DOCSLIB.ORG

BLOCK 1 Knowledge Is a Relation Between Two Beings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BLOCK 1 Knowledge is a relation between two beings: the known and the knower. Through this relation the knowing subject (knower) opens oneself to the world. The one who knows leaves oneself and turns to the surrounding world. However, in knowledge one returns to oneself as the known being ‘penetrates’ into the subject in some way since knowledge takes place not outside, but inside the subject. In knowledge an object makes itself present to the subject. The known ‘reproduces’ itself in the knower, e.g., when the colour blue is known, the blue of the thing penetrates into the subject. This process takes place immaterially. For we cannot observe the intentional presence of colour in a subject, as the blue colour in a flame is observed. The intentional presence is an unobservable and absolutely private fact. Epistemology is the theory of human knowledge in so far as it contemplates on the origin, process, nature, structure, validity and truth value of human knowledge. This block, consisting of four units, deals with the definition, nature, history of epistemology and various epistemological concepts. Unit 1 begins with the Definition and Nature of Epistemology. It studies the concept of knowledge along with its traditional definitions and probes into how knowledge is different from belief. One of the important movements that has challenged epistemology is skepticism and it is in the face of this challenge that epistemology has developed. Rationalism and empiricism are the theories that have been put forward to discuss the origin of knowledge. Unit 2 deals with a Brief History of Epistemology. The discussion has begun from the very ancient time itself, period of Ancient Greek Philosophy, Medieval Epistemology, Rationalism, Empiricism and Synthesis in Kant, Post-Kantian Epistemology, and Phenomenological Epistemology of late19th Century, Realism of 20th century and recent Developments in Epistemology. Unit 3 studies some of the Basic Concepts and Assumptions. Epistemology is a science which deals with knowledge and hence it has some important concepts like belief, justification, truth, certainty, skepticism and foundationalism which need to be clarified. Unit 4 highlights the Theories of Truth put forward by various thinkers. This unit begins by disclosing the problem of truth that has been discussed for a long time. Along with this we have the nature and criteria that tells what truth is, the various perspectives on truth, classical theories of truth, and the importance of studying the concept of truth. This block becomes introductory note to what is to follow in the following units and makes us well equipped with the terminologies that are used in this discipline. Notions like belief and truth which have a highly ambiguous connotation are clearly dealt in these units. BPY 010 EPISTEMOLOGY (4 CREDITS) COURSE INTRODUCTION Epistemology is one of the main branches of systematic philosophy. It is concerned with the nature, sources, and limits of valid and true knowledge. The subject matter of epistemology is knowledge itself. The term ‘knowledge’ has a number of connotations, but here in philosophy we are concerned with propositional knowledge, that is, knowledge that such-and-such is true. It begins with some of the basic questions like, ‘what is knowledge,’ ‘what are the sources of knowledge?’ ‘What is the certainty of the knowledge that one has?, etc. All these questions were taken up for discussion from the ancient times and a number of approaches and views have been put forward. It forms one of the bases of many other disciplines because all other disciplines have something to do with cognition and even the modern computer which uses artificial intelligence in some way resembles the human’s capacity to use knowledge. So this field of philosophy is an area of frequent discussion even to this day and many thinkers contribute to its growth. This course is broadly divided into Four Blocks with 16 units. Block 1 introduces the term ‘epistemology’. This block highlights the definition, nature, brief history of epistemology, including the basic concepts and assumptions and the theories of truth. Block 2 deals with various sources of belief. Beginning with perception, which is very common, this block deals with hermeneutic or constructivist view of perception, inference and testimony. Block 3 is on the Methods and Justification of Knowledge. Other subtopics in this block are Metaphysical Method of Aristotle and Aquinas, Foundationalism and Coherentism, Introducing some complexity, and Popperian Method and Naturalized Epistemology. 