DOCSLIB.ORG

A Study of Plato's Cratylus Geoffrey Scott Ab Gwell

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Study of Plato's Cratylus Geoffrey Scott Ab Gwell Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Spring 2010 A Study of Plato's Cratylus Geoffrey Scott aB gwell Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Recommended Citation Bagwell, G. (2010). A Study of Plato's Cratylus (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/ etd/259 This Immediate Access is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A STUDY OF PLATO’S CRATYLUS A Dissertation Submitted to the McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts Duquesne University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Geoffrey Bagwell May 2010 A STUDY OF PLATO’S CRATYLUS By Geoffrey Bagwell Approved April 6, 2010 _________________________________ ____________________________________ Ronald M. Polansky, Ph.D. Patrick L. Miller, Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy Assistant Professor of Philosophy Director Committee Member _________________________________ ____________________________________ L. Michael Harrington, Ph.D. James Swindal, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy Associate Professor of Philosophy Committee Member Department Chair __________________________________ Christopher Duncan, Ph.D. Dean, The McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts iii ABSTRACT A STUDY OF PLATO’S CRATYLUS By Geoffrey Bagwell May 2010 Dissertation supervised by Ronald M. Polansky, Ph.D. In the last century, philosophers turned their attention to language. One place they have looked for clues about its nature is Plato’s Cratylus, which considers whether names are naturally or conventionally correct. The dialogue is a source of annoyance to many commentators because it does not take a clear position on the central question. At times, it argues that language is conventional, and, at other times, defends the view that language is natural. This lack of commitment has led to a long-standing dispute over the outcome of the dialogue. I argue that the Cratylus provides no clear resolution to this problem because it presupposes certain unexamined metaphysical commitments about the nature of reality, which are in need of thorough investigation. iv DEDICATION For Jenny and Lucy v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2 Part One: That it is ............................................................................................................12 1: Conventionalism (383a4–385e3).............................................................................. 13 2: Truth and Falsehood (385b2–d1).............................................................................. 28 3: A Craft of Naming (385e3–390e3)........................................................................... 37 Part Two: What it is .......................................................................................................... 60 4: Poetry and Inspiration (391a–397a).......................................................................... 61 5: An Examination of Names (397a2–421c1) .............................................................. 91 6: Imitation (421c2–427c9)......................................................................................... 110 Part Three: Why it is....................................................................................................... 134 7: Quality Control (427c9–435c9).............................................................................. 135 8: Education (435c9–440d4)....................................................................................... 161 9: Hermogenes’ Name (440d4–e7)............................................................................. 180 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 190 vi Οὔθ ἐκνῦ ἀιιὰ ηνῦ ιόγνπ ἀθνύζαληαο ὁκνινγεῖλ ζνθόλ ἐζηὶλ ἑλ πάληα εἶλαη -Heraclitus 1 Introduction Plato‘s Cratylus is a source of constant irritation for commentators. The etymologies that occupy more than half of the dialogue are the principal causes of this because they appear to serve no purpose, except to tickle Plato‘s bizarre sense of humor. For this reason, most commentators have concentrated on the beginning and the end of the dialogue (see especially Robinson 1955, Kretzmann 1971, Fine 1977, Schofield 1982, Williams 1982, and Mackenzie 1986). The Cratylus opens with Socrates trying to arbitrate a dispute between Hermogenes and Cratylus over the correctness of names (ὀλόκαηνο ὀξζόηεηα, 383a–391a), and closes with Socrates suggesting an alternative to Cratylus‘ view that learning about names is the best way to learn about nature (438a–440e).1 The relationship, however, between these disputes is murky, and few commentators have tried to clarify it because they ignore the etymologies (cf. Ackrill 1997, 34).2 Yet such neglect 1 Commentators largely agree ―name‖ should translate ὄλνκα. They disagree about what ὀλόκαηα are. A few commentators think ὀλόκαηα are ―predicates‖ (Sachs 1878, 63–4; Luce 1969, 222–3; Lorenz and Mittelstrass 1967, 4). Others restrict it to nouns (Robinson 1955, 101–3; Fine 1977, n. 14; Annas 1982, n. 26). I follow Ketchum 1979, 147, who argues that the meaning of ὄλνκα expands and contracts over the course of the dialogue. However, Ketchum believes that Socrates‘ use of ὄλνκα in his discussion with Hermogenes is incompatible with his use of it in his discussion with Cratylus. I suggest that the meaning of ὄλνκα is gradually refined in the course of the dialogue (cf. 391b3). This refinement suggests that Socrates and Hermogenes broadly construed the meaning of ὄλνκα and try to clarify it. This is most evident in Socrates‘ etymological demonstration, where ὄλνκα comes to mean something like ―predicate‖ (see Luce 1969, 222–3). 