What IS Philosophy?

Philosophy, is the contemplation or study of the most important questions in existence with the end of promoting illumination and understanding. Intelligent inquiry, which philosophy promotes, is liberating, freeing us from prejudice, self-deceptive notions, and half-truths.


"The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason...while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are,[philosophy]greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar light."
~Bertrand Russell

Predestination or Free Will ?

This was mentioned in the Philosophy Club today.

A few thoughts...

If God did create or ordain our actions, then we would not have free will, and it would not be just to hold us accountable on the Day of Judgment. Likewise, it would not be just if it were ordained at our creation that we would end up in Paradise or Hell, no matter what our choices turned to be.

But one of the names or attributes of God is al-`Adl, The Just. He cannot and does not do anything unjust. Therefore we must reject the doctrine of pre-destination.

So do we have a total free will?

We cannot choose when we are born, to which parents, nor when we are going to die, whether we are born into a rich or poor family, or what sex we are born into.

But after that we can choose how to act, what moral code we abide by, what social and political responsibilities we fulfill or ignore .

There is a hadith (tradition of Prophet Muhammad) on this subject that describes this. It was narrated by his companion `Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him) as follows:

Allah’s messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), the truthful and truly-inspired, said:

“Each one of you was collected within the womb of his mother for forty days, and then turns into a clot [or something that clings] for an equal period [of forty days] and turns into a piece of flesh for a similar period [of forty days] and then Allah sends an angel and orders him to write four things, i.e., his provision, his age [at death], and whether he will be of the wretched or the blessed [in the Hereafter].

Then the soul is breathed into him. And by Allah, a person among you [or a man] may do deeds of the people of the Hellfire till there is only a cubit or an arm-breadth distance between him and the Hellfire, but then that writing [which Allah has ordered the angel to write] precedes, and then he does the deeds of the people of Paradise and enters it; and a man may do the deeds of the people of Paradise till there is only a cubit or two between him and Paradise, and then that writing precedes and he does the deeds of the people of the Fire and enters it.” (Reported by Bukhari.)

Most people, when they read this, think that it means that when the angel writes these four things, God is commanding these things to happen. However, scholars explain that while this is true for one’s age and provision - at least at birth - the angel is recording something that will happen, but that record does not ‘make’ it happen.

It simply reflects a conception of time and knowledge of Allah beyond time and space. We have to always remember that God is never limited by the boundaries of time and space. He gives us free will, but He knows beforehand — even before we were created — what our choices and their consequences will be.

Further reading...

Also here...

Truth

Philosophy is the eternal search for TRUTH - a search which inevitably fails.

Why is the failure inevitable?

"Absolute Truth - Inflexible Reality

"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.

Absolute Truth vs. Relativism
While absolute truth is a logical necessity, there are some religious orientations (atheistic humanists, for example) who argue against the existence of absolute truth. Humanism's exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism. Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes." Humanists believe one should do, as one feels is right.

Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity
You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

"No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true.

There are philosophers who actually spend countless hours toiling over thick volumes written on the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they think the text is meaningful! Then there are those philosophy teachers who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade the papers!"

More here....

Is there such a thing as absolute truth?

"How illogical is it to answer this question 'no?' For, if the answer is 'no,' would that, itself, not be an absolute truth? The answer necessarily is 'yes,' because simply answering 'no' to the question means the answer is 'yes.'

The question, for the purpose of debate, might better phrased 'is it possible to know the absolute truth.' Again, though, the answer is 'yes.'"

More here....

Is it ever right...

Is it ever right to allow ourselves to believe propositions where there is insufficient reason?

Rationality and Reason

Why is it sometimes rational to go against reason?

Why is this not a sound argument?

1. It is morally wrong to kill innocent human beings
2. Abortion is the act of killing an innocent human being
3. Abortion is morally wrong

The Answer....

The argument contains an equivocation over the term 'human being'.

We use 'human being' ambiguously sometimes meaning a biological concept, the species Homo sapiens, and other times meaning a psychological-moral concept, 'someone who has the characteristics that makes humans of special moral worth, such as rationality or rational self-consciousness.

We sometimes refer to this second concept by the term 'person'.

It is being human beings as persons, as having requisite psychological qualities, and not merely our membership in a biological group, that gives us a serious moral right to life.

But other beings may also have the required psychological qualities. perhaps apes, dolphins and Galacticans are also rationally self-conscious beings.

Then they would be persons.

And there are no doubt some Homo sapiens who do not possess minimally rational self-consciousness.

They would not be persons.

Applying this insight to our argument, we need to change the premise to read as follows:

1. It is morally wrong to kill innocent persons
2. Abortion is an act of killing an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens.
Therefore 3. Abortion is morally wrong.

If an attempt at clarification has succeeded, this argument is not sound for the original term 'human beings' was being used differently in the premises.

Further reading - very slowly - work through this.

Also read about personhood here...

The dissatisifed pig

In his book, Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives a length defense of the idea that:

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

This has long been taken to be a problem with Mill's philosophy because it seems to directly contradict utilitarianism. If somebody holds that pleasure is the only good, and pain is the only evil, then in what sense can Socrates dissatisfied be better than a pig satisfied? The latter seems to clearly have more pleasure than the former. Claiming that the former has more value requires the assumption that value can be found in something other than pleasure. Yet, if value can be found in something other than pleasure, than there must be value in something other than utility, and utilitarianism itself is contradicted.

What are your thoughts on this?

What is the value of studying Philosophy?

One of the foremost arguments against philosophy is that it provides no definite answers. Opponents state it can give hypothetical answers, but none that can be proven.

So - what's the point?

Philosophy Club

Remember: read the handout before you come. The club meets ONLY on Mondays and ONLY at lunch-time...

Locke

Read: 'Our psychological properties define the self' by Locke.

Then consider:

1. What is Locke's argument against identifying the person with an immaterial soul?

2. Do you agree with Locke's argument?

3.Suppose I remember when I was ten, but not when I was two. But suppose that, when I was ten, I could remember being two. What must Locke say about my relationship to these two earlier people? With which person (if either) am I identical, and why?

4. What is Locke's definition of a person?

5. What makes a person the same over time?

6. If our bodies change, does Locke think this will make us a different person?

7. How does Locke respond to the objection that a person can lose the memory of some parts of her life and yet we tend to think of that person as still the same?

Four questions

• How do religion and philosophy differ, given that they attempt to answer many of the same questions?
• How do philosophy and science differ, given that they attempt to answer many of the same questions?
• Is philosophy as ‘rational’ as it first appears? What, if anything, does it take for granted?
• How optimistic do you think we should be about our ability eventually to solve philosophical problems?