1 Block 4 probes into the Knowing Subject. The block brings to light the various views like the mirroring mind, revolt against the mirroring mind, not mirrors but maps, critical appraisal and synthesis contributed by various philosophers. These various topics form the core of Epistemology and make a detailed study of one of the important branches of Philosophy 2 UNIT 1 DEFINITION AND NATURE OF EPISTEMOLOGY Contents 1.0. Objectives 1.1. Introduction 1.2. Explaining the Concept of Knowledge 1.3. Traditional Definition of Knowledge 1.4. Role of the Intellect and the Senses in Human Knowing 1.5. Scope of Epistemology 1.6. Importance of Epistemology 1.7. Let Us Sum Up 1.8. Key Words 1.9. Further Readings and References 1.10. Answers to Check Your Progress 1.0. OBJECTIVES The main objective of this Unit is to introduce you to epistemology and to determine its nature and scope. We will explore what it means to say that someone knows, or fails to know something and how much do we, or can we know. We will see both an etymological and traditional definition of knowledge, together with a general understanding of the term ‘to know’. We shall also briefly cover different attitudes with regard to our ability to know reality. Finally, we will conclude with the importance of epistemology in human life. Thus by the end of this Unit you should be able: • To give a definition of knowledge; • To differentiate between knowledge and belief; • To know the role of scepticism as an adversary to knowledge; • To know the role of reason and the senses in acquiring knowledge; 1 • To know the scope of epistemology; • To know the importance of epistemology in comprehending the world we live in. 1.1. INTRODUCTION Aristotle begins his work Metaphysics with the observation ‘All men by nature desire ‘to know.’ Kant raises the question ‘What can I know?’ The drive to know is fundamental to being human. Epistemology tries to fulfil this desire. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin and scope of knowledge. Epistemology focuses on our means of acquiring knowledge and how we can differentiate between truth and falsehood. The term ‘epistemology’ was coined by the Scottish Philosopher James Fredrick Ferrier (1808-64). It comes from the Greek word ‘episteme’ (knowledge) and ‘logos’ (theory or science). It addresses the following questions: What is knowledge? What can we know? How can we know it? How is knowledge acquired? Can knowledge be certain? Is there a distinction between knowledge and belief? What is the scope of knowledge? Why do we believe certain claims and not others? 1.2. EXPLAINING THE CONCEPT OF KNOWLEDGE Before we go into the traditional definition of knowledge we should know what ‘to know’ means. An analysis of the concept of knowledge has to be done to see how this term is used in everyday language. Expressions such as ‘know that,’ ‘know how,’ ‘know why,’ ‘know him,’ ‘know where,’ and ‘know whether,’ needed to be examined in detail. In the English language the word ‘knowledge’ is used in a variety of senses. It is used in the sense of ‘being acquainted with’ or ‘being familiar with’. We commonly speak of ‘knowing’ a person, place or a thing in this sense. We also use it in the sense of ‘being aware’ of something. Sometimes it is used as an 2 expression of ‘psychological conviction’. Philosophers give multiple senses of knowledge such as: i. ‘knowing that,’ ii. ‘Knowing which,’ iii. ‘Knowing how,’ iv. ‘Knowing what,’ v. ‘knowing what it is like.’ Plato, used the term techne or skill for ‘knowing how’ (to do something), and the term episteme for a more forceful kind of knowledge in which claims can be true or false. There is a difference between ‘knowing that’ and ‘knowing how’. ‘Know how’ is used to refer to a kind of skill or ability, such as knowing how to swim. Here even if one knows what it is, he may not be able to explain the rules or laws of a skill. However, the expression, ‘know that,’ in contrast, seems to denote the possession of a specific piece of information, and the person who has knowledge of this sort generally is able to convey this knowledge to others. Philosophers are mainly concerned with ‘knowing that’ something is the case and it is in this sense of the word that a claim is either true or false. This meaning of ‘to know’ is called ‘propositional knowledge’. Epistemologists from ancient Greeks to the present have focused on propositional knowledge—that is, the ‘knowing that’ kind of knowledge. Propositional knowledge encompasses ordinary perceptual knowledge, scientific knowledge, geographical knowledge, ethical knowledge, mathematical knowledge, religious knowledge, self-knowledge, and knowledge about any field of study whatever. A proposition is a declarative sentence which purports to describe a fact or a state of affairs, such as ‘Dogs are mammals,’ ‘2+2=7.’ A proposition may be true or false; that is, it need not actually express a fact. Propositional knowledge, then, can be called ‘knowing-that.’ Statements of propositional knowledge are properly expressed using ‘that’-clauses, such as ‘He knows that Delhi is in India.’ Not all sentences are propositions. For example, ‘what is the time?’ This sentence is not a proposition because one cannot ask whether what the sentence expresses is true.
Recommended publications
  • "There Is No Right to Be Stupid": a Voegelinian Analysis of Islamist

