WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? ETYMOLOGY OF PHILOSOPHY Philosophy etymological comes from two Greek words “PHILEU” and “SOPHIA” which means “LOVE” and “WISDOM” respectively.

• It is categorically termed “LOVE FOR WISDOM”. If philosophy means Love for Wisdom then philosophers are “LOVERS OF WISDOM”

Philosophy as love for wisdom doesn’t mean that philosophy is wisdom or philosophers are custodians of wisdom. All it says is that philosophy is that philosophy is a discipline that urges us to be in constant search for wisdom. We should be able to distinguish wisdom from collection of mere opinions, dogmas opinions, articles of or unquestioned positions or views i.e. all received opinions must be examined in the process of searching for wisdom.

Philosophy is a critical discipline that urges us to question all received opinions by criticizing examine in order to get to the object of love, which is wisdom. Critical here means being able to subject all opinions to critical observation in order to have access to the alternative that is supported by the superior arguments. For this reason of criticality, philosophy was seen as a “GADFLY” (The nauseating sound mosquitoes, housefly and other insects of the likes make) a discipline that constantly keeps us on our toes in a way such that we are not susceptible or don’t fall easily into accepting unquestioned & indefensible positions. This means we must always make attempt to penetrate through distinct opinion or perspective.

Philosophy is like sciences, they are both (philosophy and sciences) interested in carrying out systematic research in to the nature of things.

PHILOSOPHER According to Bertrand Russell, philosophy is a no man’s land between science and . Philosophy unlike sciences isn’t based on empirical experimentation but critical analysis. Philosophy like theology because, they are both concerned with issues beyond empirical observations. However, philosophy unlike theology isn’t dogmatic but critical in nature.

PROFESSOR WOLE SOYINKA Philosophy to him is a violent discipline because it is so critical of all things to the extent of being critical to itself.

P/S - PHILOSOPHY HAS NO DEFINITE DEFINITION

1 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes

CONCEPTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY AS CRITICAL ARGUMENTATION AND EXAMINATION OF IDEAS

It urges an enquirer to start from the position of ignorance. i.e. he subjects ideas without bias to critical argumentation in order to distinguish the acceptable one from the unacceptable. He wouldn’t conclusively give you an answer but due to critical argumentation, the acceptable one is put forth e.g. Philosopher Socrates “AS PHILOSOPHERS, WE MUST ALWAYS START FROM THE POSITION OF IGNORANCE AND MAKE AN ATTEMPT IN THE UNIVERSE TO HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF IT” by Socrates.

- For Plato through Socrates; A wise man is not a man who knows all things but a man who knows little about all things - For Socrates; A Philosopher must be a moral example and should acquire as much knowledge as possible and be bold to defend your until a superior belief is presented.

Socrates was a great philosopher that the Greek oracle at Delphi considered him to be the wisest of men because he always claims to be ignorant and always subject the views of wisemen then with questions till he gets them to a level of “aporea” i.e. a level where they are no longer sure of their knowledge.

He became the enemy of the state(government) because of his questions. He was arrested, his friends came to lobby the warder but there also he subjected his friends to questions on why it’s morally right to disobey the state and escape.

- For him, the society is our parent and it will be wrong to disobey it. Later on, he was fed with hemlock poison which led to his death. - For him, a philosopher must make use of acquired knowledge to better the society - For Socrates, an unexamined life is not worth living. i.e. know thyself.

PHILOSOPHY AS CONTEMPLATION

A philosopher must acquire much knowledge about the world and must use the knowledge to better the society. Philosophy here urges us to know that no position is , every position must be held tentatively until a superior position is presented.

All philosophical questions and answers are open ended meaning no view, idea or position is final (further meaning, no absolutism).

Philosophy urges us to be a universal citizen. i.e. there must be nothing like biases and prejudices to influence your quest for knowledge or your view of the world (one must be objective).

2 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes

METAPHYSICS This is one of the core branches of philosophy. Like philosophy itself, attempts to define METAPHYSICS is not a straight forward exercise as such various philosophers present various definitions of this branch of philosophy however, for the sake of simplicity, the approach proposed by John Carroll and Med Markosian. They both identified three approaches to define METAPHYSICS. These are:

• The Etymological Approach • The Big Picture Approach • The Example Approach

The Etymological Approach: This defines METAPHYSICS by tracing the origin of the term METAPHYSICS itself. After the death of Aristotle there was an attempt to compile and publish some of his writings. The first set of his writings that was compiled was titled physika meaning physics. Shortly after the publication of physics, another set of his work was ready for publication, this set contains writings of fundamental issues such as existence, identity, causation, space and time, actuality, potentiality etc. The editor named these set of writings ta-meta-ta-physika meaning the works after physics. Thus, issues contained in these set of writings became the primary subject matter of the branch of philosophy known as METAPHYSICS.

Unfortunately, this definition does not give a satisfactory account of METAPHYSICS as a branch of philosophy (NB this is the problem of the definition). A definition of such an important branch of philosophy ought to be open to present an idea of the issues that constitute it subject matter.

