The game

>>843316
You may as well try, it can't be worse than the christfag shitposting on this board.

>>843316
Philosophy
Distinguish between principle-based ethics and consequentialist ethics
There are many ways to gain wisdom
There are many kinds of philosophy
In Asian philosophies, they do not distinguish between mysticism and rationalism, to the point that religion and philosophy is intertwined
Western philosophy is different in this way. And it's what we'll be focusing on in this brief course
1) It's reasonable/rational
2) It's critically-minded
These two things mean that it demands rational justifications for positions taken
It's not enough to say 'a holy book says this' or 'a wise/respected person has taught this'
Rational proof is always required
Western philosophy is also open-minded, in the sense that it's prepared to genuinely consider propositions which are counter-intuitive or even disturbing, and accept them, if they can be rationally proven

Ancient Greece
By 600 B.C., the Greeks had centuries of contact with other societies...some of which had very different customs and beliefs.
The Greek response was not 'ethical relativism,' -i.e. to say that all moral perspectives are equally valid. Instead they asked...who is right?
Their religion was not able to answer these and other questions.
So they began to look elsewhere...and began to develop a system of rational inquiry...one which was more and mroe separate from religion and/or mysticism.
This process seems to have really begun with the philosopher Thales in c. 600 B.C.
The ancient Greek language (unusually precise and subtle) had recently been developed by this point.
It greatly facilitated intellectual inquiry.
Greek philosophy flowered in the centuries that followed, especially in the city-state of Athens.
Some early important figures were:
Parmenides and Heraclitus (whom we'll meet when we look at Metaphysics) Zeno, who is best known for his famous paradoxes, and Democritus, the first to come with the idea of "atoms.

>>843341
These four (and others) are called pre-Socratic philosophers, since they predate the famous Socrates.
But Socrates is really part of a trio of the three most important figures in Greek Philosophy:
1) Socrates c. 425 B.C.
a. He had been a soldier in early life
b. he was passionately committed to the discovery of truth, as revealed by reason.
c. His method was to question people in the street and then critique their responses...hence the term the "Socratic Method."
d. He died heroically, for his beliefs.
2) Plato, a student of Socrates. c. 375 B.C.
a. He's generally considered to be the greatest Western Philosopher of all.
b. He was more thorough and systematic than Socrates, who never wrote anything down.
c. Plato wrote in a very accessible way...in "dialogues," often with Socrates as the main character.
d. He founded a school called "The Academy," which stayed open for over a thousand years.
3) Aristotle, a student of Plato's. c. 350 B.C.
a. So influential that the phrase "the philosopher" always meant him...for more than a thousand years after his death.
b. Even more thorough and systematic than Plato, but also less accessible
c. Explored science as much as philosophy.
d. He founded a famous school called "The Lyceum," which stayed open for centuries.
These and other philosophers of their time spent a great deal of time on politics (e.g. Plato's famous work "The Republic.") as well as on other subjects.
But when Greece was conquered by the Macedonian Empire late in Aristotle's life...opportunities for political experiments seemed to vanish.
So...the focus of philosophy, for many, began to "turn inward" to questions of how we should live, etc.
This is why the "life philosophies" of Hedonism and Stoicism (which we'll begin with) were developed mostly in the 300s B.C. and later.

>>843347
Hedonism
Ethical hedonism is a moral position, arguing that you should pursue pleasure in life.
We'll look at two famous attempts to "unpack" this idea...both from the ancient Greek world:
a. Cyrenaic Hedonism
b. Epicurean Hedonism
A) Cyrenaic Hedonism:
(named after Aristippus of Cyrene)
Its features:
1) Pleasure is the principal motive for living, and it is always a good thing.
It can even give meaning/purpose to your life: e.g. "Our mission is to learn to enjoy ourselves more fully."
2) No qualitative distinction can be made among pleasures.
(None is better than any other.)
Only INTENSITY can help you decide which to pursue.
3) Since physical/sensory pleasures are typically more intense...they are to be preferred to mental pleasures.
4) ACTUAL pleasures (now) are more desirable than potential ones (in the future).
5) Since "involved citizenship" will almost certainly interfere with pursuing pleasure...you should disengage from politics.
6) Pursue rational control over pleasure (instead of slavery to it).
And don't be victimized by pleasures.

