ARISTOTLE

The Process of Change: The Four Causes

In the world around us we see things constantly changing. Change is one of the basic facts of our
experience. For Aristotle the word change meant many things, including motion, growth, decay;
generation, and corruption. Some of these changes are natural, whereas others are the products of
human art. Things are always taking on new form; new life is born and statues are made. Because
change always involves taking on new form, we can ask several questions about the process of change.
Of anything, Aristotle says, we can ask four questions, namely (1) What is it?⑵ What is 让 made of?⑶
By what is it made? and (4) For what end is it made? The four responses to these questions represent
Aristotle's four causes. Although the word cause refers in modem use primarily to an event prior to an
effect, for Aristotle it meant an explanation. His four causes, therefore, represent a broad pattern or
framework for the total explanation of anything or everything. Taking an object of art, for example, the
four causes might be (1) a statue (2) of marble (3) by a sculptor (4) for decoration.

Nature doesn't have reasons like humans do, but it does have built-in goals or tendencies.
These goals guide how things in nature act or change. So, even though nature doesn't think like
we do, it still follows patterns and behaviors that lead to certain outcomes. For this reason seeds
sprout, and roots go down (not up!), and plants grow. In this process of change, plants move toward
their "end," that is, their distinctive function or way of being. In nature change will involve these same
four elements. Aristotle's four causes are therefore (1) the formal cause, which determines what a thing
is, (2) the material cause, or that out of which 让 is made, (3) the efficient cause, by what a thing is
made, and (4) thefinal cause, the "end" for which it is made.

Aristotle saw life as the core of nature. Everything is always changing, either growing or fading
away. Reproduction, to him, was a prime example of how living things have the power to make
new life. He believed that everything that comes into existence does so through some action
and from something else, and it becomes something specific. From a biological perspective,
Aristotle thought that form and matter are always together. When new life is created, it starts
with one parent passing on its form and another parent providing the matter to carry that form.
So, according to Aristotle, change doesn't happen by bringing formless stuff and adding form to
it. Instead, change always involves something that already has both form and matter,
transforming into something new or different.

Potentiality and Actuality

Aristotle believed that everything in the world is constantly changing and striving towards its purpose or
end. This striving can be towards external things, like when someone builds a house, or towards fulfilling
internal aspects of our nature, like thinking as a human being.
He introduced the idea of potentiality and actuality to explain these processes of change. For example,
an acorn has the potential to become a tree, but it's not actually a tree yet. The change from potentiality
to actuality is fundamental. But the chief significance of this distinction is that Aristotle argues for the
priority of actuality over potentiality. In simpler terms, something can only become actual if there's
already something actual to begin with. For instance, before there can be a child with the potential to
become an adult, there must first be an actual adult.

Aristotle observed different levels of being in nature, such as the relationship between a child and an
adult or an acorn and a tree. He concluded that for there to be potential things, there must already exist
something actual. This reasoning led him to propose the existence of a Being that is pure actuality,
without any potentiality, at the highest level of being.

Since change is a kind of motion, Aristotle saw the visible world as one composed of things in motion.
But motion, a type of change, involves potentiality. Things are potentially in motion but must be moved
by something that is actually in motion.

The Unmoved Mover

For Aristotle the Unmoved Mover is the ultimate cause of all change in the natural world. But he didn't
see it as a starting point of motion or as a creator like in religious beliefs later on. From his previous
distinction between potentiality and actuality, He thought that to understand why things change, we
need to think about something already real, not just potentially real. So, there must be something purely
actual without any potentiality behind it. This mover isn't a powerful force pushing things around, like
when we say God created the world with intention. That would imply potentiality, like God potentially
being able to create before actually doing it. In simpler terms, Aristotle's Unmoved Mover is more like
the ultimate reason behind everything changing in nature, but not like a powerful force causing it all to
happen.

Aristotle's idea of the Unmoved Mover is a way to explain the fact of motion. He believed that
everything in nature has a purpose and strives to fulfill it. This striving leads to all the big processes we
see around us. Aristotle thought of the Unmoved Mover as the reason behind all this motion. It
represents the actual and eternal principle of motion, without any potentiality. So, according to
Aristotle, there was never a time when things weren't moving and changing. This means he didn't
believe in a moment of creation in time.

Aristotle used metaphorical language to explain the Unmoved Mover. He compared it to a beloved who
moves someone just by the power of attraction, not by force. In simpler terms, the Unmoved Mover is
like a guiding force that attracts things towards their natural ends. He also saw the Unmoved Mover as
the final cause, like how the form of an adult is in a child, guiding their growth towards a fixed end. By
being this final cause, the Unmoved Mover becomes the efficient cause of the world, inspiring things to
strive towards their natural goals. While Aristotle's idea of the Unmoved Mover is a scientific principle, it
also carries some religious meanings. Centuries later, especially through the work of Aquinas, this idea
was transformed into the philosophical concept of the Christian God.
 ETHICS

Aristotle believed that just like everything else in nature, humans have a specific
purpose or function to fulfill. He begins his Nicomachean Ethics by saying that "every art and
every inquiry; and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good." . So, the
fundamental question in ethics becomes “What is the good at which human behavior
aims?” Contrary to Plato, who believed that the ultimate good is an abstract Form
separate from the world and individuals, Aristotle thought that the principle of
good is inherent within each person. He believed that by studying human nature,
we can discover this principle, and it can be achieved through actual behavior in
our daily lives.

