ch3ppt velasquez12

CHAPTER THREE: REALITY AND BEINGCHAPTER THREE: REALITY AND BEING

P H I L O S O P H YP H I L O S O P H YA TEXT WITH READINGSA TEXT WITH READINGS

1212thth EDITION EDITIONManual VelasquezManual Velasquez

Chapter 3: “Reality and Being”Chapter 3: “Reality and Being”

Outline of Topics in Chapter 3Outline of Topics in Chapter 3

• 3.1 What is Real?• 3.2 Reality: Material

or Nonmaterial?• 3.3 Reality in

Pragmatism• 3.4 Reality and

Logical Positivism• 3.5 Antirealism: The

Heir of Pragmatism and Idealism

• 3.6 Encountering Being: Reality in Phenomenology and Existentialism

• 3.7 Is Freedom Real?• 3.8 Is Time Real?


3.1 What is Real?3.1 What is Real?

• What is real? – A child trembling in the dark from a nightmare may be

fearful because he believes that reality is more than the hard material objects around him.

– You may defend yourself against these fears by insisting that such a realm cannot be a part of reality.

• Maybe you think: “Reality consists only of the hard, enduring objects around you that can be sensed.” What grounds do you have for this belief?

– Metaphysics is the systematic inquiry into the nature of reality.


Why Metaphysics?Why Metaphysics?

• Questions about the nature of reality are puzzling… so why should we engage in such questioning?– Metaphysical questions about what reality are among

the most significant questions we can ask because they are intimately linked to questions about what is important to us, what we need to pay attention to, what has significance..

• If ghosts are not real, then ghosts don’t matter. If God is not real, then God doesn’t matter. If the spiritual realm is not real, then it is something that can make no difference in our lives.

If only the material exists, then only the material is important.


3.2 Reality: Material or 3.2 Reality: Material or Nonmaterial?Nonmaterial?

• There are two overarching metaphysical theories:– Materialism: Reality is ultimately made up of matter.

• The chapter focuses on the Charvaka philosophical school of India, and the western philosopher s Democritus and Thomas Hobbes

– Idealism: reality is ultimately nonmaterial or mental in nature.

• The chapter focuses mainly on the theories of Berkeley and Vasubandhu.


Eastern Materialism: Eastern Materialism: Charvaka Philosophy Charvaka Philosophy

• The “Charvaka” philosophers of India, who flourished around 600 BCE, ridiculed the spiritualism of their religious countrymen.– Charvaka philosophers believed that sense

perception was the only valid source of knowledge.• Why did they rule out both inductive and deductive reasoning

as sources of knowledge? (150-1)

– If we can know only what we can perceive with our senses, materialism easily follows.

• How does the Charvaka assumption about knowledge generates materialism. (151)


Western Materialism: Western Materialism: DemocritusDemocritus

• The Greek philosopher Democritus (460–360 BCE) also believed that reality could be explained in terms of matter.– Matter is composed of atoms, which are solid,

indivisible, indestructible, eternal, and uncreated.– According to Democritus, the universe consisted of

atoms and empty space. • Even the soul, which he equated with reason, consisted of

atoms. • An implication of this is that “all things happen by virtue of

necessity, the vortex being the cause of the creation of all things.” (151)


Western Materialism: HobbesWestern Materialism: Hobbes

• Influenced by the newly emerging science, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) believed that we can know nothing about the world other than its measurable aspects.– “Of the whole world we may inquire what is its

magnitude, what its duration, and how many there be, but nothing else.” (152)

• Why does this imply materialism?

– Hobbes believed that even our mental states (sensations, thoughts, and emotions) are states of our material brain.


Objections to MaterialismObjections to Materialism

• The fundamental objection to materialism is its difficulty in accounting for human consciousness, including activities such as thinking, wishing, experiencing, hoping, dreaming, loving, and hating.– Matter has mass and spatial dimensions, but

consciousness does not. – Consciousness involves subjectivity, and this cannot

be straightforwardly explained by material entities, such as brain states.


Moving Beyond Moving Beyond Traditional MaterialismTraditional Materialism

• Recent work in particle physics has challenged the traditional atomic view of matter. – Today we know that atoms are made up of electrons,

protons, and neutrons—and these in turn can be broken down into yet more elementary particles.

– Additionally these elementary bits of stuff are more like energy, or fields, or, perhaps, probability waves than traditional atoms.

– Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminancy seems to undermine any attempt at simply expanding the old notions of matter to include the new. It may even imply that mind is intertwined with matter.


Idealism: Reality as NonmatterIdealism: Reality as Nonmatter

• Idealism is the belief that reality is essentially composed of minds and their ideas rather than matter. – Whether idealists believe that there is a single,

absolute mind or many minds, they invariably emphasize the mental or spiritual, not the material, presenting it as the creative force or active agent behind all things.


Berkeley’s IdealismBerkeley’s Idealism

• Idealism is anticipated by ancient philosophers such as Pythagoras, Plato and Augustine who argued that the spiritual and ideal has metaphysical primacy.– Modern idealism really begins with Bishop George

Berkeley (1685-1753), who reacted against materialist philosophers like Hobbes.

• Berkeley claimed that the conscious mind and its ideas or perceptions are the only reality. He did not deny the reality of the world we perceive. He denied only that this world is external to, and independent of, the mind


Two Kinds of IdealismTwo Kinds of Idealism

• Berkeley’s Idealism really merges two kinds of idealism: subjective idealism and objective idealism. – Subjective idealism says that reality consists of my

mind (and perhaps other human minds) and its ideas.– Objective idealism says that, in addition, reality

includes a supreme mind that produces an objective world of ideas that does not depend on my own mind, although it does depend on a mind—God’s.


Berkeley’s Subjective IdealismBerkeley’s Subjective Idealism

• Berkeley argues that we only know things in the world -- trees, rocks, houses and cats -- through perceptions conveyed through our senses.– When we use our senses, we see light or color; feel

hardness or softness, smoothness or roughness; smell sweetness or decay.

– We have no other knowledge of things beyond these perceptions.

• How does Berkeley reason from this to the conclusion that the things we perceeve have no existence outside our minds? (158)


An Important DistinctionAn Important Distinction• Berkeley distinguished between two very

different kinds of ideas in the mind: – Ideas that are short-lived, changeable, and within my

control. • For example, I can control how I imagine my ideal beach

vacation spot.

– Ideas that are more orderly orderly, regular, enduring, and are not within my control.

• For example, the ideas of my backyard garden – which remain pretty stable and constant. No matter what I think.


Berkeley’s Objective IdealismBerkeley’s Objective Idealism

• According to Berkeley, the orderly perceptions derive their uniformity, consistency, and continuity from the mind of God. – God produces in our minds the display of orderly

perceptions that we call the external world; it is God that gives this display its regularity and stability.

• This second stage of Berkeley’s idealism is an objective kind because it claims that the world of my perceptions does not depend on my mind, but on something external to my mind, i.e., on God.

• What are the advantages of objective idealism? (159)


Vasubandhu’s IdealismVasubandhu’s Idealism

• The Indian philosopher Vasubandhu (4th century CE,) developed a version of idealism similar to that of Berkeley.– Vasubandhu argued that we do not directly perceive

objects in the world around us. Instead, when we think that we are perceiving something, we are experiencing nothing more than sensations in our minds.

– He compared this mental reality to a dream, and argued that through meditation we can “awaken” to realize its illusory nature.


Objections to Objections to Subjective IdealismSubjective Idealism

• One problem with subjective idealism is that it fails to distinguish between my perception of a thing and the thing that I perceive. – For example, when I look at the computer screen in

front of me isn’t there a difference between my seeing the screen and the screen that I see?

• Why can’t subjective idealism make such a distinction?• What other objections to subjective idealism are there?


Objections to Objective IdealismObjections to Objective Idealism• According to Berkeley’s objective idealism, you

perceive your bedroom each day to be more or less exactly as it was the day before because some other mind, call it God, perceives it all the time. Do we really need such an explanation?

• Why won’t a more commonsensically materialistic explanation account for the composition of the bedroom and of the things that you pass en route to it suffice to explain this?

• And should it one day disappear, can’t a common sense viewpoint explain this as well –e.g., that it was torn down?


3.3 Reality in Pragmatism3.3 Reality in Pragmatism

• Pragmatism is a reaction to traditional systems of philosophy, such as materialism and idealism, and their seemingly endless debates about the nature of reality.– These systems, claim the pragmatists, have erred in

looking for absolutes. – Rather than look for absolutes, pragmatism counsels

philosophical seekers to examine the consequences of their beliefs:

• Thus, beliefs about reality are meaningful only to the extent that they have important consequences.


