INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY Paul Gerard Horrigan COPYRIGHT © 2002 By Paul Gerard Horrigan, Ph.D, All Rights Reserved. This HTML edition is provided free for noncommercial and educational use. 1 CONTENT 1. The Nature of Philosophy 3 2. Philosophy of Nature (Philosophy of Inanimate Nature) 25 3. Philosophical Psychology (Philosophy of Animate Nature) 30 4. Philosophy of Knowledge 64 5. Metaphysics 71 6. Philosophy of God 130 7. Ethics 178 Bibliography 200 2 CHAPTER 1 THE NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY 1.1. The Definition of Philosophy According to its etymology, the term “philosophy” means “love of wisdom.” At first, the early Greek thinkers had described themselves as “wise men” but tradition has it that, out of humility, Pythagoras had called himself a “philosopher” (philosophos) or “friend or lover of wisdom.” From then on, the term “philosopher” had replaced that of “wise man.” The tradition which credits Pythagoras for having been the originator and interpreter of the term “philosopher” is usually traced back to Heracleides Ponticus. In his Tusculanae Disputationes,[1] the Roman eclectic philosopher and master of oratory Cicero has left us what appears to be the essentials of Heracleides‟ account. He tells us that Pythagoras had once visited Leon who was the tyrant of Phlius, and when asked by his host what particular art or skill he possessed, he is said to have replied that he was a “philosopher” and thus, did not possess any particular practical skill. Then, Pythagoras gave what is called a “panegyric analogy” to explain what he meant by the term “philosopher”: “The life of man resembles a great festival celebrated....before the concourse from the whole of Greece. At this festival some people sought to win the glorious distinction of a crown; and others, again, were attracted by the prospect of material gain through buying and selling. But there were also a certain type of people, and that quite the best type of men, who were interested neither in competing, applauding nor in seeking gain, but who came solely for the sake of the spectacle itself, and, hence, closely watched what was done and how it was done. And so also we, as though we had come from some [1] CICERO, Tusculanae Disputationes, V, 3, 8-10. 3 city to a crowded festival, leaving in like fashion another life and another nature of being, entered upon this life. And some were slaves of ambition, and some were slaves of money. But there were a special few who, counting all else for nothing, closely scanned the nature of things. These gave themselves the name of „philosophers‟ (sapientiae studiosi) – and this is the meaning of the term „philosophers.‟ And just as at these festivals the men of the most exalted education looked on without any self-seeking intent, so too, in life the dispassionate contemplation of things and their rational apprehension (cognitio) or understanding by far surpasses all other pursuits.”[2] Philosophy begins in wonder. All men by nature desire to know,[3] and philosophizing begins with an attitude of wonder. Aristotle, in his Metaphysics, writes that “it is owing to wonder that men both now begin, and at first began, to philosophize. They wondered... about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and the stars, and about the origin of the universe. And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant. Hence, even the lover of myth in a sense is a lover of wisdom or a philosopher, for the myth, too, is composed of wonders. Therefore, since men philosophized in order to escape from ignorance, they were pursuing knowledge or science in order to know, and not for any utilitarian purpose...Evidently, then, we do not seek this kind of knowledge for the sake of any [2] CICERO, op. cit. See also: IAMBLICHUS, De Vita Pythagorica (or, De Vita Pythagorae) XII, 58 (31, 20-32, 22 ed. Deubner); IAMBLICHUS, Protrepticus, 53, 15 ff. (Pistelli); ATHENAEUS, Deipnosophistae, XI, 463DE. One should mention, however, that Diogenes Laertius credits this story to Sosicrates rather than to Heracleides Ponticus (Diogenis Laertii vitae philosophorum, VIII,8) and relates (ibid, I,12) that Pythagoras called himself a “philosopher” (philosophos) or “lover of wisdom” rather than a “wise man” because “no man is wise but God alone.” This brings to mind the thoughts of Plato, who, in his Phaedrus, writes: “Wise I may not call them (scil., those whose compositions are based on the knowledge of objective truth and who can defend or prove their compositions), for this is a great name which belongs to God alone. But „lovers of wisdom‟ is their proper and befitting title” (278D). [3] Cf. ARISTOTLE, Metaphysics, I, 1, 980a 1. 