Aristotle acknowledges that discussions about ethics may not be precise due to
the variability and potential for error in human behavior. However, he argues that
ideas of right and wrong are not merely conventional but rooted in the nature of
things.

In simpler terms, Aristotle sought to find the basis of morality by understanding

human nature and how it shapes our behavior. He believed that the good is not
something abstract and distant but is embedded within us and can be understood
through observation and reflection on our actions and their consequences.

or,

Aristotle's ethical philosophy centers around the idea that every human action
aims at some good, and the ultimate good is inherent within each person. Unlike
Plato, who believed in an abstract Form of the good, Aristotle thought that the
principle of good is found within human nature itself. He believed that by
studying human behavior, we can discover this principle and achieve it through
our daily actions. Aristotle emphasized the importance of understanding human
nature to determine what is morally right or wrong, asserting that morality is not
merely a matter of convention but rooted in the nature of things. Ultimately, he
believed that the good is not something distant but embedded within us and can
be understood through observation and reflection on our actions and their
consequences.
Types of "Ends"

Aristotle starts his ethical theory by talking about different kinds of goals or ends
that people have when they do things. He says there are two main types of ends:
(1) instrumental ends (acts that are done as means for other ends) and (2) intrinsic ends (acts that are
done for their own sake).

For example, in activities related to war, various steps are involved. The bridle
maker creates a bridle, serving as a means for the horseman to guide the horse in
battle. Similarly, a carpenter constructs barracks, providing shelter for soldiers,
thus fulfilling their function.
, for example, in activities connected with war. When we consider step by step what is involved in the
total activity of a war, we find, Aristotle says, that there is a series of special kinds of acts. There is, for
one thing, the art of the bridle maker. When the bridle is finished, its maker has achieved his end as a
bridle maker. But the bridle is a means for the horseman to guide his horse in battle. Also, a carpenter
builds a barrack, and when it is completed, he has fulfilled his function as a carpenter. The barracks also
fulfill their function when they provide shelterfor the soldiers. But the ends here achieved by the
carpenter and the building are not intrinsic ends in themselves but are only instrumental in housing
soldiers until they move on to their next stage of action. Similarly; the function of the builder of ships is
fulfilled when the ship is successfully launched, but again, this end is in turn a means for transporting the
soldiers to the field of battle. The doctor fulfills his function to the extent that he keeps the soldiers in
good health. But the "end" of health in this case becomes a "means" for effective fighting. The officer
aims at victory in battle, but victory is the means to peace. Peace itself, though sometimes taken
mistakenly as the final end of war, is the means for creating the conditions under which people can fulfill
theirfunction as human beings.

When we discover what people aim at, not as bridle makers, carpenters, doctors, or generals but as
humans, we will then arrive at actionfor its own sake, and for which all other activity is only a means.
This, Aristotle says, "must be the Good of Humanity." How should we understand the word good? Like
Plato before him, Aristotle tied the word good to the spe&al function of a thing. A hammer is good if it
does what hammers are expected to do. A carpenter is good if he or she fulfills his or her function as a
builder. This would be true of all the crafts and professions. But here Aristotle distinguishes between a
person's craft or profession and a person's activity as a human. For example, Aristotle felt that being a
good doctor did not mean the same thing as being a good person. Someone could be a good doctor
without being a good person, and vice versa. There are two different functions here, the function of
doctoring and the function of acting as a person. To discover the good at which a person should aim,
Aristotle said we must discover the distinctive function of human nature. The good person, according to
Aristotle, is the person who is fulfilling his or her function as a human being.

The Function of Human Beings

Aristotle was essentially asking what makes humans unique and what defines our purpose or
function. He argued that just as carpenters and cobblers have specific tasks or functions,
humans must have their own distinct activity. He ruled out mere life and sensation as unique to
humans, since plants and animals share these characteristics.

Instead, he suggested that our distinctive activity lies in our rationality—the ability to think,
reason, and make choices based on principles. According to Aristotle, the human good, or
fulfillment, is found in living a life guided by virtue, which involves rational control over our
irrational impulses.

Since a person's function as a human being means the proper functioning of the soul, Aristotle soughtto
describe the nature ofthe soul. The human soul is the form ofthe human body. As such, the soul refers
to the total person. Accordingly; Aristotle said that the soul has two parts: the irrational and the rational.
The irrational part is composed of two subparts. First, as with plants, a vegetative component gives us
the capacity to take in nutrition and sustain our biological lives. Second, as with animals, an appetitive
component gives us the capacity to experience desires, which in turn prompts us to move around to
fulfill those desires. Both of these irrational parts of soul tend to oppose and resist the rational part. The
conflict between the rational and irrational elements in human beings is what raises the issue of
moraRty.

In simpler terms, Aristotle believed that being a good person involves consistently making
rational choices that align with virtue, rather than sporadically performing good deeds.
Happiness, he argued, comes from living a life characterized by virtuous actions, much like how
spring isn't defined by one swallow or one day, but by a continuous pattern.