B) Epicurean Hedonism:
(named after Epicurus, c. 300 B.C.)
He founded a school in Athens called "The Garden." Everyone was admitted regardless of status, sex, etc.
Its features:
1) It makes a distinction between momentary and enduring pleasures.
Although all pleasure is good and all pain is evil (intrnsically)...pleasure should NOT always be chosen.
e.g. if momentary pleasure leads to enduring pain.
In fact, pain should sometimes be chosen...if temporary pain leads to enduring pleasure.
2) kinetic vs. static pleasures
Kinetic pleasure comes via some kind of action (e.g. eating)
Static pleasure results when pains or deficiencies, or frustrations have been removed.
Static pleasure is more enduring than kinetic pleasure.
It is the state of having no pain...while kinetic pleasure is the pleasure of getting to that state.

>>843357
3) Ataraxia
It is the ultimate goal of life for the Epicurean...a type of static pleasure.
It is the state of not having troubles...being free from pain in the body and anxiety in the soul...and functioning normally without strain or obstruction from fear, hunger, illness, or exhaustion.
4) Mental pleasures are not better or higher than bodily pleasures, since both are natural.
5) He goes on to make several points about classifications of desires (see the table on p. 12)
Two basic types of desire:
⦁ vain
⦁ natural
Vain Desires are:
a. unnatural...i.e. not rooted in nature
b. based on empty and false beliefs
c. conditioned
d. excessive
e. provide no enduring stability
...one way these can be created today is through advertising...or peer pressure...
Natural desires, by contrast, are rooted in nature...and contribute to ataraxia.
Epicurus identifies two types of natural desires:
1. for comfort-shelter and clothing
2. for happiness-friendship and virtue
b) Natural and unnecessary desires:
i.e. those desires that are in accordance with nature...but not essential for happiness.
He included gourmet foods...and sex...here.
6) Obstacles and impediments to ataraxia:
--the largest may be the fear of death...or a yearning for immortality
Epicurus says we should enjoy every moment to its fullest, knowing it will never come again.
This is talked about today as "mindfulness."
7) Friendship:
Best understood via the alternative: isolation. We believe (probably) that isolation is not good for most people.
Epicurus says it is "full of hidden traps and fears."

>>843363
Stoicism
Stoicism was founded by Zeno in c. 300 B.C. in Athens.
It was still flourishing centuries later...
A key stoic philosopher was the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (c. 175 A.D.)
Features of Stoicism:
1) The Stoic Universe:
We live in an ordered, rational universe-one that was structured, and designed...by "God."
(Note that "God" sometimes meant different things to different groups of Stoics.)
Nothing is random...even apparent coincidence. All is pre-planned or "fated."
Only limited free will is part of the stoic conception of things.
2) How to Live in a Fated Universe:
a) The Problem of Evil:
If the universe is benevolently designed, how can we explain the existence of evil?
Some Stoic answers:
--good can't exist without evil
--evil can be an opportunity for personal growth
b) Freedom:
"Interior freedom" is possible...when individuals their judgments about events and their attitudes toward them.
Realizing events are expressions of God's will and purpose can to a posture of 'courageous acceptance."
C) The Purpose of Life:
(i) Live life according to nature...with a will that accords with Divine Reason
(ii) Practice emotional detachment; remember that you are able to control your attitudes and emotions.
(i) and (ii) lead to a state of spiritual peace and well-being..."Stoic apathy" or "Eudamonia."
This is possible without material abundance or even good health.

