving and infinite. Successor and disciple of Thales, he said that the principle and constitutive element of the things that exist is the ápeiron. He was the one who first designated the material principle of the all things by this name.” (Simplicius, In Arist. Phys., 24,13 (DK 12 A 9)
3. ANAXIMINES
Anaximines was born at the beginning of the 6th C.B.C., and died towards the end of the same century. Successor to Anaximander, he is the third of the Miletian philosophers. All we know about his life and scientific activity is that he authored a book, fragments of which have been handed down to us.
The first principle of Anaximines is infinite like that of Anaximander’s; however, unlike the latter, it has a definite nature. Air is the first principle for Anaximines.
“Anaximines of Miletus, son of Euristrates and companion of Anaximander, affirms together with the latter, that the substrate of everything is one and infinite. This substrate, however, is not indeterminate like that of Anaximander’s, but is of a definite nature: it is what we call air.”
4. HERACLITUS
Heraclitus was born in the middle of the 6th C. B.C., and died c. 480 B.C. He came from Miletus and belonged to the aristocracy. He was the last of the Ionian philosopher who remained in his country.
Testimonies about Heraclitus depict him as a conceited, proud person who despised the rest of humanity because of their blindness to the truth of his teachings, and who subjected the doctrines of the ancient poets and philosophers to harsh criticism. We can, therefore, imagine him as a philosopher who was conscious of the novelty and significance of his teaching, but who alienated himself from the rest of men on his account. His philosophy is found in a book entitled On Nature, several fragments of which have been preserved. In spite of the material available about Heraclitus, it is not easy to determine the exact nature of his thought on account of the cryptic, almost occult, character of his writings – a trait which earned for him the epithet “the obscure one” even during his lifetime. This is perhaps one of the reasons why Plato and Aristotle make no special effort to penetrate his thought, describing it simply as an exaggerated relativism – a description which has been given to his philosophy.
Heraclitus affirmed that everything is in constant flux: panta rei, “everything changes.” We know this from his own writings. He said, for example, that “it is certainly not possible to enter twice into the same river.” It is also attested to by later philosophers like Plato: “Heraclitus says somewhere that all things change and that nothing is at rest.” This doctrine of universal change was an original contribution of Heraclitus to the history of the pre-Socratic thought.
The three Ionian philosophers are Thales, Anaximander and Anaximines. These three Ionian philosophers or the first philosophers were also known as the Ionian physicists.
1. THALES
Thales was born in Miletus. Although the exact date of his birth is unknown, the information we have about him point to the conclusion that he began his philosophical career at the start of the c.6th B.C.
Thales is traditionally regarded as the first philosopher, and, in a way, is put forward as the prototype of the wise man. According to several testimonies, he played an important role in public and academic life; he excelled in politics, mathematics and astronomy.
About his philosophical doctrine, however, there is little information. Thales did not commit his thought to writing, and the little we know about him as a philosopher comes mainly from Aristotle. Aristotle says that Thales taught two basic philosophical ideas: that water is the first absolute principle, and that the soul is the principal motor. (History of Philosophy by Ignatius Yarza pp. 13-14)
2. ANAXIMANDER
Anaximander was born in Miletus around the year 611 B.C., and was a disciple of Thales. He wrote a book entitled On Nature. Like his master, he has a keen interest in cosmology. He differed, however, from Thales in his choice of the first principle. For Anaximander, it was not water but the ápeiron – “the infinite” or “the unlimited” – which constituted the first principle. (History of Philosophy by Ignatius Yarza p. 15)
“Anaximander, son of Praxiades, and who hailed from Milesia, was among those who affirmed that the first principle in one, moving and infinite. Successor and disciple of Thales, he said that the principle and constitutive element of the things that exist is the ápeiron. He was the one who first designated the material principle of the all things by this name.” (Simplicius, In Arist. Phys., 24,13 (DK 12 A 9)
3. ANAXIMINES
Anaximines was born at the beginning of the 6th C.B.C., and died towards the end of the same century. Successor to Anaximander, he is the third of the Miletian philosophers. All we know about his life and scientific activity is that he authored a book, fragments of which have been handed down to us.
The first principle of Anaximines is infinite like that of Anaximander’s; however, unlike the latter, it has a definite nature. Air is the first principle for Anaximines.