The Big Picture Approach: This defines METAPHYSICS as a branch of philosophy that concern itself with fundamental questions about the nature of reality. The problem with this approach is that it does not help to clearly distinguish between METAPHYSICS and other disciplines. In other words, the big picture approach presents a definition that is too wide failing to distinguish between METAPHYSICS and other disciplines such as physics, chemistry, ethics, biology, epistemology e.t.c.

The Example Approach: This tries to address the deficiencies of the other approaches by simply listing some of the issues that form a primary subject matter of METAPHYSICS. Following this approach, we can define METAPHYSICS as a branch of philosophy that is concerned with addressing issues such as:

• Ontology (the study of being or what exists) • Change and causation (What is responsible for change in the universe) • Freedom and • The nature of material object etc.

These suggests that to understand METAPHYSICS is to understand the various issues that form the subject matter of this branch of philosophy.

Our aim in this class is to identify and briefly examine some of this issues that form the subject matter of METAPHYSICS. 3 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes

ONTOLOGY This is a sub-branch of METAPHYSICS involved in the study of things that exists like many scientific disciplines. This branch of METAPHYSICS tries to study reality with a plead to determine things that constitute reality. However, unlike scientific disciplines which concentrate on studying specific domains of reality. Ontology raises more fundamental questions about the kinds of things that can generally be taken to exists.

Some the questions which ontology tries address includes the following:

• Do minds exists • Are there material object • Do non-existent objects like fictional entities exists • Does exist • Are there abstract objects in reality? • Do possible worlds exists • Does events exist • Does properties exist etc.

To aid our understanding of the subject of ontology, let us briefly examine the problem about the existence of fictional entities.

Fictional Entities are the kind of objects that are introduced as characters in literary words, these characters are not intended to represent specific objects in the world examples include William Shakespeare's Hamlet, D.O Fagunwa’s Akaradoogun.

The ordinary or common-sense position on the existence of fictional entities is that they do not exist. The problem of this position is that it is unable to explain how we can talk meaningfully about fictional entities or predicate properties about them this challenge facing the common-sense position has brought the attention of philosophers who have proposed various theories to address the problem of the existence of fictional entities. POSITION OF THE EXISTENCE OF FICTIONAL ENTITIES Traditionally, there are two major positions on the existence of fictional entities. These positions are fictional realism and fictional anti-realism.

Fictional Antirealism is proposed by philosophers like Richard Mark Sainsbury and Gregary Currie. This position supports the view of common sense I.e fictional entities don’t exist. Fictional anti-realist argues that propositions about fictional entities are meaningful even when these entities don’t exist as the subject of the propositions. In other words, fictional entities don’t need to exist in other for proposition about them to be meaningful. This is because, such propositions are merely about what is described in some stories not about what is true in reality.

4 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes Fictional Realism stands against the common-sense positions by proposing that fictional entities exist as part of the entities that make up reality. There are three major version of fictional realism. These are:

• Non-actualism • Possibilism • Artefactualism

Non-Actualism is the view that fictional entities are non-actual entities subsisting in a world of unreal object. Authors of fictional works only select one of the pre-existing entities when they introduce fictional characters in their works. Philosophers who defend this view are Alexius Meinong, Terence Parsons and Edward Zalta.

Possibilism is the view that fictional entities are possible object existing in the relevant possible worlds. Possibilist such as David Lewis argue that fictional stories represent some possible worlds which exist independent of our world. Like non-actualist, possibilist argue that authors of fictional works merely select one out of many independently existing possible objects which they talk about when they introduce fictional characters in their works.

Artefactualism is proposed by philosophers like Amir Thomason, John Sean and Saul Kripke. This is the view that fictional entities are abstract artefacts created by authors of fictional works through the act of introducing these entities in their works. Artefactualist, unlike non-actualist and possibilist they maintain that fictional entities don’t predate their introduction by authors of fictional works rather, it is the introduction of fictional character in fictional works by authors that bring these entities into existence.

Abstract Entities: The question whether there are abstract entities is also one of the concerns of ontology. There are two major approaches through which philosophers characterize object as abstract entities.

The first approach is to characterize abstract entities as entities that exist outside space and time. Such entities are characterized as abstract because, they lack features such as shape, size, colour, smell etc. which are characteristics of concrete entities. Given this approach some philosophers have classified object such as fictional entities, mathematical objects, time etc as abstract entities.

The second approach is to characterize abstract entities as properties which are abstracted from perceivable concrete entities. Given this approach, some philosophers have classified entities such as colours, shape as abstract entities. The Nature of Reality Apart from ontological questions, metaphysics is also concerned with questions about the nature of things that constitute reality.

Some positions which have been defended by philosophers include the following:

1. Materialism: this is the view that reality is made up of matter or material substances. There are two versions of materialism, these ‘re extreme materialism and moderate materialism. Extreme Materialism is the view that reality is made up of only material substances. Moderate 5 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes Materialism is the view that even if there are non-material substances, all of them ultimately depend on material substances in their final analysis. Someone who subscribe to materialism is a materialist. 2. Idealism this is opposed to materialism. This is the view that reality show is made up of ideas or non-material substances. There are also extreme and moderate versions of Idealism. Extreme Idealism is the view that only ideas or non-material things exist in reality. While moderate Idealism is the view that even if there are material substances, they all depends on ideas in their final analysis. Someone who subscribe to Idealism is an idealist 3. is the view that reality is made up from one kind substance. It is from mono meaning one. There are two major versions on monism. These are materialist monism and Idealist monism. Materialist Monism maintains that realism consist of one single material substance. Idealist monism maintains that reality is made up of one single non-material substance or idea. 4. Pluralism this stand in opposition to monism. Pluralism maintains that reality is made up of many substances.