Happiness as the End

Aristotle argues that human actions should aim at achieving their proper end. While people
commonly pursue pleasure, wealth, and honor, Aristotle suggests that these goals, though
valuable in some way, are not the ultimate purpose of human life. Aristotle argues that for
something to be the ultimate goal, it must fulfill certain criteria: it should be self-sufficient,
final, always desirable for its own sake, and achievable by people. According to him, happiness
meets all these requirements. He believes that everyone ultimately seeks happiness because it
fulfills our unique function as human beings. In other words, happiness is essentially
synonymous with good because, like good, it represents the fulfillment of our distinctive
function. Aristotle describes happiness as the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue or
excellence. In simpler terms, achieving happiness involves living virtuously and excellently.To
attain happiness, Aristotle suggests that the soul must be guided by reason. This means that the
rational part of the soul should control the irrational part. When we look at the appetitive
aspect of our soul, which involves desires and passions, we see that it is influenced by external
factors like objects and people. There are two fundamental reactions of the appetitive part:
love (or desire) and hate (or aversion). Love drives us to seek things and people, while hate
leads us to avoid or even destroy them. However, these passions can easily become excessive if
left unchecked. They lack a built-in principle of moderation or discernment.

So, what should we desire? How much? Under what circumstances? These are questions that
require rational guidance. Aristotle emphasizes that moral virtues, such as moderation and
wisdom, are not innate. Instead, they are developed through habituation—forming habits of
right thinking, right choice, and right behavior over time. In essence, morality involves
cultivating the habits that lead to virtuous actions and ultimately to happiness.

Virtue as the Golden Mean

Human passions can drive us to extremes, from excessive indulgence to complete deprivation.
Take our appetite for food, for example: we can overeat or starve ourselves. Aristotle suggests
that the virtuous path lies in finding the middle ground, or mean, between these extremes. This
applies to all our passions, including fear, confidence, anger, and pleasure.

To achieve this balance, we need to control our passions with reason, forming virtuous habits
that guide us naturally toward the middle course of action. For instance, courage lies between
cowardice and rashness. Virtue, then, is a state of being where we consistently choose the
mean as determined by reason.

However, the mean isn't the same for everyone or every situation. It's relative to individual
circumstances. For instance, the mean for eating varies between an athlete and a toddler, but
both aim for temperance—the virtue between gluttony and starvation. Similarly, liberality is the
mean between prodigality and stinginess, relative to one's financial situation.

While many virtues involve finding a mean, some actions are inherently bad, with no middle
ground. These include spite, envy, adultery, theft, and murder—they're wrong in themselves,
not just in excess or deficiency.

Aristotle, like Plato, identified four main virtues—courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom—
but also discussed others like generosity, good temper, friendship, and self-respect. Moral
virtue, then, is about cultivating habits that lead us naturally toward virtuous action or simply
help us avoid bad conduct.
 DESCARTES
Rationalism on the Continent
In the 17th century, Continental rationalism, led by figures like Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz,
brought about a significant shift in philosophical thought. Influenced by the advancements in
science, they aimed to make philosophy as precise as mathematics. They sought to establish
clear, rational principles that could form a system of truths, allowing for accurate
understanding of the world. These rationalists emphasized the power of human reason,
considering it the primary source of truth about both the natural world and human nature.
While they didn't outright reject religion, they saw philosophical reasoning as independent
from supernatural revelation. They placed little value on subjective feelings and instead
believed that by following the right method, they could uncover the nature of the universe.
Their approach was optimistic, contrasting with the skepticism of earlier thinkers like
Montaigne. They believed that what they could clearly conceive with their minds must exist in
the external world. Some, like Descartes and Leibniz, even argued for innate ideas—beliefs
ingrained in the human mind from birth that could become evident through experience.
However, despite their optimism, Continental rationalism faced challenges. The leading
proponents held differing views. Descartes proposed a dualistic view of reality, dividing it into
thought and extended things. Spinoza suggested a monistic perspective, where everything is a
part of a single substance, Nature. Leibniz, on the other hand, was a pluralist, suggesting that
the world is made up of various elemental substances. So, while Continental rationalism aimed
to establish a precise and rational understanding of the world, the diversity of views among its
proponents showed that it wasn't entirely successful in achieving a unified vision.

"Cogito ergo sum"

"Cogito ergo sum" is a Latin phrase that means "I think, therefore I am." It was famously coined
by the French philosopher René Descartes in the 17th century.

In simple terms, Descartes was trying to figure out what he could be absolutely certain of. He
realized that he could doubt everything, even the existence of the world around him, but he
couldn't doubt the fact that he was thinking.

So, he concluded that if he was able to doubt, then he must exist as a thinking being. This
became the foundation of his philosophy and his starting point for building his understanding of
the world.
In essence, "Cogito ergo sum" means that the act of thinking proves our existence. It's a
fundamental idea in philosophy that highlights the importance of consciousness and self-
awareness in understanding ourselves and the world around us.

"Methodic doubt"
"Methodic doubt" is a way of thinking that René Descartes, a famous philosopher, used to find
what he could truly know for certain. In simple terms, he doubted everything he could possibly
doubt, like whether the world around him was real or if his senses were accurate.

Descartes wanted to be absolutely sure of what he believed, so he questioned even the most
basic things. He imagined that there might be an evil demon tricking him into thinking things
that weren't true.

By doubting everything, Descartes reached a point where he realized there was one thing he
couldn't doubt: the fact that he was doubting. He thought, "If I am doubting, then I must exist
as a thinking being." This led him to his famous conclusion: "Cogito ergo sum," or "I think,
therefore I am."

So, methodic doubt is a method of questioning and doubting everything in order to find what
can be known with absolute certainty. It's a way of being very careful and skeptical in order to
discover what is truly true.