“Anaximines of Miletus, son of Euristrates and companion of Anaximander, affirms together with the latter, that the substrate of everything is one and infinite. This substrate, however, is not indeterminate like that of Anaximander’s, but is of a definite nature: it is what we call air.”
4. HERACLITUS
Heraclitus was born in the middle of the 6th C. B.C., and died c. 480 B.C. He came from Miletus and belonged to the aristocracy. He was the last of the Ionian philosopher who remained in his country.
Testimonies about Heraclitus depict him as a conceited, proud person who despised the rest of humanity because of their blindness to the truth of his teachings, and who subjected the doctrines of the ancient poets and philosophers to harsh criticism. We can, therefore, imagine him as a philosopher who was conscious of the novelty and significance of his teaching, but who alienated himself from the rest of men on his account. His philosophy is found in a book entitled On Nature, several fragments of which have been preserved. In spite of the material available about Heraclitus, it is not easy to determine the exact nature of his thought on account of the cryptic, almost occult, character of his writings – a trait which earned for him the epithet “the obscure one” even during his lifetime. This is perhaps one of the reasons why Plato and Aristotle make no special effort to penetrate his thought, describing it simply as an exaggerated relativism – a description which has been given to his philosophy.
Heraclitus affirmed that everything is in constant flux: panta rei, “everything changes.” We know this from his own writings. He said, for example, that “it is certainly not possible to enter twice into the same river.” It is also attested to by later philosophers like Plato: “Heraclitus says somewhere that all things change and that nothing is at rest.” This doctrine of universal change was an original contribution of Heraclitus to the history of the pre-Socratic thought.
CHAPTER II: HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
1. DEFINITION
The History of Philosophy is a scientific and critical account of man’s effort to think out the ultimate and reasons of all things.
a. It is a scientific account: that is, it is a reliable history set forth in a manner that is systematic, orderly, and relatively complete.
b. It is a critical account: that is, it weighs and judges the doctrines which it discusses.
c. It is an account of man’s efforts to think out the ultimate causes and reasons of all things. The human mind has a quenchless thirst for knowledge. Man wants to know all that can be known about God, humanity and the world. Man wants to know everything about everything; he wants to understand all reality. Nor man is content with a list of facts or truths, but he also wants to know why the facts are so and how they come to be so. In other words, man wants to know facts together with their causes and reasons. Pushing this inquiry to its utmost limit, man comes to certain ideas and principles which he accepts as the roots and bases of all knowledge and of all reasoning. Beyond these fundamental things man finds that it is humanly impossible to inquire.
Upon these fundamental things man elaborates his interpretation of the universe – about God, humanity and the world. When man has done this, when he has pursued his quest of causes and reasons to the very end and has built up his interpretation of the universe, then he has achieved a philosophy. Philosophy is the science of all things knowable by the human mind and studied in and through their last causes and reasons, their ultimate “whats” and “whys” and “hows” and “wherefores”. Consequently, the History of Philosophy is the history of man’s inquiry into the ultimate causes and reasons of all things.
2. IMPORTANCE
The importance of the study of the History of Philosophy is evident from the following descriptions of its character and function.
a. Philosophy is the highest human science because it traces out the ultimate causes and reasons of all things.
b. Philosophy is the fount from which all the separate or individual sciences draw their principles, criteria, and methods. In philosophy all the separate sciences find their ultimate unification, their place and interrelation in the entire scheme of human knowledge.
c. What men hold to be ultimately true about God, man and the world, has necessarily an enormous influence upon their conduct of life, their thoughts, volitions, and their action. In other words, philosophy exercises a large influence upon the activities of men, and this is true of men as individuals and as social groups.
d. It teaches us how the great mind of the past though through their doctrines.
e. If the history of man’s deeds is of interest and importance; if the story of human ideals and aspirations, dreams and fancies, is of recognized worth; then, surely, the first and highest value must attach to the history of man’s earnest and systematic thought, of man’s most far-reaching investigations of reality.
f. In its incidental discussion of false doctrines that have been proposed and defended in all ages, the history of philosophy affords the students the opportunity of profiting by the mistakes of others, and enables him to indicate for the benefit of those misled the illogical nature of erroneous doctrine. Thus it is both of practical and cultural importance.
g. It is the most interesting branch of study and it stimulates both the understanding and the memory.