    "There Is No Right to Be Stupid": a Voegelinian Analysis of Islamist

    "There is No Right to Be Stupid": A Voegelinian Analysis of Islamist Terrorism with Reference to the "Elements of Reality" Copyright 2005 Celestino Perez, Jr. In the following essay I make three claims. First, in agreement with Eric Voegelin and Barry Cooper, I illustrate why a comprehensive study of politics requires that attention be paid to the symbols "God and man," "the Good", and "the soul" (Section I). I then briefly wonder if Voegelin and Cooper, despite offering cogent analyses of pernicious ideologies, ask too much of their readers? If so, what are the prospects for a competent political science and a healthy democratic populace (Section II)? In Section III, I suggest a different way of applying Voegelin's theory to an analysis of Islamist ideology, wherein I lay out ten "elements of reality" and five distilled "fundamental truths" derived from these elements. To the degree that someone distorts or neglects these elements of reality, he is a pneumopath. He may be very smart. But, alas, he is a "philosophical and religious ignoramus,"1 [1] and hence stupid. And, as Voegelin reminds us in Hitler and the Germans, "There is no right to be stupid." To be sure, if we allow ourselves to submit to stupidity, the gangster animals will be sure to mockingly let us know: 1 [1] Barry Cooper, New Political Religions, or An Analysis of Modern Terrorism ( Columbia : University of Missouri Press , 2004), xii. Cooper describes Sayyid Qutb's and other terrorists' "dogmatic certainty" as resulting from their being "philosophical and religious ignoramuses." "Yoohoo, silly ass!"2 [2] In the Concluding Notes, I lay out what I consider to be the gist of Cooper's argument, and I briefly comment on his Appendix in New Political Religions.
  • Aquinas on Attributes

    Aquinas on Attributes

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by MedievaleCommons@Cornell Philosophy and Theology 11 (2003), 1–41. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright C 2004 Cambridge University Press 1057-0608 DOI: 10.1017/S105706080300001X Aquinas on Attributes BRIAN LEFTOW Oriel College, Oxford Aquinas’ theory of attributes is one of the most obscure, controversial parts of his thought. There is no agreement even on so basic a matter as where he falls in the standard scheme of classifying such theories: to Copleston, he is a resemblance-nominalist1; to Armstrong, a “concept nominalist”2; to Edwards and Spade, “almost as strong a realist as Duns Scotus”3; to Gracia, Pannier, and Sullivan, neither realist nor nominalist4; to Hamlyn, the Middle Ages’ “prime exponent of realism,” although his theory adds elements of nominalism and “conceptualism”5; to Wolterstorff, just inconsistent.6 I now set out Aquinas’ view and try to answer the vexed question of how to classify it. Part of the confusion here is terminological. As emerges below, Thomas believed in “tropes” of “lowest” (infima) species of accidents and (I argue) substances.7 Many now class trope theories as a form of nominalism,8 while 1. F. C. Copleston, Aquinas (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1955), P. 94. 2. D. M. Armstrong, Nominalism and Realism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 25, 83, 87. Armstrong is tentative about this. 3. Sandra Edwards, “The Realism of Aquinas,” The New Scholasticism 59 (1985): 79; Paul Vincent Spade, “Degrees of Being, Degrees of Goodness,” in Aquinas’ Moral Theory, ed.
  • The Univocity of Substance and the Formal Distinction of Attributes: the Role of Duns Scotus in Deleuze's Reading of Spinoza Nathan Widder

    The Univocity of Substance and the Formal Distinction of Attributes: the Role of Duns Scotus in Deleuze's Reading of Spinoza Nathan Widder

    parrhesia 33 · 2020 · 150-176 the univocity of substance and the formal distinction of attributes: the role of duns scotus in deleuze's reading of spinoza nathan widder This paper examines the role played by medieval theologian John Duns Scotus in Gilles Deleuze’s reading of Spinoza’s philosophy of expressive substance; more generally, it elaborates a crucial moment in the development of Deleuze’s philosophy of sense and difference. Deleuze contends that Spinoza adapts and extends Duns Scotus’s two most influential theses, the univocity of being and formal distinction, despite neither appearing explicitly in Spinoza’s writings. “It takes nothing away from Spinoza’s originality,” Deleuze declares, “to place him in a perspective that may already be found in Duns Scotus” (Deleuze, 1992, 49).1 Nevertheless, the historiographic evidence is clearly lacking, leaving Deleuze to admit that “it is hardly likely that” Spinoza had even read Duns Scotus (359n28). Indeed, the only support he musters for his speculation is Spinoza’s obvious in- terests in scholastic metaphysical and logical treatises, the “probable influence” of the Scotist-informed Franciscan priest Juan de Prado on his thought, and the fact that the problems Duns Scotus addresses need not be confined to Christian thought (359–360n28). The paucity of evidence supporting this “use and abuse” of history, however, does not necessarily defeat the thesis. Like other lineages Deleuze proposes, the one he traces from Duns Scotus to Spinoza, and subsequently to Nietzsche, turns not on establishing intentional references by one thinker to his predecessor, but instead on showing how the borrowings and adaptations asserted to create the connec- tion make sense of the way the second philosopher surmounts blockages he faces while responding to issues left unaddressed by the first.
  • John Duns Scotus's Metaphysics of Goodness