2 It may be that there is no relationship between the opening and closing disputes. Instead, they may be two separate issues. If so, a different though similar problem would arise: it would become unclear why these disputes should appear in the same dialogue. 2 prevents them from learning how Socrates settles the dispute over the correctness of names. Given their prominence in the Cratylus, the etymologies must play some part in Socrates‘ arbitration of the dispute between Hermogenes and Cratylus over the correctness of names. What role, then, do they play? Several commentators have recently studied the etymologies in an effort to discern their purpose (See Sedley 2003, Barney 2001, and Baxter 1992. For a summary and criticism of these interpretations, see Thomas 2007. For criticism specific to Sedley, see Verlinsky 2003, 75). Timothy Baxter 1992, §4, argues that the etymologies are meant to condemn the practice of etymology used by various pre-Socratics, sophists and poets. He thinks that the etymologies ―attack a wide variety of targets because [Plato] is battling against what he sees as a culture-wide mistaken belief in the power of names.‖ His long list of targets includes figures like Protagoras and Prodicus, whom Socrates mentions (385e–d; 383b; Cf. Weingartner 1970, 24). The chief success of Baxter‘s claim is that it explains the length of the analysis. Socrates examines so many names because there are so many sophists, poets, and naturalists who overvalue the importance of names (Baxter 1992, 87). David Sedley offers us an entirely different kind of interpretation. He disagrees fundamentally with the premise that the etymologies are a parody. Instead, they represent an ―exegetically‖ correct attempt to establish a science of etymology (2003, 28–30). Such etymologies would enable a person to learn about names. According to Sedley, however, the etymologies are not ―philosophically‖ correct. If they were, they would enable a person to learn about the things named. The fact that the etymologies are ―exegetically,‖ but not ―philosophically‖ correct means that they enable a person to learn about names, 3 but not about the things named. This argument fits nicely with Socrates‘ attack on the view that learning about names is the best way to learn about nature (435d ff.). Nevertheless, it is unclear how the claim that the examination is ―exegetically‖ correct fits with the overall argument of the dialogue. Sedley does not try to show how this ―exegetically‖ correct examination of names fits into the Cratylus as a whole. Instead, he builds a case for his interpretation by examining Socrates‘ analysis of names in other dialogues to show that they confirm his view (cf. 2003, 25–51). This approach may be enough to justify the claim that Plato takes etymology seriously enough to develop it into a science but it is not enough to explain what such a science might do for the Cratylus. Barney‘s interpretation is the only one that tries to explain the role of the etymologies in terms of Socrates‘ arbitration of the dispute between Cratylus and Hermogenes.3 She agrees with Baxter that the intention behind the etymologies is to parody the practices of individuals who overvalue names. She, however, disagrees that the etymologies target anyone who overvalues names. She argues that the etymologies are a ―rational reconstruction,‖ ―an inspiration episode,‖ and an ―agonistic‖ display of Cratylus‘
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CRATYLUS by Plato Translated by Benjamin Jowett the Project Gutenberg Ebook of Cratylus, by Plato
    CRATYLUS By Plato Translated by Benjamin Jowett The Project Gutenberg EBook of Cratylus, by Plato INTRODUCTION. The Cratylus has always been a source of perplexity to the student of Plato. While in fancy and humour, and perfection of style and metaphysical originality, this dialogue may be ranked with the best of the Platonic writings, there has been an uncertainty about the motive of the piece, which interpreters have hitherto not succeeded in dispelling. We need not suppose that Plato used words in order to conceal his thoughts, or that he would have been unintelligible to an educated contemporary. In the Phaedrus and Euthydemus we also find a difficulty in determining the precise aim of the author. Plato wrote satires in the form of dialogues, and his meaning, like that of other satirical writers, has often slept in the ear of posterity. Two causes may be assigned for this obscurity: 1st, the subtlety and allusiveness of this species of composition; 2nd, the difficulty of reproducing a state of life and literature which has passed away. A satire is unmeaning unless we can place ourselves back among the persons and thoughts of the age in which it was written. Had the treatise of Antisthenes upon words, or the speculations of Cratylus, or some other Heracleitean of the fourth century B.C., on the nature of language been preserved to us; or if we had lived at the time, and been 'rich enough to attend the fifty-drachma course of Prodicus,' we should have understood Plato better, and many points which are now attributed to the extravagance of Socrates' humour would have been found, like the allusions of Aristophanes in the Clouds, to have gone home to the sophists and grammarians of the day.