3. SOURCES
The History of Philosophy may be developed according to the sequence of centuries or epochs (chronological method), or according to the major problems of philosophy, tracing each singly through its entire course of treatment by different philosophers in different ages (topical method).
The History of Philosophy is a scientific and critical account of man’s effort to think out the ultimate and reasons of all things.
a. It is a scientific account: that is, it is a reliable history set forth in a manner that is systematic, orderly, and relatively complete.
b. It is a critical account: that is, it weighs and judges the doctrines which it discusses.
c. It is an account of man’s efforts to think out the ultimate causes and reasons of all things. The human mind has a quenchless thirst for knowledge. Man wants to know all that can be known about God, humanity and the world. Man wants to know everything about everything; he wants to understand all reality. Nor man is content with a list of facts or truths, but he also wants to know why the facts are so and how they come to be so. In other words, man wants to know facts together with their causes and reasons. Pushing this inquiry to its utmost limit, man comes to certain ideas and principles which he accepts as the roots and bases of all knowledge and of all reasoning. Beyond these fundamental things man finds that it is humanly impossible to inquire.
Upon these fundamental things man elaborates his interpretation of the universe – about God, humanity and the world. When man has done this, when he has pursued his quest of causes and reasons to the very end and has built up his interpretation of the universe, then he has achieved a philosophy. Philosophy is the science of all things knowable by the human mind and studied in and through their last causes and reasons, their ultimate “whats” and “whys” and “hows” and “wherefores”. Consequently, the History of Philosophy is the history of man’s inquiry into the ultimate causes and reasons of all things.
2. IMPORTANCE
The importance of the study of the History of Philosophy is evident from the following descriptions of its character and function.
a. Philosophy is the highest human science because it traces out the ultimate causes and reasons of all things.
b. Philosophy is the fount from which all the separate or individual sciences draw their principles, criteria, and methods. In philosophy all the separate sciences find their ultimate unification, their place and interrelation in the entire scheme of human knowledge.
c. What men hold to be ultimately true about God, man and the world, has necessarily an enormous influence upon their conduct of life, their thoughts, volitions, and their action. In other words, philosophy exercises a large influence upon the activities of men, and this is true of men as individuals and as social groups.
d. It teaches us how the great mind of the past though through their doctrines.
e. If the history of man’s deeds is of interest and importance; if the story of human ideals and aspirations, dreams and fancies, is of recognized worth; then, surely, the first and highest value must attach to the history of man’s earnest and systematic thought, of man’s most far-reaching investigations of reality.
f. In its incidental discussion of false doctrines that have been proposed and defended in all ages, the history of philosophy affords the students the opportunity of profiting by the mistakes of others, and enables him to indicate for the benefit of those misled the illogical nature of erroneous doctrine. Thus it is both of practical and cultural importance.
g. It is the most interesting branch of study and it stimulates both the understanding and the memory.
3. SOURCES
The History of Philosophy may be developed according to the sequence of centuries or epochs (chronological method), or according to the major problems of philosophy, tracing each singly through its entire course of treatment by different philosophers in different ages (topical method).
METHOD OF PHILOSOPHY
Since philosophy investigates the ultimate causes of things, it is enough for it to part from unquestionable experience. It employs rational inference as its main instrumentality. Hence, it is experiential, but chiefly rational.
The Positive Sciences, on the other hand, seek exact data and, hence, employs chiefly scientific or highly rationalized methods and instruments to obtain them. They are rational systems of knowledge, but chiefly experimental in method.
a. The Philosophical Method of Inquiry
Philosophy uses the rational method in solving problems. The rational method means not only reasoning but also contemplation combined with and confirmed by experience, observation, reflection and tradition.
In this connection it should be pointed out that the two, reason and experience, the rational and the empirical method, must always combine to be used together in any investigation – to arrive at true and valid conclusions to any problem. In the empirical sciences such as Physics, Biology, Medicine, Etc. the experimental or empirical method is mainly used; while in Philosophy, reasoning or logic, contemplation, and reflection is used. There is no such a thing as a purely rational or purely empirical method of inquiry. Contrary to common claim, the experimental sciences also and necessarily employ philosophical reasoning, i.e., logic, in drawing conclusions, say, in passing from premises or given data to conclusions. To be valid, the conclusion drawn should necessarily follow from well established premises that necessarily imply the conclusion. It is to be noted herein that the logical connection that should exist between the premises and the conclusion cannot be perceived by the senses or even by all of them combined, but only by reason, by philosophy.