>>843371
d) Emotions in Life:
--some say stoics reject all emotions, where possible
--others say they reject only "excessive passions." (e.g. those that lead to "mental disturbances" e.g. fear...Stoics would say that, in a fated universe, where all is for the best, there is nothing to fear)
e.g. pity...Stoics would say that this is based on the "false" belief that something bad has happened to someone (...all is fated and for the best...)
e) Temperance (moderation):
--Stoics say this is more likely to lead to happiness than never-ending desire gratification
Finally...
The book sees parallels between Stoicism and the well-known "Rational-Emotive Behaviour Therapy" of Dr. Albert Ellis
For example...if you fail an exam, you'll probably do a "cognitive appraisal"...and filter that experience through a belief.
"I'm stupid" is a common but almost always irrational belief...and it will lead to irrational consquences: emotional upset, low self-esteem, etc.
Instead if you filter things through a rational belief...e.g. "I didn't study properly"...then you are led to...emotional control, and renewed determination to do better.

>>843376
Existentialism
Features of Existentialism:
(19th and 20th century mainly)
1) More an attitude or an outlook than a formal philosophy
Often Existentialist ideas are presented in art, music, literature, etc.
(e.g. Jack Kerouac)
It isn't surprising, since existentialist also have...
2) a strong dislike of system-building...and even some aspects of rationality.
They'd agree those things are appropriate to math and science, etc.
BUT not to the study the "human situation."
"The individual self is lost in abstract universals..."
AND...reason, when applied to humans and human society, obliterates "uniqueness of individuals and their subjective experience."
When you are put into a category, "existential violence" is committed against you and your individuality.
3) Essence vs. Existence:
There is no God (they generally say).
So there was no idea of what we as humans should be-- in other words, and essence of what it is to be human--before we came into being.
In other words, our existence preceds our essence.
Life is therefore meaningless in itself...we must be the creators of our own meaning.
Life isn't rational or ordered or designed...but rather chaotic, unpredictable, and absurd....without purpose.
There's no "answer" or ultimate meaning "out there" somewhere to be discovered.
BUT..despite this...Many existentialists point to a possible answer to the problem of how to create meaning in life:
4) Individuality and Subjective Experience:
There is a fundamental drive within us to be recognized as individuals
Therefore, we can find meaning and significance in life by creating a sense of individuality.
It's thus no surprise that existentialists hate conformity...often fed by advertising...or mass movements that discourage individuality...
See quote by e.e. cummings on p.69-70 of textbook

>>843341
>Western
>It's reasonable/rational
Is the prof. implying eastern isn't?

>Rational proof
>open-minded
It sounds more like your professor is just asking that of the class

>Plato wrote in a very accessible way...in "dialogues," often with Socrates as the main character.
In giant strawman scenarios, more like it.

>Ethical hedonism
Prof. should have mentioned psychological hedonism to contrast.

I (personally) would also further divide psychological hedonism into actual physiological hedonism (what most people get at, "you will do what you feel you most desire") and a more analytic hedonism ("what you want most of the available options is simply defined by what you choose") which, when combined with the claim that humans define right and wrong (which can be claimed in numerous different ways), can loop back to cultural-ethical hedonism.

>No qualitative distinction can be made among pleasures.
>(None is better than any other.)
The better way to explain that would be to say that all pleasure is the same pleasure, there's one unit of measurement to him.

>stoicism
>god
you should also note that the stoic god is a far more abstract and watered-down concept than the ever-detailed abrahamic god and most other types of deities

>Interior freedom
Stoic free will/determinism is kinda odd. They kinda consider god to be the only "will" and all other will is an extension of it. Hence why acting in your nature (or rather, logically, as you were designed according to stoics) is seen as willful (you're becoming one with will), wheras being impulsive and reactionary is not (for the same reason a ball bouncing off a table is not willful). This is rather ironic though, as being willful in a stoics eyes often requires being rather sedentary, which most people would see as "exerting less will".

>This is possible without material abundance or even good health.
You should have noted that your prof. was probably bringing this up to contrast Aristotle.

>>843416
>for the same reason a ball bouncing off a table is not willful
That was unclear of me: I should have said "for the same reason we perceive a ball bouncing off a table to be unwillful". Stoics would consider that to be quite natural. however, if a human with far more capability was just reflecting off of it's environment, they would say otherwise. To them, we're the ball god's bouncing. Everything's like a giant god's-will Rube-Goldberg machine. You can either be in accordance with the will which starts the machine up, or not. They don't believe in as independent a will as most advocates of free will do, hence their determinism.