    [Show full text]
  • EUTHYPHRO and the LOGIC of MIASMA Maureen ECKERT
    EUTHYPHRO AND THE LOGIC OF MIASMA Maureen ECKERT ABSTRACT: Euthyphro is a Socratic interlocutor claiming enormous religious expertise, while his portrayal in the eponymous dialogue raises questions the reliability of his beliefs. This paper closely examines how Euthyphro justifies his case against his father, identifying an argument that relies on the concept of miasma (pollution). In so far as miasma is considered in isolation, Euthyphro has a good argument. Unfortunately, there is more than miasma at stake when considering why one could prosecute one’s own parent. Introducing the other relevant concepts, honor and shame, we find his case reflects a dilemma at the source of ancient Greek religious thought. It would not be possible for Euthyphro or anyone else to know what to do in his case. KEYWORDS: Plato, Euthyphro, Dilemma, Miasma, Pollution This is why even now I go around in accordance with the God, seeking out and investigating both citizens and foreigners, any whom I suppose are wise, and when someone doesn’t seem so to me, I make it clear they are not wise, assisting the god. (Appology 23b)1 Euthyphro is a classic Socratic interlocutor, one who claims expertise in religion and is then shown that he does not know what he claims to know. Plato’s vivid characterization of Euthyphro’s variety of quirks, his claims of superiority, his lack of self-awareness, his susceptibility to Socrates’ mocking flattery, the outrageousness of his case, make it easy to lose sight of any philosophically significant elements contained in his claims. While he exemplifies the type of epistemic hubris Socrates is out to cure, it would be a mistake to write him off ad hominem.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roles of Solon in Plato's Dialogues
    The Roles of Solon in Plato’s Dialogues Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Samuel Ortencio Flores, M.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Bruce Heiden, Advisor Anthony Kaldellis Richard Fletcher Greg Anderson Copyrighy by Samuel Ortencio Flores 2013 Abstract This dissertation is a study of Plato’s use and adaptation of an earlier model and tradition of wisdom based on the thought and legacy of the sixth-century archon, legislator, and poet Solon. Solon is cited and/or quoted thirty-four times in Plato’s dialogues, and alluded to many more times. My study shows that these references and allusions have deeper meaning when contextualized within the reception of Solon in the classical period. For Plato, Solon is a rhetorically powerful figure in advancing the relatively new practice of philosophy in Athens. While Solon himself did not adequately establish justice in the city, his legacy provided a model upon which Platonic philosophy could improve. Chapter One surveys the passing references to Solon in the dialogues as an introduction to my chapters on the dialogues in which Solon is a very prominent figure, Timaeus- Critias, Republic, and Laws. Chapter Two examines Critias’ use of his ancestor Solon to establish his own philosophic credentials. Chapter Three suggests that Socrates re- appropriates the aims and themes of Solon’s political poetry for Socratic philosophy. Chapter Four suggests that Solon provides a legislative model which Plato reconstructs in the Laws for the philosopher to supplant the role of legislator in Greek thought.