Realism vs Anti-Realism

Realism is the view that what exist in reality exist independently of any perceiving mind. There ‘re two versions of this. Idealist realism and materialist realism.

Idealist realism is the view that reality is made up of ideas which exist independently of any perceiving mind. Plato is an example of idealist realism.

Materialist Realism is the view that reality is made up of material substances which exist independently of any perceiving mind.

In opposition to realism is Anti-Realism which maintains that everything that exist depends on a perceiving mind. GOD Beliefs in the existence and nature of God or raise significant questions in metaphysics. Some of such questions bother on the possibility of the existence of such God or gods. Some other questions bother on the nature of this God or gods and our conception of them. Various people have varying beliefs and conceptions of the nature of God. The following are some of the positions on the or gods

1. this is defined generally as a belief in the existence of God who created the universe and who is responsible for running the affairs of the universe. A theist in this 2. Classical Theism: this is a version of theism. It is the view that God is eternal, all powerful, all benevolent and all knowing. 3. : this is the view that God does not exist. 4. : this is the view that God exists as the creator of the universe but is not responsible for running the affairs of the universe. There are two conceptions of deism. Deus Otiosus. This is the view that God created the universe but also created some laws to govern the universe as 6 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes such, God no longer interfere with the running of the universe. Deus Abscondicus – this is the view that God created the universe and abandoned it to run its own course without interference. 5. Mono theism: this is the belief of the existence of one God 6. Poly theism: this is the belief in the existence of more than one God 7. Helo theism: this Is the view that there are many gods but only one of them is worthy of worship. 8. Pan theism: this is the view that everything in the universe is God or appearance of God. 9. Palen theism: this is the view that God is in everything in the existence

The Problem of the Existence of God In traditional metaphysics, various types of argument have been proposed to defend the existence of God. Cosmological arguments argue for the existence of God on the basis of the nature of perceivable things in the universe examples of such argument include ’ first cause argument, natural law argument etc.

Another kind of argument for the existence of God is the . Ontological arguments defend the existence of God on the basis of our understanding of the nature of God. Example is St. Anselm Who defined God as the greatest being by which nothing greater can concede.

Teleological Argument defend the existence of God on the basis of the presumed purposeful design of the universe. The teleological proffer of the existence of God presumes that things in the universe and the universe itself exhibit some purposeful design. This design suggests the existence of a designer who designed the purpose of the universe and its constituents. The argument thus concludes that God exists as the designer of the universe.

God and the The problem of evil is usually a problem for classical theism. This problem bothers on how to reconcile the reality of evil with the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Basically, there are two kinds of evil: and moral evil.

Natural Evil is an evil which occurs as a result of the activities of non-human natural agents

Moral Evil occurs as a result of the actions or inactions of human agents.

The reality of evil has led some philosophers to present what is commonly known as the argument from evil to prove that God does not exist.

The argument from evil can be stated as follows

Premises

1. Evils exist 2. If evil exist it is impossible or unlikely that God exists

Conclusion

7 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes Therefore, it is impossible or unlikely that God exists.

Various argument has been proposed by theist to prove that God exists in spite of the appearance of evil in the universe.

Theistic Responses to the Argument of Evil The Argument from Illusion The argument from illusion proposes that the evil perceived in the universe is a mere illusion. i.e. evil is not real. The problem with this argument is that it is counter intuitive. Even if it is true that evil is an illusion, it is a painful illusion. Thus, the reality of evil cannot simply be dismissed.

Argument from Punishment This argument proposes that, evil is a deserved punishment for some misdeeds. Like the argument from illusion, this argument is also counter intuitive because there are many cases of evil which cannot be attributed to dessert.

Argument from Necessity This argument proposes that, evil is a necessary means to attaining some higher good. For philosophers like , natural evil provides an opportunity for people to grow in knowledge and understanding of nature and the consequences of their actions in order that they may grow to strive to prevent evil from occurring. For other philosophers like , evil is necessary so that human beings can mature in the face of evil in other words evil is necessary for the perfect development of human beings. The problem with the argument of necessity is that it suggests that God is either not omni potent or not omni benevolent or neither. It portrays God as a mortally wicked God who could have created the universe without evil but choses to create evil as a means to some higher good. Alternatively, the argument may suggest that God is not omni potent though he wills not to create evil, he is not powerful enough to create what he wills

The argument from This argument proposes that evil is necessary so that human agent can be free to choose between good and evil. The problem with this argument is that if God is all powerful, then he should be able to create free human agents without necessarily creating evil in the universe.

ETHICS AS A BRANCH OF PHILOSOPHY The class will address the following questions

• What are the primary concerns of ethics? • If ethics is a branch of philosophy what then are the branches of ethics? • What is ethics? • What are major theories in ethics? • What are major traditional sub division of ethics?