Pragmatism’s Approach to Pragmatism’s Approach to PhilosophyPhilosophy

• Pragmatists such as Peirce, James and Dewey don’t accept that philosophy is a self-contained discipline with its own cluster of problems.– They understand it to be an instrument used by living

individuals who are wrestling with personal and social problems and struggling to clarify their standards, directions, and goals.

• Thus, John Dewey (1859–1952) argued that philosophy arises out of our “social and emotional” lives to defend interests and conscious or unconscious human wishes.


The Pragmatic MethodThe Pragmatic Method

• The notion that the value of philosophy depends on its problem-solving capacity lie at the heart of the pragmatic method. – Ultimately, the test of an idea or ideal is its capacity to

solve the particular problems that it addresses• Thus, any inferences about the world drawn from

metaphysical inquiries must have premises that refer to facts in the world and not to human reasoning alone.

• This rules out appealing to assumptions of transcendent realities, or self-evident values.

• Rather, any judgment must be rooted in experiences that are meaningful to humans.


Applying the Pragmatic Method Applying the Pragmatic Method to Metaphysical Inquiryto Metaphysical Inquiry

• When applied to metaphysical questions, the pragmatic method indicates certain criteria for determining what’s real. – According to William James (1842–1910), we

determine whether an object is real by its relation to “our emotional and active life.”

• “[W]hatever excites and stimulates our interest is real.” • Because it is possible that different systems of ideas or

objects might excite our interest, he argued, people can recognize a number of different “sub-universes” or real worlds


PluralismPluralism

• Some metaphysicians may speak of one world—for example, the world of “matter” or the world of “mind”—as having more reality than another.

• However, James interpreted their views as indicating merely one of many possible worlds that can be real because of their relation to our emotional and active lives.

– Thus, given the variability of our interests, desires and values, there will be multiple realities or sub-universes.


James’ Sub-universesJames’ Sub-universes1. The world of sense, or of

physical “things.”

2. The world of science, or of physical things as the learned conceive them.

3. The world of ideal relations, or abstract truths believed or believable by all.

4 . The world of “idols of the tribe,” illusions or prejudices common to the race.

5. The various supernatural worlds, and worlds of deliberate fable.ers, etc.

6. The various worlds of individual opinion, as numerous as men are.

7. The worlds of sheer madness and vagary.


Objections to PragmatismObjections to Pragmatism

• Philosophers have objected to pragmatism on numerous grounds. Questions raises by objectors include: – Does pragmatism have the resources for conceiving

of disinterested intellectual and scientific inquiry?– When pragmatism emphasizes that multiple realities

exist because of the mind’s capacity to have multiple interests, does this imply that there is no reality apart from the mind?

• How might pragmatists answer these questions?


3.4 Reality and 3.4 Reality and Logical Positivism Logical Positivism

• Like pragmatists, logical positivists reject traditional metaphysics.– Logical positivists argue that the claims made in

metaphysics are meaningless, although they present the appearance of being meaningful.

– The chapter looks at two of the most influential logical positivists, A.J. Ayer (1910–1989) and Rudolph Carnap (1891–1970)


Ayer’s CriterionAyer’s Criterion

• Ayer bases his claim that metaphysical statements are forms of “nonsense” on “a criterion of meaning. – According to Ayer, a statement is meaningful if and

only if it is either: 1. a “relation of idea”, that is, a tautology (true by definition)

2. a “matter of fact”, that is a empirically verifiable statement (verifiable in principle by observation).

– Metaphysical statements are neither, and thus are meaningless.


Two Kinds of VerifiabilityTwo Kinds of Verifiability• Ayer is careful to distinguish between practical

verifiability and verifiability in principle.– While some empirical statements such as “HIV

causes AIDS” can be directly and easily verified, other statements are verifiable only in principle so long as we are capable of making the requisite observations.

• For example, in 1936 “There are mountains on the far side of the moon” could only be verified in principle.

• On the other hand, statements like “Only minds are real” can’t be verified even in principle.– .


Nonsense is EverywhereNonsense is Everywhere

• The logical positivist criterion of meaningfulness implies not only that metaphysical statements are meaningless, but also ethical and religious statements. – The fact that very few people consider such

statements meaningless raises a question: How can such statements be rejected as meaningless when so many people believe that they are filled with meaning?