    [Show full text]
  • From Cratylus to Aristotle
    From Cratylus to Aristotle Article by Martha Keltz Heraclitus and Cratylus – From the Sixth to the Fifth Century Before Christ Heraclitus, Cratylus and the Essenes “The name of John is connected with the city of Ephesus, and equipped with Imaginative insight into world history, he is continually referred back along an inner path to the ancient temple of Diana of Ephesus, and confronts these significant words: 'In the primal Beginning was the Logos. And the Logos was with God. And the Logos was a God. “ ...When the evangelist could read about Ephesus in the Akasha Record, could read that for which his heart thirsted, [he found] the right form in which to clothe what he wanted to say to humanity concerning the mystery of the beginning of the world.” - Rudolf Steiner , Mystery Centers. “Thus we show how Eabani [from The Epic of Gilgamesh ], in the incarnation between the life as Eabani and the life as Aristotle, was able under the influence of the ancient Mystery teachings, into which forces streamed from the supersensible worlds, to imbibe the principles which in certain Mystery schools were essential to the further development of the human soul... In such Mystery schools the feelings and impulses paramountly awakened were those capable of eradicating every trace of egoism from the soul... In the Mysteries to which I am here referring, the soul had to learn to feel pity and compassion for everything human, for everything cosmic – compassion born from the overcoming of the physical plane.” - Occult History . The life between Eabani and Aristotle was that of Cratylus.
    [Show full text]
  • Socrates II PHIL301 the Euthyphro
    Socrates II PHIL301 The Euthyphro - Setting and cast o Socrates encounters Euthyphro as both proceed to court. Socrates is to hear whether he will be indicted. Euthyphro is prosecuting his father for murder. o Socrates, we think, is faithfully depicted by Plato, in this dialogue. o Euthyphro is (evidently) a “mantis”, a kind of prophet of conservative, traditional religious views. He takes the stories of the Theogony as literal truth, for example. See RAGP, p. 97, n. 1. o Euthyphro takes his task to be one of “piety”, to prosecute a murder, which the gods disapprove of as unjust. It is unclear whether he is right to do so, given the circumstances: the murdered man is himself clearly a murderer; Euthyphro’s father has captured and bound the murderer, who subsequently dies accidentally, though owing also to the father’s negligence. Is it truly pious to prosecute the father? o Note the apparent tension between two sets of moral obligations – those to one’s family and other intimates, and a more general, universal set, 4b-c. o The elements of the drama bring out the role of Socrates as moral gadfly. It is all too common for persons like Euthyphro to act on a presumed knowledge of piety (or justice, etc.), where their actions in fact reflect significant or even profound ignorance. o Moral Risk: In this connection, see 4e and 16d, where Socrates expresses the primary moral concern with respect to ignorance: if we do not know the moral truth, we risk committing an injustice. Compare Apology 28a, 30d, 36c, 38a, 38e, and esp.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory of Forms 1 Theory of Forms
    Theory of Forms 1 Theory of Forms Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1] [2] [3] asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.[4] When used in this sense, the word form is often capitalized.[5] Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge; thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory, Plato's own views are much in doubt.[6] Plato spoke of Forms in formulating a possible solution to the problem of universals. Forms Terminology: the Forms and the forms The English word "form" may be used to translate two distinct concepts that concerned Plato—the outward "form" or appearance of something, and "Form" in a new, technical nature, that never ...assumes a form like that of any of the things which enter into her; ... But the forms which enter into and go out of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their patterns in a wonderful and inexplicable manner.... The objects that are seen, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms. In the allegory of the cave expressed in Republic, the things that are ordinarily perceived in the world are characterized as shadows of the real things, which are not perceived directly. That which the observer understands when he views the world mimics the archetypes of the many types and properties (that is, of universals) of things observed.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Arrangement of the Platonic Dialogues