With our view to addressing all these questions the class will commence either the basic points of ethics BASIC POINTS OF ETHICS 1. Ethics is one of the core branches of philosophy: This is so because, philosophy is like a tree with different branches in addition to ethics, there are other branches of philosophy such as metaphysics, epistemology, logic, history of philosophy and aesthetics 8 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes 2. Ethics as a branch of philosophy partly deals with some problems of philosophy. Problems of philosophy is multi-dimensional such problems could be logical, metaphysical, and even historical. Ethics focuses on moral controversies in philosophy 3. If philosophy is defined as a method then ethics is one of the methods of philosophy 4. Ethics as a method of philosophy is evaluative. It evaluates human moral actions I.E. human deliberate and voluntary moral choices and decisions. It also evaluates human omission in social political interaction by omission we mean human involuntary moral choices or decisions that produce bad consequences. 5. Ethics clarifies key (core/basic) moral concepts. Basic moral concepts in ethics are good, bad, right 6. Ethics is fundamentally prescriptive. Philosophical ethics unlike sociological ethics prescribe what should or should not be done in different situations or circumstances. 7. Moral issues in ethics are controversial and open ended. The open endedness of such issues keeps ethics alive. 8. Ethics sets a standard of rights and wrong actions. In view of this, it justifies how best to organize our society. It explains what kind of relationship ought to exist between the individual and the state. In relation between the government and governed

Ethics is branch of philosophy that set the standard of right or wrong actions.

Definition of Ethics In defining ethics, it is wrong to say that ethicists do not agree on what ethics means, because ethicists do agree with what ethics mean. However, ethicists don't agree on moral issues in ethics. Ethicists do agree on what ethics is all about, although ethicists offered different definitions of ethics, such various definition do not compromise the minimum concern of ethics.

Ethics could be defined as the critical evaluation of human moral actions or omissions. According to Bertrand Russell, ethics deals with human conducts and decides on what is virtuous (what we embrace) and vicious (what could be avoided). Generally, ethics is concerns with what is good or evil, just or unjust, moral or immoral, it addresses question such as:

• Are we always under moral obligation to tell the truth? • Is it just to steal or right in order to save someone’s live? • Should we always keep our promises even though is not convenient for us? • Should we permit a seventy years old man to marry a twelve years old girl? • Should we make education compulsory? • Should our society legalized abortion or not? • Should the state limit the number of children couples should have?

These are moral questions in ethics. Ethicists attempt to provide answers to these questions, unfortunately answers to those questions make ethics controversial.

9 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes Department or Sub Fields of Ethics Ethics as a branch of Philosophy has different sub fields or departments, amongst are;

1. Political Philosophy which partly deals with issues concerning how human society ought to be organized or managed. The major question it addresses is how do we organize our society? 2. Social Philosophy deals with specific moral issues that arrives in human interpersonal relations. Social philosophy addresses issues about the morality of compulsory education? The moral need to protect the disadvantaged group in the society and the justice of taxation. 3. Philosophy of Law It is with nature of law, it also deals with the connection between law and morality and various moral issues in the practice of law. In addition to this, there are other sub fields of ethics such as environmental ethics. 4. Environmental Ethics deals with moral issues that arises in the way our environment should be managed. E.g. the control of noise level in the society, air pollution, water pollution etc. 5. Business Ethics: it deals with morality of profit.

Traditional Sub Division of Ethics Ethics is traditionally sub divided into three parts:

1. Normative Ethics 2. Critical or Meta Ethics 3. Descriptive Ethics.

Normative Ethics This addresses questions such as

• How should we live? • What kind of life should we live? • What is good life? etc.

Answers are provided to these questions in normative ethics. In order to provide answers to these questions, normative ethicists formulate principles or theories.

The principles or theories set the standard of right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust moral actions. In his nicomachean ethics, Aristotle addresses the basic question of ethics. Among the questions he addresses are:

1. What is good? 2. What is virtue? 3. What is happiness?

10 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes In the book Aristotle suggests that every human being should aim at living a happy life. They ought to live a virtuous life. According to Aristotle, there is a difference between the word “good” and “the good” There are good things and there is the good. Good things refer to those things we desire for the sake of other things.

1. Wealth 2. Power 3. Honour 4. Pleasure

All these are never desire for their own sake but for the sake of other things. In Aristotle’s view, the only thing desire for its own sake is happiness (Eudamonia). Happiness is desired for its own sake and never for the sake of other things. Happiness is self-sufficient. It is the chief good of all the goods in life. Happiness is the final good. In fact, he described happiness as the ultimate of all human beings. A good man/woman is a happy man. Wealth is only a necessary condition for happiness and not a sufficient condition for happiness. Once you're happy then you're happy, this is because you can neither add nor remove from happiness. Apart from Aristotle, other ethicists have formulated different theories, such theories are either classified as consequentialist or non-consequentialist.

Normative Consequentialist Theory According to consequentialist, an action is right if it produces good consequence and wrong if it produces bad consequence.

Consequentialist theories are known as ‘forward looking theories’ the value of consequences could be measured with amount of happiness or pleasure the produce. Among normative consequentialist theory are:

1. Ethical Utilitarianism 2. 3. Ethical Altruism

Ethical Utilitarians formulate the principle of utility. The principle of utility says that an action is right, if it produces the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people that are concerns with or affected by the action. By utility, utilitarians refers to the property in any object or action which tends to produce benefit advantages.