    John Duns Scotus's Metaphysics of Goodness

    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 11-16-2015 John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysics of Goodness: Adventures in 13th-Century Metaethics Jeffrey W. Steele University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Medieval History Commons, Philosophy Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Scholar Commons Citation Steele, Jeffrey W., "John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysics of Goodness: Adventures in 13th-Century Metaethics" (2015). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/6029 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysics of Goodness: Adventures in 13 th -Century Metaethics by Jeffrey Steele A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Thomas Williams, Ph.D. Roger Ariew, Ph.D. Colin Heydt, Ph.D. Joanne Waugh, Ph.D Date of Approval: November 12, 2015 Keywords: Medieval Philosophy, Transcendentals, Being, Aquinas Copyright © 2015, Jeffrey Steele DEDICATION To the wife of my youth, who with patience and long-suffering endured much so that I might gain a little knowledge. And to God, fons de bonitatis . She encouraged me; he sustained me. Both have blessed me. “O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!!” --Psalm 34:8 “You are the boundless good, communicating your rays of goodness so generously, and as the most lovable being of all, every single being in its own way returns to you as its ultimate end.” –John Duns Scotus, De Primo Principio Soli Deo Gloria .
  • CHAPTER 2.1 Augustine: Commentary

    CHAPTER 2.1 Augustine: Commentary

    CHAPTER 2.1 Augustine: Commentary Augustine Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis (henceforth Augustine) was born in 354 A.D. in the municipium of Thagaste (modern day Souk Ahras, Algeria, close to the border with Tunisia). He died in 430, as the Arian1 Vandals besieged the city of Hippo where he was bishop, marking another stage in the demise of the Roman Empire. Rome had already been sacked in 410 by Alaric the Visigoth, but the slow decline of Roman grandeur took place over a period of about 320 years which culminated in 476 when Romulus Augustus, the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, was deposed by Odoacer, a Germanic chieftain. Augustine thus lived at a time which heralded the death knell of the ancient world and the beginnings of mediaeval western European Christendom.2 Augustine‘s great legacy to western civilization is that intellectually he united both worlds in drawing from the ancient thought of Greece and Rome and providing a Christian understanding of the intellectual achievements of the ancients. His new synthesis is a remarkable achievement even today and for those of us, who remain Christians in the West, our debates, agreements and disagreements are still pursued in Augustine‘s shadow.3 1 Arianism was a schismatic sect of Christianity that held the view that the Second Person of the Trinity, Christ, is created and thus does not exist eternally with the Father. 2 See J. M. Rist‘s magnificent Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003. Rist notes that, ‗Despite his lack of resources he managed to sit in judgment on ancient philosophy and ancient culture.‘ p.
  • Overturning the Paradigm of Identity with Gilles Deleuze's Differential

    Overturning the Paradigm of Identity with Gilles Deleuze's Differential

    A Thesis entitled Difference Over Identity: Overturning the Paradigm of Identity With Gilles Deleuze’s Differential Ontology by Matthew G. Eckel Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in Philosophy Dr. Ammon Allred, Committee Chair Dr. Benjamin Grazzini, Committee Member Dr. Benjamin Pryor, Committee Member Dr. Patricia R. Komuniecki, Dean College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo May 2014 An Abstract of Difference Over Identity: Overturning the Paradigm of Identity With Gilles Deleuze’s Differential Ontology by Matthew G. Eckel Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in Philosophy The University of Toledo May 2014 Taking Gilles Deleuze to be a philosopher who is most concerned with articulating a ‘philosophy of difference’, Deleuze’s thought represents a fundamental shift in the history of philosophy, a shift which asserts ontological difference as independent of any prior ontological identity, even going as far as suggesting that identity is only possible when grounded by difference. Deleuze reconstructs a ‘minor’ history of philosophy, mobilizing thinkers from Spinoza and Nietzsche to Duns Scotus and Bergson, in his attempt to assert that philosophy has always been, underneath its canonical manifestations, a project concerned with ontology, and that ontological difference deserves the kind of philosophical attention, and privilege, which ontological identity has been given since Aristotle.
  • Hegel on the Conceivability of Self-Determination