Aw geez my computer is shitting itself, I'll finish posting the rest of the notes when it's better. (I'm posting this on my phone)

>>843379
5) Freedom of Choice:
Sartre: "You are condemned to be free"
He means that there's no way to avoid personal responsibility for your actions...because...you are free to choose how to react to what life throws at you.
This part of it is also part of Stoic thinking, of course.
Sartre says we can live with AUTHENTICITY...."when we are able to make our individual choices with full awareness that nothing else determines them for us." (p.72)...
6) Viktor Frankl and "Logotherapy":
Frankl: As humans, we're free from animal instincts...And traditional moral have be under continued assault for decades or more...This "existential vacuum" means that we can develop neuroses based on lack of meaning in our lives.
He calls this "noogenic neurosis."
His solution is "self-transcendence."
When we invest in something other than ourselves, we find meaning.
"We all need a mission in life."

Ethics
Three "standard" ethical theories...and three unusual ethical theories
1) Plato: a balanced character will make you more likely to be moral
2) Bentham and Mill: increasing happiness for as many people as possible should be the goal
Bentham and Mill's theory is called Utilitarianism...probably the most popular type of consequentialist position...remember, that's where the consequences are the most important thing in determining if you should do something or not (as opposed to principles).
3) Kant: principles, rationally arrived at, should be the foundation of morality
The three unusual moral theories are in direct opposition to the standard ones:
1) Nietzche: an unbalanced character is truer to our character
2) Rand: argues for a purely self-interested morality
3) Noddings: principles have inherent problems and are, in some sense, illusory anyway...they should NOT be the foundation for morality...whether they're rationally arrived at or not

>>844857
Plato's Character Ethics
Central Idea:
You'd be much more likely to be moral if you have a balanced character.
Plato outlines his perfect balanced character...and then four common unbalanced ones.
He put them in political terms, since politics (and political experimentation) was so big for the Greeks during his time.
Some of them will also be shaped by his view that we each have within us three things competing for control:
--spirit (in the sense of team spirit)
--appetites
His balanced character is called "The Philosopher King."
This character type is ruled by reason, and is:
--enlightened
--internally balanced
--temperate (moderate)
--courageous, wise, and just
One of his unbalanced character types is called "Oligarchic."
This type is frugal and hardworking. But...Oligarchy means "rule by several"...and this character type is ruled by its (several) appetites.
As a result, it is:
--materialistic and money-hungry
--often a "dirty and wretched opportunist"-abandoning principle in order to make money
--somehow always dissatisfied (never has enough to be happy)
--often "internally disturbed"
Another unbalanced character type is called "Timarchic."
While it is energetic, this character type is ruled by spirit. As a result it is:
--hyper-competitive
--often vain and self-inflating
--often insecure and fearful of falling behind
--often jealous
Another unbalanced character type is called "Tyrannical"
This character is ruled by "a master passion." As a result, it:
--has a criminal personality
--is anxiety-ridden
--is not self-sufficient (needs others to justify its behaviour)
--is undisciplined (perhaps in thought as well as actions)
The "tyranny" of its master passion pulls this character type off course, often towards criminal behaviour.

>>844865
The "tyranny" of its master passion pulls this character type off course, often towards criminal behaviour.
Plato's final unbalanced character type has the opposite problem; it's called "Democratic"
While it is versatile and easy-going, this character type is ruled by nothing and has no coherence. It:
--treats all passions and desires equally
--is frequently aimless, without principle, and "torn apart" inside
It tries to be all things to all people, and perhaps falls into an "identity crisis."