4 other advantage...we pursue it as the only free science, because it exists for its own sake.”[4] The philosopher is a lover of wisdom, one who seeks wisdom for its own sake and not for any other motive, for a person who seeks a certain thing for some other motive loves the motive more than the thing sought. Philosophy is, strictly speaking, knowledge sought for its own sake, for the sheer love of truth.[5] In the Protrepticus, Aristotle holds that “it is by no means strange that philosophic wisdom on first sight should appear to be devoid of immediate practical usefulness and, as a matter of fact, might not at all prove to be advantageous. For we call philosophic wisdom not advantageous in a practical sense of the term, but good. It ought to be pursued, not for the sake of anything else, but rather exclusively for its own sake. For as we journey to the games at Olympia for the spectacle itself – for the spectacle as such is worth more than „much money‟ – and as we watch the Dionysia not in order to derive some material profit from the actors – as a matter of fact, we spend money on them – and as there are many more spectacles we ought to prefer to great riches: so, too, the viewing and contemplation of the universe is to be valued above all other things commonly considered to be useful in a practical sense. For, most certainly, it would make little sense were we to take pains to watch men imitating women or slaves, or fighting or running, but not think it proper to view or contemplate, free of all charges, the nature and true reality of everything that exists.”[6] [4] ARISTOTLE, Metaphysics, 982b 12ff. See also ARISTOTLE, Rhetoric 1371a 30ff: “Learning things and wondering about things, as a rule, is pleasant. For wondering implies the desire to learn and to know. In this the object of wonder is an object of desire...” ; PLATO, Theaetetus 155D: wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder.” [5] Philosophy, strictly speaking, is first philosophy, the speculative or theoretical science of metaphysics. [6] ARISTOTLE, Protrepticus, now lost except for some fragments (I. Düring designates this “fragment” quoted above as B 44. See: I DÜRING, Aristotle‟s Protrepticus: An Attempt at Reconstruction, Göteborg, 1961, p. 67). The fragment is found in a passage in Iamblichus‟ own Protrepticus. 5 The human person yearns for truth. He is naturally inclined to this end by the fact that he is a rational being. Philosophy is a quest for a profound knowledge about reality that goes above and beyond (but not against) spontaneous, common sense knowledge. A certain knowledge about reality, including certain ultimate truths, can be attained by man even without having recourse to philosophical, scientific reasoning, so long as he is not corrupted by false ideologies and erroneous philosophies that go against the certainties of common sense such as absolute idealism and Marxism which negate, for example, the principle of non-contradiction, a self-evident truth. The natural spontaneous knowledge of man, uncorrupted by such positions and by bad moral habits which tend to blind man from a correct perception of reality, is indeed capable of affirming the existence of the things in the world around him, of being certain of the immortality of his own soul and of the souls of other people around him (whom he affirms as really existing), and of acknowledging the reality of a First Cause of the universe. Some basic convictions of spontaneous knowledge include: the fact that one thing cannot be another thing; the consciousness of one‟s own identity; the fact that there exist other human persons who are similar to oneself ; the fact that there are living beings and non-living beings; that there is such a thing as death, that man becomes old and dies; the fact that there is a distinction between reality and a dream; the fact that there are just actions and unjust actions; the fact that man can tell the truth or tell a lie; that fact that life is a value, something that is desirable; and that fact that man has free will. The list of these convictions can, of course, go on. The various philosophical systems that go against the certainties of spontaneous common sense knowledge (such as the systems of rationalism, monism and idealism) should be held suspect. If a philosopher, for example, tells you to doubt that extra-mental reality exists or that a cat and a man are really one substance, he should be reprimanded for such a brazen defiance of common sense. 6 Philosophy studies the realities affirmed by common sense[7] in a scientific way, giving this pre-scientific knowledge greater precision, making distinctions and clarifications, and by describing and classifying its certainties. For example, let us take the case of the existence of God.