The Mind-Body Distinction

The First Version

Descartes argues that the mind and body are completely different things. He says he can clearly
understand them separately, with the mind being purely thinking and the body being purely
physical. This leads him to believe that the mind can exist without the body and vice versa.
Descartes argues that the mind and body are fundamentally distinct entities. He believes he can
understand them separately: the mind as purely thinking and the body as purely physical. This
leads him to conclude that the mind can exist without the body and vice versa.

He presents his argument as follows:

1. I have a clear and distinct idea of the mind as a thinking, non-extended thing.
2. I have a clear and distinct idea of body as an extended, non-thinking thing.
3. Therefore, the mind is really distinct from the body and can exist without it.

His argument relies on the idea of "clear and distinct" perceptions, meaning ideas that are
sharply focused and exclude all other ideas. Descartes is confident that his clear understanding
of the mind and body guarantees their separate existence. He further claims that God's
existence and non-deceptive nature ensure the truth of clear and distinct ideas. If God exists
and doesn't deceive, then whatever Descartes clearly understands must be true. In Descartes'
view, because the mind and body are completely different, they can exist independently. He
argues that since God is all-powerful, he could create a mind without a body or a body without
a mind, just as Descartes understands them separately. Therefore, minds and bodies can exist
separately as distinct substances.

The Second Version

This argument can be reformulated as follows, replacing “mind” for “I” as in the first
version:

1. I understand the mind to be indivisible by its very nature.

2. I understand body to be divisible by its very nature.
3. Therefore, the mind is completely different from the body.
Descartes says the mind and body are totally different because the body can be cut into pieces,
but the mind cannot. He thinks if the mind could be cut, it would mean there are two of us,
which doesn't make sense. So, he concludes the mind is not like the body at all.
But there's a problem: Descartes doesn't prove this idea using his usual method of clear and
distinct ideas. Without that, we can't be sure his argument is true. If the mind actually depends
on the body, then his argument falls apart. So, while it makes sense in his own thinking, it might
not be true in the real world.

Descartes' idea that the mind and body are completely different causes a big problem: how can
they interact if they're so different? Think of it like this: if the mind is non-physical and the body
is physical, how can thoughts make the body move, or how can physical sensations reach the
mind?

For example, when you decide to raise your hand, your mind (the cause) wants your body (the
effect) to move. But your mind doesn't have a physical surface to touch your body, so how does
the message get through?

Similarly, when you see something, the physical world (like light hitting your eyes) causes a
sensation in your mind. But again, if the mind is non-physical, how does it receive these physical
signals?

Descartes' critics, like Gassendi and Elizabeth, said this doesn't make sense. They argued that
for things to affect each other, they need to touch in some way. Since the mind doesn't have a
surface to touch the body, or to receive physical signals, they questioned how it could interact
with the body at all.

This problem challenges Descartes' idea that the mind and body are totally different. If they
were, there wouldn't be a way for them to interact. So, this raises doubts about Descartes'
belief that the mind and body are separate substances.

Empiricism in Britain
The empiricist school of thought, led by figures like John Locke, had a significant impact on
modern philosophy, even though it started with modest goals. While Bacon sought to rebuild
all human knowledge, Locke aimed to clear away obstacles to knowledge. In doing so, he
developed a new understanding of how the mind functions and what kind of knowledge we can
gain from it. Locke proposed that our knowledge is limited to our experiences, a notion shared
by some before him. Bacon and Hobbes also emphasized observation as the basis of
knowledge, making them early empiricists. However, unlike his predecessors, Locke questioned
the intellectual abilities of humans. While Bacon and Hobbes believed in attaining certain
knowledge through the right methods, Locke challenged the idea that human reason could
uncover the true nature of the universe. This skepticism was taken further by David Hume, who
questioned if any secure knowledge was possible at all. The British empiricists—Locke,
Berkeley, and Hume—challenged not only their English predecessors but also the Continental
rationalists. The rationalists held an optimistic view of human rational abilities, which the
empiricists could not accept.

Locke's Theory of Knowledg

Locke set out /zto enquire into the origin, certainty, and extent of human knowledge/' He assumed that
if he could describe what knowledge consists of and how it is obtained, he could determine the limits of
knowledge and decide what constitutes intellectual certainty. His conclusion was that knowledge is
restricted to ideas—not the innate ideas of the rationalists but ideas that are generated by objects we
experience. Without exception, according to Locke, all our ideas come to us through some kind of
experience. This means that each person's mind is in the beginning like a blank sheet of paper upon
which experience alone can subsequently write knowledge. Before he could elaborate these
conclusions, Locke felt that he must lay to rest the persisting theory of innate ideas, the notion that in
some way we all come into the world with a standard collection of ideas built into the mind.

No Innate Ideas
Locke firmly rejects the theory of innate ideas, which suggests that certain principles are
ingrained in the human mind from birth. He views this doctrine as not only false but also
potentially harmful, as it could be exploited to manipulate people's reasoning abilities and lead
them to blindly accept beliefs without critical examination. While some, like Ralph Cudworth,
argued for innate ideas to uphold the importance of reason and divine existence, Locke
disagreed, asserting that the existence of God could be demonstrated without relying on innate
principles.