Utilitarianism
It's one form of consequentialist ethics (which say that the consequences of an action establish its moral worth)
Two main theorists:
1) Jeremy Bentham (1700s)
2) John Stuart Mill (1800s)
The context for Bentham is a movement called: "The Enlightenment" (c.1700-c.1800)
Its goal was to apply the new (at that time) scientific method to everything in society.
Bentham decided to do this with morality.
Here are the features of his philosophy, which he called a truly objective basis for morality--utilitarianism

Frederick Nietzche
context:
--late 19th century dominance of science...still increasing today
--the theory of evolution
Features of his ethics:
1) his most famous statement: "God is dead."
He meant that there was a growing secularism...and that religion was becoming less and less relevant to people.
So...he doesn't look to religion for ethics...instead he begins with human nature (as Bentham did).
Since this is the age of Darwin...he ends up with the core of human nature being...
2) A "Will to Power"
He says this is a fundamental psychological force that should be the basis of morality.
Part of this is how we're always trying to better ourselves, exceed our limits, through self-mastery, self-overcoming, etc.
All of this is made easier if Christian guilt about selfishness, pride, etc. is gone.

>>844882
3) Ethical Orientations of Individuals and Societies
a) "Herd" societies follow tradition or fashion mindlessly.
b) "Slave" societies are embittered and have a "sour grapes" approach...based on envy.
Both these ethical orientations are dishonest...in the sense that they are not based on human nature.
c) But "master" societies, Nietzsche says, are based on human nature.
They "chart their own course"...and are not afraid to be powerful."
4) His concept of the Ubermensch
--literally: "overman"...but usually translated as "Superman."
This is Nietzsche's ideal for humanity: "a union of spiritual superiority with well-being..."
...and an excess of strength."
The Superman uses his rationality, represented by the Greek god Apollo...to control his passions, represented by the god Dionysus.
If you do this, he says, your life can be transformed into a work of art.
Think of yourself as a personal creation...fit your traits into artistic plan.
From this, and his atheism, you can see why Nietzsche is sometimes considered as existentialist.

Ayn Rand (mid-20th century)
Context: the mid-20th century fight between:
individualism and capitalism, on the one hand...(e.g. the U.S.A.)
and...collectivism and socialism on the other...(e.g. Soviet Russia...where Rand had fled from)
By the early Cold War (late 1940s), many in the U.S. were so afraid of Russia that they were ready for Rand's message.
Here are the features of here philosophy which she called "objectivism:"
Like so many other ethical philosophers we've met, she also starts with human nature:
1) Our nature is to pursue self-interest
2) Self-interest is good...if it's guided by rational/objective principles (that's why she calls her views "objectivism").
Both these things parallel Bentham.
But where he thought altruism was unrealistic (given selfish human nature)...Rand believes that...

>>844892
3) Altruism is actually bad....she calls it inhumane.
Here are three of her reasons:
a) Proponents of altruism often speak as though the beneficiary is action is good
For example, if doing something for myself is considered bad...often doing the same for another is considered good.
She says this is absurd.
E.g. Imagine that you and someone else are starving on an island, and only one serving of food is left.
And it's small...splitting it means you both starve.
She says this is the same action with the same result...one person dies.
To say one is worse is absurd.
b) History teaches us that widespread altruism tends to transform people into either:
"sacrificial animals" (i.e. victims)...or profiteers-on-sacrifice (i.e. parasites)
...e.g. war profiteers.
c) Altruism does not usually (these days) depend on 'old mysticism...'
(e.g. traditional religion saying "God asks that you sacrifice yourself in some way or to some degree for others")
In modern times, altruism is now often associated with a new kind of mysticism, which she calls "neo-mysticism"...
...i.e. new and fashionable non-religious beliefs that are widely accepted...on faith...almost as though they were a religion.
e.g. we must sacrifice in some particular way for the good of society.
She sees common features in both these kinds of mysticism (old and new):
(i) Neither type is fundamentally (or at least fully) rational...in at least this sense:
Whether they're true or not, they're generally not subjected to rigorous critical review or evaluation.
(ii) Each of these two types of mysticism asks the individual to spend his/her life in some way in service...to those who claim to be spokespeople for "the good"...whatever that may be at the time.
--examples?
Sometimes all this (especially somehow when newer ideologies are involved) can lead to terrible consequences.
E.g. the "cults" of totalitarian leaders (even atheist ones) and their writings.