Moreover, the problem of man, being basically a moral problem, involves and contains non – empiriological components at its core, which cannot be revealed or disclosed by purely empirical and experimental analyses, however penetrating and efficient these may be.
To assume that the purely empirical method is the only valid method of inquiry in all fields of investigation, is fall into what Fulton Sheen aptly calls "the fallacy of the uniform method".
The Positive Sciences, on the other hand, seek exact data and, hence, employs chiefly scientific or highly rationalized methods and instruments to obtain them. They are rational systems of knowledge, but chiefly experimental in method.
a. The Philosophical Method of Inquiry
Philosophy uses the rational method in solving problems. The rational method means not only reasoning but also contemplation combined with and confirmed by experience, observation, reflection and tradition.
In this connection it should be pointed out that the two, reason and experience, the rational and the empirical method, must always combine to be used together in any investigation – to arrive at true and valid conclusions to any problem. In the empirical sciences such as Physics, Biology, Medicine, Etc. the experimental or empirical method is mainly used; while in Philosophy, reasoning or logic, contemplation, and reflection is used. There is no such a thing as a purely rational or purely empirical method of inquiry. Contrary to common claim, the experimental sciences also and necessarily employ philosophical reasoning, i.e., logic, in drawing conclusions, say, in passing from premises or given data to conclusions. To be valid, the conclusion drawn should necessarily follow from well established premises that necessarily imply the conclusion. It is to be noted herein that the logical connection that should exist between the premises and the conclusion cannot be perceived by the senses or even by all of them combined, but only by reason, by philosophy.
Moreover, the problem of man, being basically a moral problem, involves and contains non – empiriological components at its core, which cannot be revealed or disclosed by purely empirical and experimental analyses, however penetrating and efficient these may be.
To assume that the purely empirical method is the only valid method of inquiry in all fields of investigation, is fall into what Fulton Sheen aptly calls "the fallacy of the uniform method".
PARTS OF PHILOSOPHY
For our present purpose it is enough to enumerate and give a brief description of the different parts of philosophy, as commonly done:
a. Logic: On correct inferential thinking and its principles.
b. Cosmology or Philosophy of Nature: On the material world, and the ultimate constituent principles of material beings.
c. Psychology: On living beings and the principle of life, on the nature of the vital operations and of the vital powers, and their classification.
d. Ethics: On human acts and their morality; the Natural Law governing them.
e. Social Philosophy: On the sociality of man, on the nature of human society and its principles.
f. Ontology or General Metaphysics: On beings in general, on the different reasons and principles of the reality of things.
g. Theodicy or Special Metaphysics: On the First Cause of Contingent Beings and of emergent reality.
h. Critics or Epistemology: On certain and true knowledge, and its principles.
a. Logic: On correct inferential thinking and its principles.
b. Cosmology or Philosophy of Nature: On the material world, and the ultimate constituent principles of material beings.
c. Psychology: On living beings and the principle of life, on the nature of the vital operations and of the vital powers, and their classification.
d. Ethics: On human acts and their morality; the Natural Law governing them.
e. Social Philosophy: On the sociality of man, on the nature of human society and its principles.
f. Ontology or General Metaphysics: On beings in general, on the different reasons and principles of the reality of things.
g. Theodicy or Special Metaphysics: On the First Cause of Contingent Beings and of emergent reality.
h. Critics or Epistemology: On certain and true knowledge, and its principles.
CHAPTER I: PHILOSOPHY
1. ETYMOLOGY OF PHILOSOPHY
The term “Philosophy” is derived from two Greek words, which literally mean “the love of wisdom”. It was coined by Pythagoras, one of the sages of ancient Greece, born about the year 584 B.C.
In one of his travels through the ancient Greek States he paid a courtesy call on one of the petty kings. The king asked him whether he was a wise man (sophos), and what his occupation was. Pythagoras modestly replied that he was not a wise man, but just a “lover of wisdom”. The sophists were a class of wise men in ancient Greece who professed to be wise. Later on, owing to their argumentations which aimed more at impressing listeners of their learning, rather than at showing the truth, were later dubbed as “sophisms”.