    Hegel on the Conceivability of Self-Determination

    The Concept as Self-Determination: Hegel on the Conceivability of Self- Determination Herein I investigate how four dogmas underpinning the traditional concepts of universality, the genus, class, and abstract universal, generate four paradoxes of self- reference. The four dogmas are the following: (1) that contradiction entails the total absence of determinacy, (2) the necessary finitude of the concept, (3) the separation of principles of universality and particularity, and (4) the necessity of appealing to foundations. In section III I show how these dogmas underpin the paradoxes of self-reference, and how one cannot make progress on these paradoxes as long as these four dogmas are in place. Corresponding to the abovementioned dogmas are the four paradoxes of self-reference: (1a) the problem of the differentia, (1b) the problem of psychologism, (3c) the problem of participation, and (4d) the problem of onto-theology. Section I enumerates the three traditional concepts of the concept and some of the basic limitations to which they are subject. Section II elucidates the four dogmas shared by these concepts. Finally, Section III shows how four paradoxes of self-reference follow from the dogmas elucidated in Section II. Though philosophers have been struggling with these problems for centuries, philosophers have never systematically connected each of these problems nor have philosophers derived them all from a single principle. It is my contention that the four paradoxes of self-reference are systematically connected insofar as they all follow from a single principle.1 This principle is formal universality. Though I do not provide a solution to these paradoxes, in Section III I suggest that the history of Western philosophy has already provided us with the only two viable ways to eschew these paradoxes.
  • Theories of Truth

    Theories of Truth

    time 7 Theories of truth r A summary sketchl The object of this section is to sketch the main kinds of ~ theories of truth which have been proposed, and to indicate how they C relate to each other. (Subsequent sections will discuss some theories S'" p. in detail.) o Coherence theories take truth to consist in relations of coherence ~ among a set of beliefs. Coherence theories were proposed e.g. by '" ""C Bradley r9r4, and also by some positivist opponents of idealism, such o u as Neurath r932; more recently, Rescher r973 and Dauer r974 have C'" defended this kind of approach. Correspondence theories take the :l 0::'" truth of a proposition to consist, not in its relations to other proposi­ .= tions, but in its relation to the world, its cOllespondence to the facts. Theories of this kind were held by both Russell r9r8 and Wittgenstein r922, during the period of their adherence to logical atomism; Austin defended a version of the cOllespondence theory in r950' The prag­ matist theory, developed in the works of Peirce (see e.g. r877), Dewey (see e.g. r9or) and James (see e.g. r909) has affinities with both coherence and correspondence theories, allowing that the truth of a belief derives from its correspondence with reality, but stressing also that it is manifested by the beliefs' survival of test by experience, its coherence with other beliefs; the account of truth proposed in Dummett r959 has, in turn, quite strong affinities with the pragmatist VIew. 1 Proponents of the theories I shall discuss take different views about what kinds of items are truth-bearers.
  • Proof for the Existence of God Developed by Saint Augustine

    Proof for the Existence of God Developed by Saint Augustine

    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1948 The "Psychological" Proof For the Existence of God Developed By Saint Augustine Patrick J. Kremer Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Kremer, Patrick J., "The "Psychological" Proof For the Existence of God Developed By Saint Augustine" (1948). Master's Theses. 250. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/250 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1948 Patrick J. Kremer THE 11 PSYCHOLOGI CAL" PROOF FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD DEVELOPED BY SAINT AUGUSTINE BY PATRICK J. KREMER, S.J. • A THESIS SUmiTTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQ.UIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE 01<' MASTER OF ARTS IN LOYOLA UNIVERSITY DEC:D.1BER 1948 VITA AUCTORIS Patrick J. Kremer, S.J., was born in Detroit, Michigan, June 25, 1919. He attended Visitation Grammar School, and in June, 1935, was graduated from Visitation High School, Detroit, Michigan. In September, 1935, he entered the University of Detroit, from which he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts in June, 1939. He entered the Milford Novitiate of the Society of Jesus in September, 1939, and spent three years there. He studied at West Baden College Branch of Loyola University from 1942 to 1944, and has been enrolled in the Loyola University Graduate School since September, 1942.
  • The Criterion of Truth