For Ethical Egoism, moral good consists of seeking one’s interest. It says that an action is right if it satisfies the personal or private interest of the moral agent who performs the action or on whose behalf the action is performed. An egoist is someone whose actions are primarily motivated by self-interest. An egoist is someone whose actions are primarily motivated by self-interest. Aristotle defines human beings as rational animal because human beings are self-interested beings. Self-interested is a compliment not

11 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes abusive and is quite different from being selfish. Ethical Egoism simply says you ought to pursue what satisfy your interest because you are naturally a self-interested being.

Psychological Egoism is scientific, it says that it is in the nature of all human being to be self-interested. Human beings are naturally packaged or constituted to be self-interested.

Altruism

An altruist is a person who is primarily motivated into action by the interest of others, while he or she is fully conscious of his or her interest. Non-consequentialist Theories These theories in ethics are those theories which derive the rightness or wrongness of an action outside the consequences of such action. For non-consequentialist, consequences are irrelevant in determining the rightness or wrongness of an action. They are known as ‘backward looking theories’. This is the motif that determines the rightness or wrongness of an action to them, consequences are irrelevant because a bad action cab bring good consequences and vice-versa. Also, consequences are irrelevant because it is difficult if not entirely impossible to know all the consequences of an action. While the present consequences could make an action right, the future consequences could make it wrong. In view of these observations, it is necessary to go beyond consequences in determining the rightness or wrongness of any human action. Amon non- consequentialist theories are:

Immanuel Kant’s deontological theory (Ethics of Duty) This theory is a non-consequentialist theory, it says that the rightness or wrongness of an action has nothing to do with its outcome or consequences.an action is only morally right if it is performed out of the sense of duty. According to , every individual is endowed with the capacity and ability to know what is right or wrong. Due to human capacity to know right from wrong, we all arrive at the same moral laws. Examples of moral laws are:

• Stealing is wro5ng • We ought to always keep our promises • Killing is wrong etc.

Properties of Moral Laws

1. Moral laws by their nature are universal, in the sense that they don’t have exceptions; always keep your promise don’t have exceptions according to Kant, they have exceptions because they are categorical imperative (like commands) that should be obeyed irrespective of the consequences. 2. Moral laws are not conditional, they are not hypothetical. We don’t usually say, if you are hungry, steal, be honest if it pays to do so. We don’t formulate moral laws this way.

12 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes This is also a non-consequentialist theory, it says that an action is right if it is sanctioned or approved by God, irrespective of the consequences. Conversely, an action could be wrong if it is contrary to divine instructions

Meta/Critical Ethics Meta ethics unlike normative ethics addresses 3 questions

1. What is the meaning of ethical concepts or terms like good, bad, right, wrong etc. 2. What is the nature of moral judgement? 3. How do you justify moral judgements? Ethical Objectivism and Ethical Subjectivism Ethical objectivism as a meta-ethical theory says:

1. That moral terms or concept are not independent of the individual mind i.e. they don’t describe moral properties in the world. 2. Moral judgements are meaningful and the meaningful meaningfulness is achieved outside the individual mind 3. Moral controversies are settled by making use of some facts in the actual world 4. In 1, 2, 3 above, there could be a genuine disagreement between two parties who engage in moral disputes.

Ethical subjectivism projects the objectivist claim, it says that:

1. Moral terms or concepts are not independent of the individual mind i.e. they do not describe moral properties in the world 2. Moral judgement could be meaningful, however, the meaning of the meaningfulness of moral judgement is determined by the desire, attitude and goals of the moral agents who makes a moral judgement 3. Moral judgements are neither true nor false. Why because, they don’t describe or refer to anything in the world because they are mere expressions of emotions. They are like commands. 4. There can’t be a genuine disagreement, the true moral agents who engage in moral disputes simply because, each moral agent is only expressing his or he emotions Ethical and Ethical Non-Naturalism Ethical naturalist made the following claim:

1. There is no different between ethical statements and psychological statements 2. Ethical and scientific statements state facts about world. Both statements can be verified by the method of observation 3. There can be a genuine disagreement in ethics

Ethical non-naturalism made

13 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes 1. There is a major difference between ethical statements and scientific statements while scientific statements state facts about the world. Ethical statements are factually empty 2. While scientific statements are verifiable through observations ethical statements are in verifiable 3. Ethical statements unlike scientific statements are neither true or false 4. There is no genuine disagreement in ethics unlike what we have in science

Epistemology It can be viewed to mean the study of knowledge, an etymological definition of the term etymology. It is a branch of philosophy, and its definition is critical, in other words, there is no general definition of epistemology. Scholars have been able to provide what epistemology consist of;

• Some contends that it is what we know • Some contends it is true • Some contends it is an enquiry into our belief system.

Historically, the term epistemology is from the Greek words episteme (meaning knowledge) and (meaning theory of or science of). From this, epistemology can be viewed as the science of knowledge, epistemology is a branch of philosophy that concern itself with such questions relating to

• The sources • Scope or extent • Justification of knowledge.