Carnap and Non-Literal Carnap and Non-Literal MeaningMeaning

• Rudolph Carnap answers this question by conceding that metaphysical, ethical and religious statements are meaningful, but only in a non-literal sense.– Such statements only express emotion.

• As such, they are like the expressions of lyrical poets who use words to express feelings.

• Metaphysicians—and philosophers in general—use words to express feelings and not to represent facts about the world.


Deceptive LyricismDeceptive Lyricism

• Carnap writes that – “[M]etaphysical statements—like lyrical verses—have

only an expressive function, but no representative function ... [T]hey assert nothing, they contain neither knowledge nor error, they lie completely outside the field of knowledge…”

– On the other hand, “[a] metaphysical statement, however—as distinguished from a lyrical verse—seems to have such a content, and by this not only is the reader deceived, but the metaphysician himself.” (176)


Objections to Logical PositivismObjections to Logical Positivism

• Logical positivists make the following argument:1. All meaningful statements are either tautologies or

empirically verifiable.

2. Metaphysical statements are neither tautologies nor empirically verifiable.

3. Therefore, metaphysical statements are not meaningful statements.

• The text raises two objections to this argument – focused on the first premise. (180) What are these objections?


3.5 Antirealism: The Heir of 3.5 Antirealism: The Heir of Pragmatism and IdealismPragmatism and Idealism

• Some philosophers have embraced traditional idealism’s rejection of the existence of an independent external reality, as well as returned to pragmatism’s view that there are many “realities.” – These views are “postmodern” in the sense that they

reject the “modern” belief in a single reality. – They’ve also been labeled antirealist by many

contemporary philosophers.


RealismRealism

• The opposite of antirealism is realism, which claims that some realm of objects exists independently of our language, our thoughts, our perceptions, and our beliefs—that is, independent of the mind. – The realist holds that the features of this world

around us would have been exactly the same as they are now even if no one had ever existed who could perceive them, think about them, or describe them with language.


Arguing for Anti-RealismArguing for Anti-Realism• Modern antirealists do not agree with Berkeley

that all we know are our own sensations or ideas. – They argue, instead, that all we know are our own

linguistic creations. That is, when we think about or talk about reality, we must use a particular language or system iof concepts with its own special way of describing things.

• Different languages describe the same reality in different ways, and each of these different descriptions describes the world as having different features.

• So, antirealists conclude, we cannot say that reality has features that are independent of our language.


Goodman’s Anti-RealismGoodman’s Anti-Realism

• Nelson Goodman was one of the first contemporary philosophers to argue that reality is a conceptual construct:– “Now as we thus make constellations by picking out

and putting together certain stars rather than others, so we make stars by drawing certain boundaries rather than others. Nothing dictates whether the sky shall be marked off into constellations or other objects. We have to make what we find, be it the Great Dipper, Sirius, food, fuel, or a stereo system.”

(Goodman, 183)


Putnam’s AntirealismPutnam’s Antirealism

• Hilary Putnam is another prominent antirealist.• Consider, he suggests, objects such as in Figure

3.1. • Insert figure 3.1 from pg 183


Nonstandard RealitiesNonstandard Realities

• Putnam argues that there is no single answer to the question: How many objects are there in 3.1?– Our ordinary system of counting would say there are

three objects in Figure 3.1– However, certain nonstandard systems of counting

would say there are seven objects:• In addition to the three objects A, B, and C, these

nonstandard systems would “see” the object that consists of A and B together, the object that consists of B and C together, the object that consists of A and C together, and the object that consists of A, B, and C together.


Feminist AntirealismFeminist Antirealism

• The feminist philosopher, Dale Spender, formulates a feminist version of antirealism.– He agrees with Goodman that we cannot know

“things as they really are” because the classification system of the language we use “shapes” the reality we see.

– Feminists use antirealism to explain why the world that women ordinarily are forced to accept is sexist, based on male language and concepts.


Multidimensional RealityMultidimensional Reality

• From the feminist point of view, there are numerous “truths” available within feminism and it is falling into male-defined (and false) patterns to try and insist that only one is correct. – Accepting the validity of multidimensional reality

predisposes women to accept multiple meanings and explanations without feeling that something is fundamentally wrong. . . .