>>844900
Nel Noddings
(context late-20th feminism)
She offers what she calls "a distinct alternative to principled ethics"
(i.e. ethics based around principles or rules)
Here are some of her views...they are part of a larger ethical perspective (not just hers) called: "Ethics of Care"
Note that a particular view of human nature will (not always) be part of this viewpoint...that caring is natural (see point 4, below)
1) She begins by distinguishing between classically "masculine" and classically "feminine" ethics
The approach traditionally called "masculine" is:
--principled
--rational
--emotionally detached (i.e. with feelings left out, deliberately, in the name of objectivity)
The approach traditionally called "feminine" is based on:
--feelings
--needs
--impressions
2) Principles are flawed:
a) They often have exceptions (e.g. never kill...except in self-defense)...and therefore they're less secure than they appear.
In fact, case-law is often about this sort of thing...to refine principles put down in statutes.
b) our insistence on following principles can drive us away from others
3) "Concretization" (i.e. taking into account feelings and personal histories) is preferable to Kant's idea of "universalize-ability"
4) "Natural" caring is at the core of this ethic.
"The relation of natural caring represents moral goodness."
For her, this is a universal phenomenon...
She argues that universality, as a basis of morality, is not rational...but rather relational.
It says that we are obliged to act in ways that maintain relationships...rather than act in ways that are consistent with abstract and formal principles.

>>844907
Module 3 Overview:
1) Intro to Metaphysics and Epistemology
2)Plato's synthesis (built partly on Parmenides and Heraclitus)
3) Rationalism: Descartes
4) Empiricism: Locke
5) Kant's synthesis
Recall that Metaphysics (literally "beyond physics") deals with questions of ultimate reality...e.g. what is fundamental, as opposed to illusion or mere appearance.
Questions about spirituality are often part of this (one example of how this goes "beyond physics").
Questions involving mind-body duality (or not...) is another one.
Epistemlogy deals with questions concerning the nature of knowledge...e.g. Can we know anything for sure? What is the difference between knowledge and belief?

Parmenides...
emphasized the wholeness/oneness/unchanging nature of being.
(this parallels with many eastern philosophies)
In the other words: behind the apparent variety and change in the world is a stable, permanent reality not apprehended by the senses...only reason can recognize it.
e.g. everything is really energy...or something like that...

Heraclitus...
said that behind the apparent permanence that accompanies our everyday perceptions lies "the hidden reality of continuous movement."
(parallels with modern sub-atomic physics)
Consider the example of us aging or the chair decomposing...
Plato realized that both men were describing different aspects of reality:
a) appearance vs. reality
b) permanence vs. impermanence
And he theorized that these reflect the existence of:
a) different types or levels of knowledge
b) different states of being
He uses these insights as the basis for a picture of reality...and how we apprehend it.
This picture is revealed in his "divided line" theory.

>>844921
Plato's Metaphysical Epistemology
Plato, in fact believed that ideas did have a kind of actual existence. He called some of thse ideas "forms."
Forms, for Plato, are concepts of objects, as opposed to the objects themselves (e.g. the concept of a chair, rather than any particular chair).
They are "pure essences or abstract entities capturing the essential qualities of particular things."
Forms endure...e.g. the concept "human" doesn't die with any particular person's death.
His Allegory of the Cave is related to this...
It makes points about illusion, reality, belief, and knowledge...among other things.
Summary points for the Allegory of the Cave:
1) In the cave, the prisoners are deceived about the nature of reality.
2) Leaving the cave involves pain, confusion, then gradual "enlightenment"...seeing clearly.
3) It would be hard to return to the cave, once having been out...but equally hard to convince others to leave.
4) People who try to get the ignorant out of "the cave" and "enlighten" them are often attacked...even killed...
e.g. Socrates...who was executed for, essentially, questioning the prevailing beliefs of the time...
...and being "offensive" by having "dangerous thoughts."
That's why he remains a hero to freethinkers everywhere.

Rene Descartes (17th century)
context:
--the Scientific Revolution (c.1550-c.1700)
This revolution was based on:
1) the modern scientific method
2) methodological/systematic doubt
Descartes was responsible for the second of these.
This doubt meant "take nothing on faith...prove it to me..."
His particular form rationalism is often called "Cartesian rationalism."
Before beginning his journey of doubt, he borrowed two mental operations from math:
intuition and deduction
His doubting process begins by "breaking things down."
He will doubt even the most basic things...and require them to be proven before he'll believe them.