It answers the following questions:

a) What is knowledge? b) Can we know anything at all and if we can know, to what extent can we know? c) How do we know or how can we know, if we can know at all? In order words, how can we know whether or not we can know. d) If someone challenges you when you claim to know something, how can you defend yourself?

Epistemology is concerned with seeking what is knowledge.

1. The first question is about definition of knowledge 2. The second question is about Skepticism 3. The third question is about the sources of knowledge 4. The fourth question is about the justification of knowledge.

14 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes Traditionally, knowledge is defined as justified through belief (JTB), you're able to know something when you're able to justify your true belief. Source of Knowledge In epistemology, there are two basic sources of knowledge such as the empiricists and rational debate on the question of genuine knowledge. For the empiricists, sense experience is the ultimate source of genuine knowledge. We use the word ultimate here because empiricism does not deny the role of sense experience and rationalism does not deny reasoning, each maintain its thesis. Empiricism only accord priority to sense experience while rationalism only accord priority to reasoning.

For example:

Statement Category It is not raining now Sense Experience 2+2 = 4 Reasoning Water boils at 100°c Sense Experience Whatever goes up unsuspended in the air comes Reasoning down All circular objects are round Reasoning All Cats are Animals Reasoning Determine the sources of knowledge that each statement expresses. Scope of Knowledge Knowledge, maybe seen as justified through belief, this account of knowledge is referred to as the traditional account of knowledge. According to this account:

S knows that P means that;

• S believes that P • P is True • S has reasons to believe P.

"S" is justified in believing P. From the fulfilment of these 3 criteria, it is assumed that S can rightfully claim to know P. The idea of knowledge of justified through belief is derived from the notion of the 3 criterions of knowledge. However, this conception has been challenged by a philosopher named Edmund Gettier, he challenged the traditional criteria knowledge. He says it is possible to certify the 3 criteria of knowledge, yet one does not know.

Gettier argued that the 3 criteria are only necessary but not sufficient to guarantee knowledge, this has led to the controversy on the question of what knowledge is. Justification of Knowledge Knowledge as justified through believe can be either inferential or non-inferential. A justified through belief can be inferential if the believe relies on other believe for it justification but it is self-justifying. It is non-inferential when it does not rely on other beliefs for its justification but it is self-justifying. The non-

15 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes inferential belief is also referred to as foundation of knowledge, it means that the inferential would rely on the non-inferential for its justification. Types of Knowledge 1. Analytic/A priori 2. Synthetic/A posteriori

Analytic/A priori: It can only be established through Reason.

Synthetic/A posteriori: It can only be established through the senses.

Some Examples of Analytic/A priori knowledge are:

1. All Bachelors are unmarried male 2. 2+2 = 4 3. All circular objects are round 4. All cats are animals 5. All men are Human

Examples of Synthetic A posteriori Knowledge

1. There are 20 people in this class 2. All metals when heated expand. 3. Water boils 100°c 4. It's not raining now. 5. OAU is in Ile-Ife.

The only difference between analytic and a priori is that analytic refers to statement derived from pure reason while a priori refers to judgement or truth derived from pure reason. In the same way synthetic refers to statement from sense experience and a posteriori refers to knowledge or truth derived from experience. However, there are other differences between analytical and a priori on the other hand and synthetic and a posteriori on the other hand.

Skepticism It is a theory in epistemology that argues for the impossibility of knowledge. It argues that for any statement to be qualified as expressing knowledge, it must be certain, being certain means that which is infallible, indubitable and necessary. But for the skepticist, nothing is certain in the world, therefore it is impossible to know:

Premise 1 – Knowledge involves certainty

Premise 2 – No one can be certain of anything conclusion:

16 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes Therefore, no one can know anything. Types of Skepticism 1. Pyhrronian: It instructs to refrain from making judgment in as far as you are in doubt. It does not claim that we know or we do not know. 2. Global Skepticism Another name for it is philosophical skepticism, also known as wholesale skepticism and extreme skepticism, it is also known as Radical skepticism. For radical skepticism, knowledge is impossible, for wholesale skepticism, we cannot know anything at all, we cannot know whether or not mind exist. 3. Local Skepticism: It is also known as retail skepticism or mitigated skepticism or moderate skepticism. It is a more limited skepticism. It only asserts that we cannot know some things. For instance, we cannot know other people's mind but it does not deny the possibility of knowledge of some other things. An example of a moderate skepticist is a philosopher called Rene Descartes, he is a French philosopher. Skepticist of Note – He is an example of a skepticist that you could define as a radical skepticist. He provided a line of reasoning upon which he rejected the possibility of knowledge Nature and scope of human knowledge For David Hume, the task of the skepticist is to find knowledge which is certain, infallible and precise. He identified two sources of knowledge. For him knowledge is either acquired through relation of ideas or through matters of fact. This is referred to as Hume fork.

Knowledge

Relation of Ideas Matters of Facts

Relation of ideas According to David Hume, knowledge acquired from relation of ideas is intuitive and demonstratively certain. Examples of this are knowledge acquired from geometry, algebra and arithmetic that 2+2=4 etc. This expresses a relationship among these numbers this is known as mere recognition of thought. For him, knowledge acquired from relation of ideas is necessarily ascertained. A denial of it leads to contradiction of one’s self. However, this knowledge does not provide an information about the external world. That is why for him, this kind of knowledge is tautological. He rejected this knowledge because

• Relation of idea only furnish us with a priori knowledge. This does not inform us about the knowledge of the external world whereas the search for knowledge concern the external world. Since the knowledge from relation of ideas is uninformative it could not be certain.