    Ryan C. Fowler 25th Hour On the Arrangement of the Platonic Dialogues I. Thrasyllus a. Diogenes Laertius (D.L.), Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers 3.56: “But, just as long ago in tragedy the chorus was the only actor, and afterwards, in order to give the chorus breathing space, Thespis devised a single actor, Aeschylus a second, Sophocles a third, and thus tragedy was completed, so too with philosophy: in early times it discoursed on one subject only, namely physics, then Socrates added the second subject, ethics, and Plato the third, dialectics, and so brought philosophy to perfection. Thrasyllus says that he [Plato] published his dialogues in tetralogies, like those of the tragic poets. Thus they contended with four plays at the Dionysia, the Lenaea, the Panathenaea and the festival of Chytri. Of the four plays the last was a satiric drama; and the four together were called a tetralogy.” b. Characters or types of dialogues (D.L. 3.49): 1. instructive (ὑφηγητικός) A. theoretical (θεωρηµατικόν) a. physical (φυσικόν) b. logical (λογικόν) B. practical (πρακτικόν) a. ethical (ἠθικόν) b. political (πολιτικόν) 2. investigative (ζητητικός) A. training the mind (γυµναστικός) a. obstetrical (µαιευτικός) b. tentative (πειραστικός) B. victory in controversy (ἀγωνιστικός) a. critical (ἐνδεικτικός) b. subversive (ἀνατρεπτικός) c. Thrasyllan categories of the dialogues (D.L. 3.50-1): Physics: Timaeus Logic: Statesman, Cratylus, Parmenides, and Sophist Ethics: Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium, Menexenus, Clitophon, the Letters, Philebus, Hipparchus, Rivals Politics: Republic, the Laws, Minos, Epinomis, Atlantis Obstetrics: Alcibiades 1 and 2, Theages, Lysis, Laches Tentative: Euthyphro, Meno, Io, Charmides and Theaetetus Critical: Protagoras Subversive: Euthydemus, Gorgias, and Hippias 1 and 2 :1 d.
    [Show full text]
  • Sport: a Theory of Adjudication
    SPORT: A THEORY OF ADJUDICATION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Bogdan Ciomaga, M.A. The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor William Morgan, Adviser Professor Donald Hubin ________________________ Adviser Professor Sarah Fields Graduate Program in Education Copyright by Bogdan Ciomaga 2007 ABSTRACT The main issue discussed in this work is the nature and structure of the process of adjudication, that is, the process by which referees make decisions in sport that possess normative import and force. The current dominant theory of adjudication in sport philosophy is interpretivism, which argues that adjudication is not primarily a matter of mechanically applying the rules of the game, but rather of applying rational principles that put the game in its best light. Most interpretivists are also realists, which means that they hold that the normative standing of adjudicative principles is independent of the beliefs and/or arguments of individuals or communities. A closer look at certain examples of sports and referees decisions supports a different approach to adjudication, called conventionalism, which claims that besides the rules of the game, referees are bound to follow certain conventions established by the athletic community. This conclusion is supported, among other things, by considerations concerning the nature of sport, and especially considerations that take into account the mutual beliefs held by the participants in the game. By following Marmor’s argument that conventions are best seen not as solutions to coordination problems but as constitutive features of autonomous practices like sport, I argue that a conventionalist theory of adjudication in sport has more explanatory force than interpretivist theories.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Athenian Democracy.Pdf
    Rethinking Athenian Democracy A dissertation presented by Daniela Louise Cammack to The Department of Government in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Political Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts January 2013 © 2013 Daniela Cammack All rights reserved. Professor Richard Tuck Daniela Cammack Abstract Conventional accounts of classical Athenian democracy represent the assembly as the primary democratic institution in the Athenian political system. This looks reasonable in the light of modern democracy, which has typically developed through the democratization of legislative assemblies. Yet it conflicts with the evidence at our disposal. Our ancient sources suggest that the most significant and distinctively democratic institution in Athens was the courts, where decisions were made by large panels of randomly selected ordinary citizens with no possibility of appeal. This dissertation reinterprets Athenian democracy as “dikastic democracy” (from the Greek dikastēs, “judge”), defined as a mode of government in which ordinary citizens rule principally through their control of the administration of justice. It begins by casting doubt on two major planks in the modern interpretation of Athenian democracy: first, that it rested on a conception of the “wisdom of the multitude” akin to that advanced by epistemic democrats today, and second that it was “deliberative,” meaning that mass discussion of political matters played a defining role. The first plank rests largely on an argument made by Aristotle in support of mass political participation, which I show has been comprehensively misunderstood. The second rests on the interpretation of the verb “bouleuomai” as indicating speech, but I suggest that it meant internal reflection in both the courts and the assembly.