Locke provides several arguments against the claim of innate ideas. He challenges the notion
that universally accepted rational principles, such as the principle of identity and the principle
of non-contradiction, are innate, arguing instead that they are recognized as certain through
reflection on the nature of things. He also questions the universality of such principles, noting
that they are not commonly found in all cultures or even in the thoughts of children. Locke
contends that if these principles were truly innate, they would be universally known from birth,
which is not the case.
Ultimately, Locke sees the theory of innate ideas as unnecessary, as he believes that all
knowledge can be explained by our experiences and observations of the world, without the
need for pre-existing innate principles.

Simple and Complex Ideas

Locke believed that our knowledge is built from two main sources: sensation and reflection.
Sensation occurs when we perceive things through our senses, like seeing colors or feeling
temperatures. Reflection, on the other hand, involves the mind actively thinking about and
analyzing these sensations, leading to ideas like pleasure or pain, or the idea of cause and
effect. Simple ideas are the basic building blocks of our knowledge and come directly from our
senses. They can be as straightforward as the color of an object or the feeling of coldness. Even
when qualities of an object are blended together, our minds separate them out into distinct
ideas based on which sense they come from. Some simple ideas, like pleasure or pain, originate
from reflection on our sensations rather than directly from our senses.

Complex ideas, however, are formed by our minds combining simple ideas together. This can
happen in three ways: by joining ideas together (like combining the ideas of whiteness,
hardness, and sweetness to form the concept of sugar), by keeping ideas separate but thinking
about their relationships (like comparing the grass to the tree), or by abstracting ideas from
their specific instances (like thinking about the general idea of "man" without focusing on
specific individuals). These complex ideas are where our understanding of the world becomes
more intricate and nuanced.

Primary and Secondary Qualities

Locke delved into how our ideas relate to the objects that cause them, focusing on the
distinction between primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are those inherent to
objects themselves, like shape, motion, and number. When we perceive these qualities, our
ideas directly resemble the qualities present in the object. For instance, if we see a round
snowball, our idea of its roundness matches the actual roundness of the snowball.

In contrast, secondary qualities are not inherent to objects but rather qualities that produce
ideas in our minds, such as color or temperature. These qualities, like the coldness of the
snowball or its whiteness, exist only in our perception of the object, not in the object itself. The
snowball doesn't contain coldness or whiteness within it; instead, it possesses qualities that
evoke these sensations in us.
Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities aimed to differentiate between
appearance and reality. Primary qualities represent the fundamental characteristics of objects,
while secondary qualities are the effects they produce in our perceptions. This concept wasn't
entirely new; thinkers like Democritus and Descartes had explored similar ideas before Locke.
Locke's interest in contemporary physics, particularly influenced by Newton's work, further
shaped his understanding of these qualities. Newton's explanation of phenomena like color
through the motion of particles highlighted the distinction between appearance and underlying
reality. Throughout Locke's discussion, the notion of substance, the underlying entity that
possesses these qualities, remained central.

Substance
Locke grappled with the concept of substance, recognizing its importance in understanding how
qualities exist. While it seems natural to assume that there must be something—substance—in
which qualities like shape or color reside, Locke admitted that he couldn't precisely define
substance. He acknowledged that our idea of substance is more of a vague notion of something
that supports qualities, rather than a clear concept.

Despite this ambiguity, Locke saw substance as crucial for explaining sensation and providing
coherence to our ideas. Substance, according to Locke, is what causes sensation and ensures
consistency in our experiences. Additionally, substance is the object of sensitive knowledge,
serving as the foundation for our understanding of the world.

Locke's reasoning rested on the logical necessity of substance. If there's motion or thinking,
there must be something that moves or thinks. While we can conceive of material objects and
thinking beings, Locke maintained that we could never be certain whether a purely material
being can think. However, if there is thinking, there must be something that thinks.

Similarly, Locke noted that our idea of God, like our idea of substance, is not clear and distinct
but is inferred from other simple ideas. Both ideas are constructed from simpler reflections and
are not directly observed. However, the idea of substance raises questions about the extent
and validity of our knowledge, as it represents something elusive and indeterminate.

The Degrees of Knowledge

Locke says knowledge depends on how our ideas relate. He defines it as perceiving connections
and agreements or disagreements among ideas. Ideas can relate in many ways, influenced by
our experiences and imagination. There are three types of perception: intuitive, demonstrative,
and sensitive, each leading to different levels of understanding reality.
Intuitive knowledge is clear, certain, and immediate. It's like a bright light that instantly shows
us truths, such as the difference between a circle and a square or the fact that we exist. We just
know these things without any doubt because they're so obvious.

Demonstrative knowledge is when we use our minds to figure out if ideas agree or disagree by
considering other ideas. In math, each step of the process should be certain and obvious. For
example, we know with certainty that nothing can create something, just as 6 can't be equal to
two right angles. From this, Locke argued that since things exist and can't come from nothing,
there must have always been something. He believed this eternal being is all-knowing and all-
powerful, and we can be more certain of its existence than of anything our senses haven't
directly shown us.

Sensitive knowledge, although called knowledge, isn't as certain as intuitive or demonstrative

knowledge. It's more like an awareness that things exist based on our senses. For example,
when we see another person, we're sure they exist, but once they're out of sight, we can't be
certain of their continued existence. This uncertainty arises because our senses only reveal
qualities, not the deeper connections between things. So, while sensitive knowledge lets us
perceive the world around us, it doesn't provide the same level of certainty as intuitive or
demonstrative knowledge.