17 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes • For Hume every idea in the mind has its antecedent sensory invention. In other words, there can be an idea in the mind that does not have its origin from experience therefore since the relation of ideas is ultimately justified by matters of facts an enquiry into the nature of certain knowledge. Matters of facts Knowledge of matters of facts is empirical and informative. It informs us of the external world. The contrary of the knowledge of matters of facts is possible and does not lead to contradiction. E.g. that the sun will rise tomorrow doesn’t contradict the affirmation that it will not rise. But can we find certainty in knowledge acquired through matters of fact such that we can establish a foundation for knowledge. In other words what is the nature of the evidence which assures us if any real existence and matters of facts beyond the present testimony of our senses of record of our testimony. For him the foundation of matters of facts is established on the relation of cause and effect. Cause and Effect For David Hume, in the nature of all our reasoning concerning matters of facts is founded on the relation of cause and effect. If it is further asked that what is the foundation of this relation. It may be answered that the relation of cause and effect is founded upon experience. Experience consist of each thing or objects which occupies our perceptual environment. Objects such as stones, buildings, water, books, biro etc. They gather these objects by perception. However, each of these objects has its cause. In other words, each object is an effect of some causes. If you suddenly see a particular stone in motion you conclude that there must be something which causes it to move, such is the nature of our experience. So, our experience actually consists in the debation of cause and effect. So, for Hume it is by means of this relation alone that we can go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses. It is assumed that each event in the world has it antecedent cause. No event in nature is self-caused, there must be something which is responsible for its occurrence. For instance, a boiling water has its cause which is the heat. Your clothes have its cause which is cotton. Whatever objects or event can be traced to have a cause. Therefore, you are an effect of a cause. Ask any man who believe in any matter of fact of which is not present, the reason he will give you is some other fact that the reason might be in text messages or in confirmation of another friend abroad or in knowledge of his former promises. If a man finds a wrist watch or a fountain pen in a desert island he would infer and then conclude that some human had once being in that island. For Hume, this is the nature of all our reasoning concerning matters of facts. And here it is constantly supposed “that there is a connection between the present fact and that which is inferred from it. Where there is nothing to bind them together the inference will be entirely precarious”. David Hume argued that even after we have experience of the operation of cause and effect our conclusion from that experience are not founded on reasoning or any process of understanding. Conditions to be satisfied to establish cause and effects There are about four necessary and sufficient conditions for cause and effect to be established by ‘necessary and sufficient’ it means that without them it is impossible for cause and effect to hold and having them is adequate for cause and effect to be established. These conditions are:

• Spaciotemporal priority

18 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes • Spaciotemporal contiguity • Spaciotemporal simultaneity • The idea of necessary connection

Spacio Temporal Priority This assumes that cause and effect occur in a world determined by space and time. For cause and effect to be established, it is the case that cause must occur before the effect. It is not possible for the cause of an event to come after the effect. Water for instance cannot boil before it is heated. An object not thrown up cannot come down. A house cannot be inhabited before it is built. A cause must therefore occur or come before the effect. In other words, a cause is always prior to its effect within space and time. The effect always come after or follow the cause within space and time. This is the order in nature

Spacio temporal continguity This is an assumption that in a Specio temporal world a cause and an effect share close proximity. An effect occurs close to the cause. The relation of cause and effect will not hold if the cause shares a spacial distance with the effect. It is impossible for the volume of water heated in Lagos to boil in Abuja. Neither is it the case that a person in Lagos could experience pain from a slap in Ile Ife. For a billiard ball to communicate motion to the order both of them must be close to each other. For there to be cause and effect, both cause and effect must be closely conjoined together in space and time.

Spacio temporal simultaneity The idea of this is that cause and effect occur almost the same time. That means both share spacio temporal occurrence. While it is impossible for the cause to happen after the effect and the for the effect to occur before the cause. It is also impossible for cause to be so separate from the effect. For instance, it is impossible for a stone thrown up at a considerable height to fall in a week’s time so also it is impossible for one to be slapped today while you feel the pain next month, whatever you throw up unsuspended in space falls down. Immediately you receive a slap you feel pain. Immediately the event of slap occurs the experience of pain also occurs.

The idea of necessary connection Hume argues that all our believes concerning matters of facts presupposes a connection between cause and effect. This is because it is believed that a particular effect is necessarily connected to a particular cause. It is believed that whenever a volume of water is heated, it must of a necessity it boils. The possibility of otherwise is not accommodated. Again, it is believed that nourishment is necessarily connected with bread i.e. whenever you eat bread you get nourished, whatever goes up must necessarily come down. One billiard ball must communicate motion to another. By the forces of the believe, were we presented with either the cause or the effect we are so apt to certainly infer the effect or cause therefore respective. Before we can continue to hold the belief, there must be a means of justifying that belief.