– The concept of multidimensional reality is necessary, for it allows sufficient flexibility to accommodate the concept of equality


Objections to AntirealismObjections to Antirealism

• The feminist philosopher, Jean Grimshaw, points out that if we accept antirealism then women who do not believe they are being exploited, oppressed, or dominated, are not, in reality, being exploited, oppressed, or dominated. – If women speak and think in a male language that

sees them as inferior, weak, and contemptible, then in reality they are inferior, weak, and contemptible.


Objections to AntirealismObjections to Antirealism

• John Searle raises a more general objection: – “From the fact that the description of any fact

can only be made relative to a set of categories, it does not follow that the facts themselves only exist relative to a set of categories. “ (186)

– How does the text apply Searle’s objection to Putnam’s interpretation of Figure 3.1?


Realism as a Presupposition Realism as a Presupposition of Communication of Communication

• Searle goes on to argue that the very fact of communication presupposes realism.– “But what are the conditions of possibility of

communication in a public language? What do I have to assume when I ask a question or make a claim that is supposed to be understood by others? At least this much: if we are using words to talk about something, in a way that we expect to be understood by others, then there must be at least the possibility of something those words can be used to talk about.” (187)


3.63.6 Encountering Being: Reality in Encountering Being: Reality in Phenomenology and ExistentialismPhenomenology and Existentialism• Both phenomenology and existentialism try to

approach reality from the inside, by focusing on reality as it is subjectively revealed to our consciousness in its human condition. – They disavow theoretical presuppositions and instead

focus on reality as it presents itself to directly, in our experience.

• The text examines the philosophies of reality of Husserl, Heidegger and Existentialism.


Husserl’s PhenomenologyHusserl’s Phenomenology

• As a method of investigation, phenomenology means the study of what appears to consciousness.– The founder of phenomenology is Edmund Husserl

(1859–1938).– Husserl argues that we need to approach the study of

reality through our consciousness of reality. – Husserl believed that could suspend belief in

everything, but you cannot think away consciousness.• This suggests that the most fundamental reality that is

revealed to us is our consciousness itself.


The Natural StandpointThe Natural Standpoint• Husserl’s phenomenological method involves taking a

stance, suspending belief in “the natural standpoint.”– The natural standpoint is our normal everyday awareness of the

world as “simply there,” whether or not we pay any special attention to it.

– It is the world of space and time as we experience it, but not a world of mere, colorless facts.

• “this world is …. a world of values, a world of goods, a practical world. . . . furnished not only with the qualities that befit their positive nature, but with value-characters such as beautiful or ugly, agreeable or disagreeable…” (192)

– :

• It includes


BracketingBracketing

• Husserl asks us to set it aside—to “bracket” or suspend judgment about—the world “out there,” and to focus, instead, on the nature of our consciousness or awareness of that world, that is, on how that world appears to us within our consciousness.– For example, suppose you have a glass in your hand.

• To understand your sensory consciousness of that glass, you would bracket your belief that it is actually out there in your hand. This will allow you to attend to the mode consciousness in which the glass appears to you.


Consciousness and BeingConsciousness and Being

• Husserl argues that bracketing presents important truths that would otherwise elude us.

• What remains after bracketing is our consciousness.– “Consciousness in itself has a being of its own which

in its absolute uniqueness of nature remains unaffected by the phenomenologic disconnection. It therefore remains over as a “phenomenological residue,” as a region of Being which is in principle unique, and that can become in fact the field of a new science—the science of Phenomenology.” (193)


Heidegger’s PhenomenologyHeidegger’s Phenomenology

• Heidegger adapts Husserl’s phenomenological approach to an investigation of human existence in the world. – For the early Heidegger, the nature of reality is

revealed by studying the nature of human being, the way that humans exist in their ordinary day-to-day world.

– Heidegger thought that traditional thinking is confused about being. Being is not an individual thing, an attribute or quality, but the very “is-ing” of things


DaseinDasein• Heidegger believed that to understand being, we

have to first understand the human kind of being, which he called “Dasein,” a German word that means “being there.” – Human existence is a “being there” in a world into

which we have been “thrown” by no choice of our own. – Unlike mere “things,” we can “question” or try to

understand our own being. • By becoming conscious of our own being, our Dasein, or how

we exist within our world, we may better understand not only own being, but the being that underlies everything.


The Being of DaseinThe Being of Dasein

• Heidegger’s investigation lead him to the conclusions that Dasein is essentially finite and temporal.– Our being is a temporal process of becoming the unique

person we are through our personal decisions until our being ends with a death that is possible at any moment.