BERKELEY

The Nature of Existence

Berkeley's philosophical stance, although influenced by Locke's commonsense approach,
diverged drastically from what many considered obvious. He famously asserted that "to be is to
be perceived" (esse est percipi), suggesting that things only exist when they are perceived. This
notion led to criticism and ridicule, epitomized by Samuel Johnson's act of kicking a stone to
refute Berkeley's idea.

Berkeley acknowledged the potential absurdity of his formula but clarified that he was
redefining existence based on perception. According to him, if something isn't perceived, it
doesn't exist—at least not in the conventional sense. He argued that our understanding of
existence is tied to perception, stating that when we say something exists, we mean it's
perceivable either by ourselves or by some other mind.

His perspective emerged from his exploration of sensory experiences in his "New Theory of
Vision." Berkeley contended that all knowledge hinges on sensory perception, challenging the
notion of space, distance, and even the independent existence of objects outside the mind. He
concluded that everything we conceive of is ultimately related to our perceptions, making it
impossible to conceive of anything independent of the mind. According to Berkeley, there's no
perception of anything outside of our minds, and even our ideas of objects' distance or
proximity are fundamentally tied to our perceptions.

Matter and Substance

Locke's philosophy planted seeds of doubt in Berkeley's mind regarding the independent
existence of things, particularly the reality of matter. Locke's concept of substance as
"something we know not what" suggested to Berkeley that it might be nothing at all. Locke
distinguished between primary and secondary qualities, with primary qualities like size
supposedly linked to substance and independent of the mind. However, Berkeley argued that
even size, shape, and motion are inconceivable apart from qualities perceived by the senses.

Berkeley contended that everything we perceive about an object—its softness, color, shape,
etc.—exists only in the mind. He rejected the notion of substance as something separate from
qualities perceived, asserting that the object and its sensation are one and the same. Thus,
according to Berkeley, to be is to be perceived, implying that substance, or matter, doesn't truly
exist. Instead, only perceived qualities are real, suggesting a world composed solely of ideas
and spiritual beings.

Berkeley's rejection of matter wasn't solely motivated by theological concerns about the place
of spiritual substances in the universe or the potential for atheistic philosophies to emerge. He
also believed his views were inherently correct, addressing fundamental problems in
philosophy and science, including skepticism and atheism. Ultimately, Berkeley's philosophy
challenged the very notion of material substance and its implications for our understanding of
reality.

MARX
Marx's Life and Influence

The Epochs of History: Marx's Dialectic

Marx's Communist Manifesto introduced ideas like historical materialism, class struggle, and
the dictatorship of the proletariat. Later, he expanded these concepts in "Das Kapital," aiming
to reveal the economic laws of modern society, which became his theory of dialectical
materialism.

The Five Epochs

Marx showed that class struggle is bound up with particular historic phases." He distinguished five such
phases or epochs: (1) primitive communal, (2) slave, (3) feudal, (4) capitalist, and, as a prediction of
things to come, (5) socialist and communist. His aim was not just to categorize history into these
phases but to uncover the underlying "law of motion" that drove societies forward through
these epochs. Marx believed that understanding this law would not only explain the past but
also predict the future.

He approached the study of history as like analyzing objects in physical and biological sciences.
He viewed economic concepts like commodities and value as similar to elements in microscopic
anatomy. Marx saw each historical epoch as shaped by conflict between social classes, which
he believed was fundamental to understanding history. He heavily relied on Hegelian dialectics
to explain this process.

In simpler terms, Marx saw history as a series of conflicts driven by material conditions, with
each epoch representing a stage in this ongoing process of societal development.

Change: Quantitative and Qualitative

History demonstrates that social and economic orders continually undergo change. Marx's
dialectical materialism asserts that the material order is fundamental, as matter forms the basis
of true reality. He rejected the idea of stable, permanent structures or "eternal truths," instead
viewing everything as part of an ongoing process of change. Marx believed that nature, from
the smallest to the largest scale, is constantly in motion and evolving.

For Marx, change is not simply about growth or maturation, like a child becoming an adult. It
involves the emergence of new structures and forms. Change occurs when there is a
quantitative alteration that leads to something qualitatively new. For instance, increasing the
temperature of water eventually changes it from a liquid to vapor, or decreasing the
temperature turns it into solid ice. Similarly, applying force to a pane of glass can increase
vibrations, but at a certain point, further force will cause a qualitative change, such as the glass
shattering.

Marx applied this concept to history, suggesting that certain quantitative factors within the
economic order lead to qualitative changes in society's arrangements. This process drove
history from primitive communal to slave, feudal, and capitalist epochs. Marx predicted that
capitalism would eventually collapse because changes in its quantitative factors would
undermine its foundations. He likened this process to how water turns into steam with
increased heat.
In Marx's view, as capitalism progresses, there is a decrease in the number of capitalist owners
and an increase in poverty, exploitation, and the role of the working class. Eventually, the
centralization of means of production and socialization of labor become incompatible with
capitalism, leading to its downfall and the expropriation of the expropriators. This
transformation represents a quantitative leap to a new state, where quantity transforms into
quality.

The End of History

Marx believed that history would reach its final stage with the establishment of socialism and eventually
communism. He borrowed from Hegel's idea that history progresses through a dialectical process, but
he flipped it around.

Hegel thought that history would end when the concept of freedom was fully realized, leading to a state
of no conflict. Marx, however, saw the conflict as rooted in the material conditions of society, especially
in the struggle between different social classes. According to Marx, once the tensions between these
classes were resolved through revolution, society would become classless, with all interests and forces
in balance. This balance would be everlasting, leading to the end of historical development because
there would be no more conflict to drive it forward.