For David Hume, since the four conditions are necessary and sufficient each of them must hold for the relation of cause and effect to be justified. The first 3 are only necessary but not sufficient to justify the relation of cause and effect. For the 3 to be sufficient we must justify the 3rd one. If the idea of necessary connection is not established then, the relation of cause and effect fails. If the relation fails 19 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes then, matters of facts is not justified. If matters of facts are not justified then it means knowledge is impossible. For Hume, the question is how can we justify the supposed necessary connection between cause and effect?

All reasoning may be divided into two kinds

• Demonstrative reasoning or that concerning relations of ideas • Moral reasoning or that concerning matters of facts.

For Hume there are two sources of knowledge acquisition (and position). Knowledge is acquired through matters of fact and relation of ideas

Similarly, if any knowledge claims to be justified it follows that there are only two available means of such. It means that such claim can only be justified either by

• Reasoning or rational argument or • Relying on experience through the senses.

Justifying a claim through reasoning is justifying that claim a priori.

Hume’s copy theory According to David Hume for every genuine empirical knowledge there must be a corresponding sense impression. Given this theory, if we say C is the cause of E then there must be a necessary connection between the cause and effect. For Hume we may ask this question can the idea of necessary connection satisfy the copy theory such that there will be a sense impression of a necessary connection just as there is a sense impression corresponding to both cause and effect. This idea doesn’t belong and can either be justified by matters of facts nor relation of ideas. If there is no necessary connection between cause and effect then cause and effect are distinct and separate events. This is regarded to as Hume’s aponism. This is the claim that events in the world is independent of each other, no one necessarily causes another. If there is no cause and effect then this has undermined our claim to infallible and certain knowledge of the world through matters of facts. David Hume argues that the idea of necessary connection was born out of our custom and habits which is bound in us by constant and regular conduction between two events i.e. having seen that event a is constantly and regularly associated and conjoined with event b we conclude that event b is necessarily connected with event a. For instance, from constant striking of sticks of matches and constant attendance of claim we conclude that the striking of a stick of matches is necessarily connected with flame. What was done is to convert regular and constant conduction to the idea of necessary connection by this, a rule of parsimony is violated. The law says do not multiply entities unnecessarily. Whenever the law is violated, there is application of Ockham’s razor to severe the unnecessarily multiply concept or entity from the true one. What has been proved is that since the whole foundation upon which matters of facts and cause and effect are proved is removed then all the other structures of knowledge fall down. It follows that there us no knowledge of matters of facts which is justified and which is certain. The conclusion is that the knowledge of empirical or external world is impossible. The knowledge from relation of ideas is uninformative and does not furnish us with the information about the world. The knowledge of the matter of fact cannot 20 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes be justified. Hume’s conclusion is that no knowledge is possible. This is his position concerning knowledge. He is therefore referred to as a radical skeptists. Radical skepticism is the position which denies the existence of any form of knowledge.

Implications of Hume’s theory 1. One of the strong implications is that scientific knowledge is impossible because it is ultimately unjustified this is because the fabric of scientific knowledge relies on experience. Experience cannot be justified by relation of ideas. Experience is justified by relation of cause and effect. 2. Hume claims that there is no necessary connection between two events it further means that one event necessarily causes another. This means that any effect will follow a particular cause and any effect could be caused by any event. 3. By Hume’s argument It is impossible to acquire any knowledge of the world which is certain and infallible 4. Our reasoning concerning causal relationship between two events and objects is only that of probability and not certainty 5. The absence of sufficient justification of the idea of necessary connection render the relation of cause and effect unjustified. The other conditions are necessary but are unable to justify the relation in the absence of the 4th 6. The import of Hume’s reasoning is that we must not dogmatically accept whatever the world present before us. As intellectual we must carefully subject everything to critical question and examination. Don’t just accept anything dogmatically but rather ask the arguer to justify his argument or theory.

Objections to Hume’s Argument or Hume’s skepticism 1. Science has been helping man in making life worth living i.e. against Hume’s argument on scientific knowledge. Any idea that will remove the foundation of science will naturally run into problem. Hume’s regularity theory conflict with the basis of science. Most of the successes recorded in science is based on causality and anything that conflict this causality will.....repeatability is associated with predictability but Hume’s argument is against this one since we will not be able to predict repeatedly. Science will not be reliable if Hume’s position is accepted. If science has proven reliable, then Hume’s position is not accepted. 2. A philosopher A.C Ewing identified the absurdity from Hume’s Argument as follows - Thus, for him, for/given any event, any effect could follow it. For instance, t means that if somebody coughs here then an accident may happen on the road then we would conclude as Hume argued that the cough is the cause of the accident 3. Some other philosophers have argued that Hume’s position disagree with the natural constitution of things. If we put petrol on human body and light it the man is expected to burn since we understand the natural order and constitution of things. If you put somebody in the oven he is expected to burn. This is based on the natural constitution of things but if the man does not burn, we will not regard him as having natural properties then to them, there must s a kind of connection between the two events based on the natural constitution of things therefore, for them we can establish that according to the natural order of the properties there might be a necessary connection between cause and effect by it may be demanded of this 21 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes position to account for a necessary connection in natural order of properties and the constitution of matter and the argument continues. ❖ Hume’s Argument is actually not impossible to decide.

22 | P a g e This note is brought to you by fabreads.org Go to fabreads.org/oau-notes for more notes