• We can also fail to become our real selves by conforming with the habits and conventions of our society and becoming an “anonymous one,” an object for the use of others.

• Living “authentically” requires facing our death, and thus living with angst or anxiety”.

•


ExistentialismExistentialism

• Existentialism shares much with Husserlian and Heideggerian phenomenology.– In particular, it arises as a reaction to the idea that an

objective knowledge of the human can be attained by applying the scientific method to sociology and psychology.

• Its main concern is the subjectivity of the human individual and the individual’s responsibility for who he or she is.

– The text focuses mainly on the existentialism of Soren Kierkegaard(1813–1855) and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980)


Four Themes in KierkegaardFour Themes in Kierkegaard• Kierkegaard’s existentialism is preoccuppied

with living an authentic life.• His writing on the pursuit of authenticity

reverberates with four large themes:1. The necessity of gaining clarity about how to live.

2. Understanding reality from the subjective perspective of the self who chooses and acts.

3. The central importance of decision and commitment, in creating and shaping what we become.

4. Understanding what it means to be a Christian.


Anxiety and The Leap of FaithAnxiety and The Leap of Faith

• As with Heidegger, Kierkegaard believed that living an authentic life requires coming to terms with our anxiety.– Unlike Heidegger, however, Kierkegaard believed

anxiety is most closely connected with our freedom to choose.

– This is manifested in the need to make a “leap of faith” into nothingness when we make significant choices in the absence of clear knowledge that we are choosing correctly.


ExistingExisting

• For Kierkegaard, to exist, and to become who I am, are identical.

– In choosing, Kierkegaard claims, “the personality is consolidated.”

• Through our choices we come to be the person we are. That is, we come to exist; we become real.

• This will turn out to be a central existentialist theme: that we make ourselves through our choices and thereby come to truly exist.


Sartre’s ExistentialismSartre’s Existentialism

• Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) developed an atheistic version of existentialism, with a distinctive metaphysics of free action.– Sartre metaphysics really starts with the insight that

there is no God to define us.– Thus, there is no fixed human nature– So we can be only what we choose to be. – The “leap of faith,” i.e., the commitment to religious

faith, for Sartre is a refusal of this absolute freedom and so a non-starter.


Two Kinds of BeingTwo Kinds of Being

• To explicate the distinctiveness of our freedom, Sartre develops an account of the nature of free action based on his phenomenological analysis of conscious experience.

• His analysis reveals that there are two fundamentally different kinds of being: – Being-for-itself, and being-in-itself.


Being-in-itselfBeing-in-itself• To grasp being-in-itself, we need only look at

any pure object or material thing – such as the desk or book in front of you.– Such objects have properties or attributes, an

essence that defines what they are. • For example, the table weighs 100 pounds, the book has 700

pages, etc.

– It’s pretty clear that the in-itself lacks freedom – it is what it is, at any given point in time.

– I could look at my life this way too if I viewed myself as a pure thing.

• By doing this though I’d be ignoringthe for-itself of my consciousness


Being-For-ItselfBeing-For-Itself

• Being-for-itself is nothing until it acts, and then the reality it becomes is whatever it chooses to do. – This is why humans, who as conscious agents, are

being-for-itself, make themselves through their choices.

• Being-in-itself is not conscious and cannot make itself other than what it is.

• “As a consciousness, being-for-itself is nothing until, through its conscious activities, it makes itself be something; on the other hand, an in-itself cannot choose and so cannot make itself into anything other than what it already is.” (199)


ResponsibilityResponsibility• Sartre’s view is that as being-for-itself, we are

responsible for what we have become. – Sartre rejects the notion that one acts as one does

because of the conditions under which one grew up. • As the for-itself, one is a free consciousness, so what he is is

the result of the free choices he makes. • As a free consciousness, even a thief could choose to act as

an honest man.

– Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986), takes this philosophy of freedom and applies it to women, arguing that their femininity need not define them as an in-itself.


Objections to ExistentialismObjections to Existentialism• The text considers objections to both Husserl

and to Sartre:– How do critics challenge Husserl’ contention that

“bracketing” is presuppositionless and objective? (202)– What questions do philosophers raise about Sartre’s

claim that that one cannot be in the mode of being-for-itself by freely choosing to be committed to Christianity, or any other form of group membership? (202)


3.7 Is Freedom Real?3.7 Is Freedom Real?• The murder trials of Leopold and Loeb and

Thomas Koskovich illustrate what is at stake in the debate over whether freedom is real.– Some philosophers argue that as the predictable

outcome of the violent life that had preceded it Koskovich was not free not to act as he did. So he should not be held morally responsible for his acts.