    [Show full text]
  • Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece
    Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Ancient Greek Philosophy but didn’t Know Who to Ask Edited by Patricia F. O’Grady MEET THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ANCIENT GREECE Dedicated to the memory of Panagiotis, a humble man, who found pleasure when reading about the philosophers of Ancient Greece Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece Everything you always wanted to know about Ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask Edited by PATRICIA F. O’GRADY Flinders University of South Australia © Patricia F. O’Grady 2005 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Patricia F. O’Grady has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi.ed as the editor of this work. Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company Wey Court East Suite 420 Union Road 101 Cherry Street Farnham Burlington Surrey, GU9 7PT VT 05401-4405 England USA Ashgate website: http://www.ashgate.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Meet the philosophers of ancient Greece: everything you always wanted to know about ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask 1. Philosophy, Ancient 2. Philosophers – Greece 3. Greece – Intellectual life – To 146 B.C. I. O’Grady, Patricia F. 180 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Meet the philosophers of ancient Greece: everything you always wanted to know about ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask / Patricia F.
    [Show full text]
  • Like a Pendulum in Time, the History of the Human Conception of Justice Has
    Rugeles: What is Justice? Rugeles 1 What is Justice? An Investigation of Leo Strauss’s Natural Right Proposition Laura Marino Rugeles, Vancouver Island University (Editor’s note: The Agora editorial committee has awarded Laura Marino Rugeles the Kendall North Award for the best essay in the 2010 issue Agora.) of the The main concern of this essay is Leo Strauss’s presentation of the idea of justice in Natural Right and History. Although Strauss’s project appears to have the character of a historical account rather than a straightforward argumentative work about justice, it is reasonable to presume that the form of his historical reconstruction contains an argument in itself. Stewart Umphrey has said that “Strauss does not say what justice is, nor does he preach justice or cry out for spiritual renewal” (32). Instead, Strauss’s suggested argument is a “carefully considered hypothesis couched in further questions-like Socrates’ hypothesis that virtue is knowledge-and hypotheses of this kind are doctrines in a sense; they tell us where to keep looking” (Umphrey 33). I believe this claim to be fundamentally correct. In fact, Strauss’s work leaves us with projects of investigation that are pivotal to the question of justice. These projects will reveal themselves after a critical examination of Strauss’ historical account. Justice is an idea that each person can understand but hardly all can agree on. In fact, “the disagreement regarding the principles of justice... seems to reveal genuine perplexity aroused by a divination or insufficient grasp of natural right” (Strauss 100). That is indeed one of the most stubborn problems in human history.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Philosophy
    An Introduction to Philosophy W. Russ Payne Bellevue College Copyright (cc by nc 4.0) 2015 W. Russ Payne Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document with attribution under the terms of Creative Commons: Attribution Noncommercial 4.0 International or any later version of this license. A copy of the license is found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 1 Contents Introduction ………………………………………………. 3 Chapter 1: What Philosophy Is ………………………….. 5 Chapter 2: How to do Philosophy ………………….……. 11 Chapter 3: Ancient Philosophy ………………….………. 23 Chapter 4: Rationalism ………….………………….……. 38 Chapter 5: Empiricism …………………………………… 50 Chapter 6: Philosophy of Science ………………….…..… 58 Chapter 7: Philosophy of Mind …………………….……. 72 Chapter 8: Love and Happiness …………………….……. 79 Chapter 9: Meta Ethics …………………………………… 94 Chapter 10: Right Action ……………………...…………. 108 Chapter 11: Social Justice …………………………...…… 120 2 Introduction The goal of this text is to present philosophy to newcomers as a living discipline with historical roots. While a few early chapters are historically organized, my goal in the historical chapters is to trace a developmental progression of thought that introduces basic philosophical methods and frames issues that remain relevant today. Later chapters are topically organized. These include philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, areas where philosophy has shown dramatic recent progress. This text concludes with four chapters on ethics, broadly construed. I cover traditional theories of right action in the third of these. Students are first invited first to think about what is good for themselves and their relationships in a chapter of love and happiness. Next a few meta-ethical issues are considered; namely, whether they are moral truths and if so what makes them so.
    [Show full text]