>>844935
Even if the the opposite of what he has always believed is improbably...he will always ask "is it possible..."
If so, then he can't be sure of what he previously believed.
Sensory data can't be trusted...
He could be dreaming...
But he can be sure of, for example mathematical truths...can't he? They seem to be true, even when he's dreaming...
But what if there is a god who runs things...and he's evil?
At least in the sense that he would deceive a mathematician about math...
The one thing Descartes decides he cannot doubt...is that he himself exists in some form (otherwise he could not be deceived).
Cogito Ergo Sum...I think, therefore I am.
He "moves one" from this through Deductive logic.
First, he proves deductively (if not entirely convincingly) that God exists.
He then deduces that a perfect God would not deceive about something as central as the existence of the external world.
And he's out of the "cogito" box...
The empiricists, as we'll see, have a different approach.

The British Empiricists (17th and 18th century)
They argued that Descartes and other "rationalists" had been too quick to dismiss sense data as untrustworthy...
A more careful approach was all that was needed, they said. For example, John Locke distinguished between "primary" and "secondary" qualities of objects.
Primary qualities are properties of objects that are independent of any observer...such as shape.
E.g. if a ball is spherical, no-one can reasonably say it is cube-shaped.
Secondary qualities are properties that produce sensation in observers...e.g. colour,taste, smell.
These are inherently subjective.
According to Locke, if one relies more on the objective data one could get from primary qualities, one can be more sure of data gleaned from the senses.
The British Empiricist had much, much more to say...

Kant's synthesis (18th century)
While Plato is generally considered the greatest western philosopher of all time...Kant is generally considered the greatest modern philosopher (i.e. since about 1500)
Kant decided that both the rationalists and the empiricists were only partly right...and he came up with a synthesis of both.
Locke believed that the mind was a tabula rasa...or blank slate...i.e. a passive recipient of sensory impressions...Kant argued that the mind is an active recipient of sense data.
For him, what is known is-in large part-a product of the mind itself in interaction with sense data.
In his view, the mind provides the forms into which the contents of experience are poured, shaped, and arranged.
He calls this the "structuring of sense data by conceptual forms."
Locke had talked about the mental process of "reflection," as something that happened after the sense data came in.
But Kant's "structuring" of sense data by the mind is different from that...since it is pre-reflective...it happens as an integral part of the actual process of perception.
For Kant, perception is "active construction."
And this has huge implications...since it can be used to challenge the very idea of objective truth...

and that's it, though I doubt anyone will read these walls of text.

File: d5c.png (54 KB, 557x605) Image search: [Google]

54 KB, 557x605

bookmarking this thread for future reading when it's archived

looks interesting af

File: Untitled.png (10 KB, 491x456) Image search: [Google]

10 KB, 491x456

>>844955
don't worry, I will

>>843341
>Distinguish between principle-based ethics and consequentialist ethics
A more precise distinction is virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism. See Anscombe's Modern Moral Philosophy.
>In Asian philosophies, they do not distinguish between mysticism and rationalism, to the point that religion and philosophy is intertwined
This is an exaggeration, about as much as saying Westerners do not believe in what they can't see.
>Their religion was not able to answer these and other questions.
It's not that, rather it's ye olden Greek philosophers didn't seem that invested in the polytheist pantheon, however they still mantain what we could describe as theistic views and beliefs in the supernatural, and use them as core concepts for their metaphysics anyway (demiurge, souls, dualism, etc.).
It's not religion answering them, yes, but they are the ones doing the answering, and they would influence religious thought and interpretation for centuries.
>which was more and mroe separate from religion and/or mysticism
But Platonism is mystical. Rather, they take the mysticism out of conventional religious ritualism and mythology.
>The ancient Greek language (unusually precise and subtle) had recently been developed by this point.
It only gets richer with these authors: they're the ones that came up with, or at the very least popularized, words such as ethics, politics, metaphysics in the sense we use today... It all starts with the Greeks.

>>844935
Back to plato?

Are your notes in order?