– On the other hand, other philosophers strongly disagree holding that Koskovich should be held morally responsible for what they do.

• No matter how we are brought up, we have the power to choose what we will do.


Three ResponsesThree Responses

• There are three philosophical responses to the question: Is human freedom real? – Determinism is the view that human actions are

completely determined by prior events. – Libertarianism is the position that people have control

over what they do and are free to choose to act other than the way they do

– Compatibilism is a theory that holds that determinism is compatible with freedom and responsibility


DeterminismDeterminism• According to determinism, every event has prior

conditions that cause it.– Thus, each event is at least theoretically predictable if

we know all its prior conditions and the laws governing those conditions.

– Human actions are part of this causal chain of nature and so are also determined.

• While it may seem to us that we are free, in actuality, this freedom is just a result of our ignorance of the laws that govern us.

• What is the deductive argument for determinism? (208)


No ResponsibilityNo Responsibility

• Determinism contradicts the idea that we are each personally responsible for our actions. – Freedom is the ability to choose among alternatives.

• Assuming I’m free, I freely decided to read this chapter, because I could have decided not to read it.

– If someone cannot help but do what they do, then they are not free to act otherwise. If they lack freedom, in this sense, then they also lack responsibility.

• We are responsible for an action only if we are in control of the action or its causes. It’s the events and forces that led us to act control what we do.


Problems with DeterminismProblems with Determinism

• The implications of determinism are disturbing. – For example, if it is true, then punishment, at least in

the traditional sense, makes little sense.– What other implications might determinism have?

• Some philosophers have questioned the determinist understanding of human action. – They posit that we are at least sometimes directly

aware that we have control over our actions and so are morally responsible at that moment for the actions we choose.


LibertarianismLibertarianism

• Libertarianism stands opposed to determinism, although libertarians do share an assumption with determinists.– They agree with the determinist that determinism

rules out freedom and responsibility.• That is, they presuppose that if we are truly free when we do

X, then we could also have chosen not to do X.

– However, libertarians reject the determinist’s claim that all human actions are caused by antecedent events.


Sartre’s LibertarianismSartre’s Libertarianism• Libertarians claim that people do have control

over what they do and are free to choose to act other than the way they do. – We are, in Sartre’s view, radically free: Our ability to

conceive of what is not allows us to form plans that are not determined by the past or the present.

• The y cannot be determined because what is cannot determine what is not. Being cannot determine nonbeing.

• By this ability to pursue what is not, we make ourselves whatever we choose to be regardless of the influences of our environment or our heredity.

• What deductive argument do libertarians make for their point of view?


Objections to LibertarianismObjections to Libertarianism

• Critics have raised numerous objections to libertarianism.– Some criticize the libertarians for their use of

indeterminism based on quantum mechanics.• These arguments leave the future open, but fail to account

for the ability to choose freely.

– Others argue that libertarianism makes human choices mysterious and unexplainable, while flying in the face of what we know about human psychology and the extent to which we are shaped by our pasts.


CompatibilismCompatibilism

• Compatibilists reject the view that determinism rules out freedom and responsibility. – They attempt to save freedom by redefining it: To say

that a person is free is to say that the person is not impeded by external restraints or confinements.

• A person wearing handcuffs or in prison is not free. But a person who acts based on her own desires or character move her to do is free.

– On the other hand, compatibilists accept determinism.

• A person’s desires and character are molded by her heredity, upbringing, and other antecedent causes.


Determinism and ResponsibilityDeterminism and Responsibility

• From the Compatibilist standpoint, to say that a person is responsible for an action is to say that the action flowed from inside the person, from what he is. – So, when a person’s actions are caused by his inner

desires and his character, they flow from the person and from what he is, making him responsible for those actions.

• What is the deductive argument for compatibilism?


Criticisms of CompatibilismCriticisms of Compatibilism

• It’s true that compatibilism appears to wed freedom and responsibility with determinism.

• However, it leaves the key question unanswered: – If we are not free to act against our desires, then isn’t

there still a clear sense in which we are not free? – Maybe we are “free” in the sense that we are not

chained down and physically restrained from acting. But aren’t we unfree in the more important sense that we do not ultimately control what we do?