    The Criterion of Truth

    THE CRITERION OF TRUTH An article published in the Theosophical movement magazine, February 2017 THE STATED object of science is to discover truths about the natural world through strictly objective observation, experimental verification and theoretical explanations, free from all subjective biases. Testability and reproducibility of laws so discovered are the criterion of truth so far as modern science is concerned. Though science has made remarkable progress in unravelling laws of the physical world by empirical and inductive methods, and in their practical applications, leading scientists however confess that they have failed to develop a unified science with a single set of assumptions and terms to explain all observations as aspects of one coherent whole. In other words, they are still in search of one single universal principle, theoretical formulation of which will reconcile many different specialized observations resolvable into one grand synthetic whole which explains all the mysteries of the natural world. They admit that such a universal unifying principle alone is truth and that its discovery, by means of inductive method they adhere to, is still a far cry. Each one of the many sects of the world religions, resting on “Revelation,” lays claim to be the sole possessor of truth. Inasmuch as there is no other fertile source of mutual hatred and strife in the world than differences between the various religious sects, it is evident that none of them has the whole truth. Whatever truth they had originally possessed has been so mixed up with human error and superstitions over the centuries that they either repel and cause the reasoning and thinking portions of humanity to fall into agnosticism, or induce blind faith and superstitions in unthinking portions of the public who willingly submit to priestly authority.
  • Mind, Body, Motion, Matter Eighteenth-Century British and French Literary Perspectives Edited by Mary Helen Mcmurran and Alison Conway MIND, BODY, MOTION, MATTER

    Mind, Body, Motion, Matter Eighteenth-Century British and French Literary Perspectives Edited by Mary Helen Mcmurran and Alison Conway MIND, BODY, MOTION, MATTER

    Mind, Body, Motion, Matter Eighteenth-Century British and French Literary Perspectives edited by Mary Helen McMurran and Alison Conway MIND, BODY, MOTION, MATTER Eighteenth-Century British and French Literary Perspectives Mind, Body, Motion, Matter Eighteenth-Century British and French Literary Perspectives EDITED BY MARY HELEN MCMURRAN AND ALISON CONWAY UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London © University of Toronto Press 2016 Toronto Buffalo London www.utppublishing.com Printed in the U.S.A. ISBN 978-1-4426-5011-4 (cloth) Printed on acid-free, 100% post-consumer recycled paper with vegetable-based inks. ___________________________________________________________________ Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Mind, body, motion, matter : eighteenth-century British and French literary perspectives / edited by Mary Helen McMurran and Alison Conway. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4426-5011-4 (cloth) 1. English literature – 18th century – History and criticism. 2. French literature – 18th century – History and criticism. 3. Philosophy in literature. 4. Materialism in literature. 5. Vitalism in literature. 6. Aesthetics in literature. I. Conway, Alison Margaret, editor II. McMurran, Mary Helen, 1962–, author, editor PR448.P5M55 2016 820.9'384 C2015-908168-8 ___________________________________________________________________ CC-BY-NC-ND This work is published subject to a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivative License. For permission to publish commercial versions please
  • The Mind–Body Problem: an Overview

    The Mind–Body Problem: an Overview

    The Mind–Body Problem: An Overview Chapter 1 The Mind–Body Problem: An Overview Kirk Ludwig I have said that the soul is not more than the body, And I have said that the body is not more than the soul, And nothing, not God, is greater to one than one’s self is. Walt Whitman 1.1 Introduction Understanding the place of thought and feeling in the natural world is central to that general comprehension of nature, as well as that special self-understanding, which are the primary goals of science and philosophy. The general form of the project, which has exercised scientists and philosophers since the ancient world, is given by the question, ‘What is the relation, in general, between mental and physical phenomena?’ There is no settled agreement on the correct answer. This is the single most important gap in our understanding of the natural world. The trouble is that the question presents us with a problem: each possible answer to it has consequences that appear unacceptable. This problem has traditionally gone under the heading ‘The Mind–Body Problem.’1 My primary aim in this chapter is to explain in what this traditional mind–body problem consists, what its possible solutions are, and what obstacles lie in the way of a resolution. The discussion will develop in two phases. The first phase, sections 1.2–1.4, will be concerned to get clearer about the import of our initial question as a precondition of developing an account of possible responses to it. The second phase, sections 1.5–1.6, explains how a problem arises in our attempts to answer the question we have characterized, and surveys the various solutions that can be and have been offered.