Marx's theory emphasizes the connection between material reality and human thought in shaping
history. He distinguished between the material base of society (the substructure), which drives historical
change, and the ideas and beliefs of people (the superstructure), which reflect the material conditions.
In Marx's view, understanding this relationship is crucial for revolutionary action.

The Substructure: The Material Order

According to Marx, the material world includes everything in the natural environment: inorganic and
organic matter, social life, and human consciousness. Unlike Democritus, who viewed matter as
irreducible atoms, Marx sees matter as objective reality existing independently of the human mind.
Marxist materialism accepts the diverse aspects of the material world without simplifying it into one
form of matter.

The key aspect of Marxist materialism is its acknowledgment of the wide-ranging diversity in the
material world. It rejects the existence of any spiritual reality beyond nature and suggests that human
minds arise from the development of organic matter, especially through labor activity. Drawing on
Darwinian evolution, Marxism sees mental activity as a secondary outcome of matter, evolving as
humans gained the ability to use tools and control natural forces.
The material order is seen as the fundamental reality, encompassing factors of production and relations
of production.

The Factors of Production

The factors of production are essential elements for sustaining human life, including raw
materials, tools, and skilled labor. Regardless of the society, these factors are always present
and necessary for producing the goods and services people need to live. However, Marx
emphasized that it's not just about what goes into production but also how people are related
to each other in the process.

Marx viewed production as a social activity where individuals work together, not as isolated
individuals but as part of groups and societies. Thus, he believed that understanding the
dynamic relationships between people in the production process was crucial. While the static
analysis of the factors of production is important, Marx focused more on the interactions
among people within a producing society.

Marx recognized that the factors of production could influence the relations of production. For
example, scarcity of raw materials might impact how people relate to each other in the
production process. Nevertheless, Marx's analysis primarily centered on how people engage in
production and the relationships that emerge from these interactions.

The Superstructure: The Origin and Role of Ideas

\Marx proposed that each historical epoch is characterized by dominant ideas, including those related to
religion, morality, and law. While Hegel argued that these ideas stem from a universal Spirit or Idea,
Marx contended that they emerge from and reflect the material conditions of the period. In Marx's
view, people's consciousness is shaped by their social being, meaning that their ideas are influenced by
their material circumstances.

According to Marx, concepts like justice and morality are often used to justify the existing social order,
particularly the interests of the economically dominant class. He rejected the idea of a universal norm of
justice and argued that each epoch has its own set of ideas and philosophy, shaped by its economic
structure.
The conflict of ideas within a society arises from the dynamic nature of the economic order, with
different classes holding opposing interests and therefore, opposing ideas. Marx cautioned against
clinging to outdated ideas that no longer reflect the changing material reality, labeling those who do as
"reactionaries." He believed that astute observers could discern the direction in which history is moving
and adjust their thinking accordingly.

SARTRE
Existence Precedes Essence
Sartre's famous principle, "Existence precedes essence," challenges traditional notions of human nature
and agency. To understand it, let's first consider how we typically think about objects like a knife. Before
a knife is made, the knife maker has a clear idea of its purpose and how it will be made. Thus, the
essence of the knife—the process by which it was made and its intended purpose—precedes its
existence.

Now, contrast this with how we often conceive of human nature. Many people think of humans as being
created by a divine being with a predetermined essence. Each individual is seen as the fulfillment of a
specific conception that resides in the mind of God.

Sartre, however, takes atheism seriously and argues that without a divine creator, there is no
predetermined human essence. Human nature cannot be defined in advance because there is no God to
conceive of it. Instead, humans simply exist first, and then they define themselves through their actions
and choices. In other words, people emerge into the world and only later do they become what they
make of themselves.

This perspective challenges the idea of a fixed, universal human nature. Sartre emphasizes that
individuals have the freedom and responsibility to create themselves. Unlike inanimate objects, humans
possess subjective consciousness and agency, which gives them dignity. The key consequence of placing
existence before essence is that it places the burden of responsibility squarely on each individual.
Without a predetermined essence, humans are responsible for shaping their own lives and determining
their own meaning.

Marx attributed a limited role to ideas, particularly when they have no bearing on economic reality. He
was critical of reformers and utopians, arguing that ideas alone cannot determine the course of history
but can only hinder or accelerate its inevitable progression. Marx saw his own analysis of capitalism as
scientific, focusing on objective reality and the laws governing societal development. He did not morally
condemn capitalism but viewed it as a product of the inherent laws of societal motion.

Freedom and Responsibility

Sartre's exploration of existentialism leads to an ethics centered on individual responsibility and

accountability. He argues that since humans create themselves through their choices and
actions, they are solely responsible for who they become. This implies that individuals cannot
blame anyone else for their circumstances or character but must take full ownership of their
lives.

Moreover, Sartre contends that when individuals make choices, they are not just choosing for
themselves but for all humanity. This may seem contradictory at first, as it implies a universal
aspect to human nature. However, Sartre clarifies that while individuals create their own values
and essence, they also create an image of human nature as they believe it ought to be. This
means that when we choose a course of action, we affirm the value of that choice for all
people.

Sartre's ethical framework is not based on universal laws or guidelines but on the individual's
existential experience of choosing and taking responsibility for their actions. He emphasizes the
anguish and weight of this responsibility, as individuals must confront the consequences of
their choices without any external authority to guide them.