Kantian CompatibilismKantian Compatibilism

• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) tries to avoid this impasse by offering a different kind of compatibilism. – Kant argues that as rational beings we can really take

two points of view on ourselves.• We can view ourselves as parts of the natural world, and thus

subject to the laws of nature. From this perspective determinism is true.

• We can also view ourselves belonging to the world understanding, where we see ourselves as conscious agents, subject only to moral rules that are based on reason. From this perspective we are free and responsible.


3.8 Is Time Real?3.8 Is Time Real?• Time is a central aspect of our lives.

– It’s a feature of the way we talk about out lives:• We talk about what happened “yesterday,” what we are

doing “today,” and what we plan to do “tomorrow.”

– It’s also a dimension of our identities:• To find out who I am, I need to look into my memory of my

past and see what I’ve done and where I’ve been, how I’ve acted and responded to the needs and demands of others and to the events of my life

• Yet what is time? And in what sense is it real or unreal?


Augustine on TimeAugustine on Time

• Augustine (354-430 CE) argued that only the present instant of time really exists. – The past and future are not real. They have only a

shadowy mental existence in our mind. – Past instants only exist in memory, and future

instants only exist by anticipation. – Outside the mind, in reality, there exists only the

changing point-like instant of time that makes up the present.


Two Temporal PerspectivesTwo Temporal Perspectives

• Augustine’s theory of time suggests a useful distinction between time from the point of view of God and time as we experience it. – God is outside time. From God’s point of view, time is

like a line of events that lies stretched out before Him.• Here time is an objective, fixed series of events.

– We experience time quite differently. We are in time and experience it as a movement along the time-line of events.

• Here time is subjective duration, the flow from the future, through the present, and into the past.


McTaggart on TimeMcTaggart on Time• J. M. E. McTaggart (1886–1925) makes a

distinction, similar to Augustine’s, between objective time and subjective time.– McTaggert identifies two temporal series:

• Objective time, or the “B series,” is a fixed series of moments, each one “before” or “after” the others.

• Subjective time, or the “A series,” is a sequence of flowing moments, each of which changes from being “future” to “present” to “past.”


What Really is Time?What Really is Time?

• According to McTaggart, only the A series is really time. – For time requires change, and the events or moments

in objective time—the B series—do not change.

– Time, in the B series, is an unchanging, fixed series of events frozen onto the line that makes up the series.


Time is UnrealTime is Unreal• McTaggart argues that the A series is

impossible! • That’s because in the A series one and the same

moment appears to be sequentially future, present and past.

• But the future, by definition cannot be present and past.

• Whatever is impossible cannot exist or be real.• Reality must be consistent. It cannot contain

impossible elements.• Therefore , time is unreal.


Kant on TimeKant on Time

• Kant claims that time, along with space, is a mental grid that we impose on sensations in order to construct an organized perceptual world.– “Time is a necessary representation, lying at the

foundation of all our perceptions. With regard to phenomena in general, we cannot think away time from them, and represent them to ourselves as out of and unconnected with time. But we can quite easily represent to ourselves time empty of any phenomena. Time is therefore given a priori. In it alone is all reality of phenomena possible.” (219)


Bergson on TimeBergson on Time

• The French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859–1941) turns McTaggart’s analysis on its head. – He argues that the scientist’s objective time (The B

series) is just a conceptual abstraction, a construct of the mind.

– Only what we directly experience is real. • What we directly experience or “intuit” within ourselves is the

flow of time. • We directly experience ourselves as changing and as flowing

through time. • Bergson calls this experience the intuition of duration.


The Intuition of DurationThe Intuition of Duration

• Bergson argues that the experience of time cannot be captured neatly in a single image. – On the one hand, the unrolling of our duration

resembles in some of its aspects the unity of an advancing movement.

– On the other hand, it seems more like the multiplicity of expanding states – akin to an elastic band being stretched.

– “The inner life is all this at once: variety of qualities, continuity of progress, and unity of direction. It cannot be represented by images.” (220)


What Do You Think?What Do You Think?

• Who is right? – Is subjective time real, or is only objective

time real? – Do things end? Do we and our loved ones die

and vanish into nothing? Or is every life and event really fixed eternally in objective time?

– What are you views about the reality of time?


ch3ppt velasquez12

Education