Formerly, Philosophy was considered as a universal science. It is known as “scientia scientiarum” For the ancient Greeks it was the sum – total of human knowledge. Nowadays, philosophy has been narrowed down to mean the discussion and study about the more profound questions concerning men and things that fall outside the scope and discussion of the positive sciences, e.g.,: is man essentially different from material things and animals? What is man in this world for? What is he expected to do? Are physical things the only beings? Is there only matter in things? Is there a universal First cause of visible reality? Hence, philosophy deals with the deeper reasons and explanations of things.
2. DEFINITION OF PHILOSOPHY
For our present discussion we may define Philosophy as: the science of all things through ultimate causes, gathered by the light of natural reason alone. It differs from other sciences.
a. Philosophy is a science. It is not a set of opinions and theories. It is certain knowledge of things based on evidence and demonstration, and reduced to a comprehensive rational system.
b. Of things. Philosophy discusses about the things that are found in the existential world. Aside from material beings, it also discusses, in its different branches about non – material beings and principle, e.g., about the specific and the existential principles of things; about the soul, the intellect and the free will; about the nature of society, its principles and causes, etc. Hence, Philosophy is said to cover all things in its consideration. It can do so, by viewing things from a higher vantage point, that is:
c. By their ultimate principles and causes. By this qualification, Philosophy is different from the positive and the physical sciences as Biology, Chemistry, etc. these special sciences study the proximate constituent principles and explanations (causes) of their subject matter. Biology studies the nature of the cell, protoplasm, tissues, the activities of anabolism and catabolism. Philosophy studies the nature of the living being as such, of the life and its principle. Chemistry studies the different elements of material substances. Philosophy studies the ultimate principle of the differences of material things. Positive Psychology studies human behavior, its differences and proximate causes. Philosophical psychology studies the ultimate principles of human behavior, reason and will.
d. As known by natural reason alone. Philosophy attains knowledge, not by making use of the principles or articles of faith, but by the use of the principle of natural cognition, which may be obtained from the investigation of nature and the natural study of things. This is what we also mean when, at times, we say that Philosophy uses than “light of natural reason”. We take the expression metaphorically, and in the objective manner, to mean the principles of natural cognition, not in the subjective manner to mean the power of the intellectual faculty of man. LIGHT is that which manifest objects and the Principles of a science manifest the object and the conclusion of the science.
The term “Philosophy” is derived from two Greek words, which literally mean “the love of wisdom”. It was coined by Pythagoras, one of the sages of ancient Greece, born about the year 584 B.C.
In one of his travels through the ancient Greek States he paid a courtesy call on one of the petty kings. The king asked him whether he was a wise man (sophos), and what his occupation was. Pythagoras modestly replied that he was not a wise man, but just a “lover of wisdom”. The sophists were a class of wise men in ancient Greece who professed to be wise. Later on, owing to their argumentations which aimed more at impressing listeners of their learning, rather than at showing the truth, were later dubbed as “sophisms”.
Formerly, Philosophy was considered as a universal science. It is known as “scientia scientiarum” For the ancient Greeks it was the sum – total of human knowledge. Nowadays, philosophy has been narrowed down to mean the discussion and study about the more profound questions concerning men and things that fall outside the scope and discussion of the positive sciences, e.g.,: is man essentially different from material things and animals? What is man in this world for? What is he expected to do? Are physical things the only beings? Is there only matter in things? Is there a universal First cause of visible reality? Hence, philosophy deals with the deeper reasons and explanations of things.
2. DEFINITION OF PHILOSOPHY
For our present discussion we may define Philosophy as: the science of all things through ultimate causes, gathered by the light of natural reason alone. It differs from other sciences.
a. Philosophy is a science. It is not a set of opinions and theories. It is certain knowledge of things based on evidence and demonstration, and reduced to a comprehensive rational system.
b. Of things. Philosophy discusses about the things that are found in the existential world. Aside from material beings, it also discusses, in its different branches about non – material beings and principle, e.g., about the specific and the existential principles of things; about the soul, the intellect and the free will; about the nature of society, its principles and causes, etc. Hence, Philosophy is said to cover all things in its consideration. It can do so, by viewing things from a higher vantage point, that is:
c. By their ultimate principles and causes. By this qualification, Philosophy is different from the positive and the physical sciences as Biology, Chemistry, etc. these special sciences study the proximate constituent principles and explanations (causes) of their subject matter. Biology studies the nature of the cell, protoplasm, tissues, the activities of anabolism and catabolism. Philosophy studies the nature of the living being as such, of the life and its principle. Chemistry studies the different elements of material substances. Philosophy studies the ultimate principle of the differences of material things. Positive Psychology studies human behavior, its differences and proximate causes. Philosophical psychology studies the ultimate principles of human behavior, reason and will.