Sartre's atheistic stance leads to the concept of abandonment, where individuals are left
without any predetermined values or meaning. Without God or objective values, individuals are
condemned to be free, meaning they are responsible for everything they do. This freedom,
while liberating, is also daunting, as individuals must navigate the uncertainty of existence
without any external guidance.

Sartre rejects the idea that human behavior is determined by external forces like passion or
unconscious desires. Instead, he asserts that individuals are responsible even for their
emotions, as these are shaped by their actions. In Sartre's view, freedom is both exhilarating
and terrifying because it places the burden of choice squarely on the individual, with no
predetermined path to follow.
Nothingness and Bad Faith
Sartre explores the feeling of despair that comes with understanding our limitations and the
finite nature of our existence. He sees this awareness of nothingness as a fundamental aspect
of being human.

According to Sartre, our actions define us. We're responsible for our choices and their
consequences. He argues that there's no predetermined human nature, but there's a universal
human condition that we all share. In this shared condition, our actions affect others, so we
must consider their impact.

Sartre rejects the idea that our lives are controlled by fate or external forces. He believes each
person gives meaning to their life through their actions. Denying our agency or blaming outside
influences is, to Sartre, a form of self-deception.

Ultimately, Sartre emphasizes the importance of honesty in our actions. Being true to ourselves
and taking responsibility for our choices is essential for living authentically.

Short note

THE YOUNG HEGELIANS

The Young Hegelians were a group of thinkers in the 19th century who were influenced by the
ideas of the German philosopher Hegel. They took Hegel's concepts but pushed them in more
radical directions. They questioned traditional religious beliefs and political structures, arguing
for more freedom and individuality.

One key figure among them was Ludwig Feuerbach, who said that God was just a reflection of
human qualities and desires. Another important thinker was Max Stirner, who emphasized
radical individualism and rejected traditional morality.
Their ideas influenced Karl Marx, although Marx eventually developed his own theories
separate from theirs. Overall, the Young Hegelians challenged old beliefs and helped pave the
way for modern atheism, secularism, and socialist thought.

Emanuel Kant

Emanuel Kant was a famous German philosopher who lived in the 18th century. He's known for

his groundbreaking work in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. Kant's philosophy
sought to reconcile rationalism and empiricism, two major philosophical approaches of his time.

Kant thought a lot about how we know things. He said that our minds have built-in ways of
understanding the world. For example, we see things in certain ways because our minds work
that way, not because things are exactly like we see them.

Immanuel Kant earned the nickname "critical mediator" because he found a balance between
two big ideas in philosophy: rationalism and empiricism.

Rationalists believed that reason and innate ideas were key to knowledge, while empiricists
thought that knowledge came from our senses and experience. Kant said, "Hey, maybe they're
both right!"

He said that our knowledge starts with our senses, but our minds shape and organize it. He
called these shaping abilities "categories" and "forms of intuition." So, while our senses give us
raw data, our minds make sense of it.

Kant's idea was a big deal because it showed that both reason and experience are important in
understanding the world. He helped bring these two sides together, earning him the nickname
"critical mediator."

"Das Kapital"

"Das Kapital" is a famous book written by Karl Marx, a German philosopher and economist, in
the 19th century. It's one of the most important works in the history of economics and politics.

In simple terms, "Das Kapital" is about capitalism, the economic system where private
individuals own businesses and make profits from the labor of others. Marx wanted to
understand how capitalism works and why it leads to inequality and exploitation.

In the book, Marx analyzes how capitalism creates wealth through the labor of workers, but he
also argues that it leads to social problems like poverty and class conflict. He talks about
concepts like surplus value, which is the difference between what workers are paid and the
value of what they produce.

Marx believed that capitalism would eventually collapse because of its own contradictions,
leading to a revolution by the working class. He called for a new system called socialism, where
workers would own and control the means of production.

Overall, "Das Kapital" is a complex and influential book that continues to be studied and
debated today for its insights into the workings of capitalism and its critique of the social and
economic inequalities it produces.

"The Communist Manifesto"

"The Communist Manifesto" is a famous book written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the
19th century. It's a short and powerful document that explains their ideas about society,
economics, and politics.

In simple terms, the manifesto starts by saying that all of history is a history of class struggle.
Marx and Engels believed that throughout history, societies have been divided into different
classes, like rich and poor, and these classes have always been in conflict with each other.

They talk about how in their time, the 19th century, there were two main classes: the
bourgeoisie, who were the wealthy business owners and capitalists, and the proletariat, who
were the workers who sold their labor to the bourgeoisie.

Marx and Engels argued that capitalism, the economic system where the bourgeoisie owned
the means of production, like factories and machines, was unfair and exploitative. They said
that under capitalism, the workers were treated as commodities and were paid only a fraction
of the value of what they produced.

They predicted that eventually, the working class would rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie,
leading to a revolution. After the revolution, they believed that society would transition to
communism, a system where there were no classes and the means of production were owned
collectively by the people.

In communism, Marx and Engels envisioned a society where everyone would contribute
according to their abilities and receive according to their needs. They believed that this would
create a more equal and just society where everyone could live freely and without oppression.
Overall, "The Communist Manifesto" is a call to action for workers to unite and fight against the
injustices of capitalism, with the ultimate goal of creating a communist society based on
equality and solidarity.