d. As known by natural reason alone. Philosophy attains knowledge, not by making use of the principles or articles of faith, but by the use of the principle of natural cognition, which may be obtained from the investigation of nature and the natural study of things. This is what we also mean when, at times, we say that Philosophy uses than “light of natural reason”. We take the expression metaphorically, and in the objective manner, to mean the principles of natural cognition, not in the subjective manner to mean the power of the intellectual faculty of man. LIGHT is that which manifest objects and the Principles of a science manifest the object and the conclusion of the science.
INTRODUCTION
“Truly you have formed my inmost being;
You knit me in my mother’s womb.
I give thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made.” (Ps 139:13-14)
The Christian faith teaches us that man is the “crown” and “key to God’s creation.” “According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to human persons as their center and crown” (cf. Gadium et Spes 12).
This sounds theological yet it proves that man is of no ordinary creature. He is the only creature amongst the millions and billions of creatures that was “created after God’s image and likeness” (Gen.1 :).
Hence, man is the only creature that is endowed with the faculty to wonder, think and look for rational solution with every problem he encounters. He is a little less than angels. The psalmist vividly expressed this by writing;
“…You have made him little less than angels, and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under his feet.” (Ps 8:5-7)
Man can distinguish right from wrong. Man eats even if he is not hungry, drinks even if he is not thirsty, man loves and longs to be loved as well. Whereas, dogs eat only if their hungry, monkeys drink because their thirsty, cats and other brutes do not love and know not how to love. For no other animals except man has the ability to think and love.
Because of his God given gift i.e., his intellectual faculty man becomes curios and wonders that caused him to ask questions such as these:
What sort of thing am I?
Where do I come from?
Whereto am I going?
Why am I here?
What is my future and destiny?
What must I do to live well and happy?
Throughout the history of human beings, man has endeavored to discern the truth and the reality. Man inquires “What are things really like?” and “how can we explain the process of change in things?” Man recognizes that things are not exactly what they seem to be, that “appearance” often differs from “reality.” The facts of birth, death, growth, and decay – coming into being and passing away – raised not only the questions about personal destiny but also the larger questions of how things and persons come into existence, can be different at different times, and pass out of existence only to be followed by other things and persons. These simple yet complex questions are answered from generation to generation through philosophy.
You knit me in my mother’s womb.
I give thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made.” (Ps 139:13-14)
The Christian faith teaches us that man is the “crown” and “key to God’s creation.” “According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to human persons as their center and crown” (cf. Gadium et Spes 12).
This sounds theological yet it proves that man is of no ordinary creature. He is the only creature amongst the millions and billions of creatures that was “created after God’s image and likeness” (Gen.1 :).
Hence, man is the only creature that is endowed with the faculty to wonder, think and look for rational solution with every problem he encounters. He is a little less than angels. The psalmist vividly expressed this by writing;
“…You have made him little less than angels, and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under his feet.” (Ps 8:5-7)
Man can distinguish right from wrong. Man eats even if he is not hungry, drinks even if he is not thirsty, man loves and longs to be loved as well. Whereas, dogs eat only if their hungry, monkeys drink because their thirsty, cats and other brutes do not love and know not how to love. For no other animals except man has the ability to think and love.
Because of his God given gift i.e., his intellectual faculty man becomes curios and wonders that caused him to ask questions such as these:
What sort of thing am I?
Where do I come from?
Whereto am I going?
Why am I here?
What is my future and destiny?
What must I do to live well and happy?
Throughout the history of human beings, man has endeavored to discern the truth and the reality. Man inquires “What are things really like?” and “how can we explain the process of change in things?” Man recognizes that things are not exactly what they seem to be, that “appearance” often differs from “reality.” The facts of birth, death, growth, and decay – coming into being and passing away – raised not only the questions about personal destiny but also the larger questions of how things and persons come into existence, can be different at different times, and pass out of existence only to be followed by other things and persons. These simple yet complex questions are answered from generation to generation through philosophy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
