Date created: 02.1.10
Last revised: 2005-2-14

My Review of Western Philosophy

 Here is my summary and discussion of the philosophers I have studied in Norman Melcert’s textbook The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy, 2nd Edition.  I am writing these things down to remind myself why each of the main philosophers in my book are important to know.
 
Socrates
(470-399 B.C.)
The father of philosophy.  Socrates attempted to arrive at the truth through dialectic, a process where one person asks another to clarify a truth such as a pious action, beauty, etc.  He was executed for exposing flaws in many politicians’ thinking.

Plato
(429 ? 347 B.C.) in ancient Greece (Melcert: 104, 143).
 Socrates’ student.  Plato came up with a philosophical system to prove that the sophists’ skepticism and relativism were incorrect and to prove that Socrates was unjustly executed.  Plato distinguishes between knowledge and opinion ? his definition of knowledge has held until recent times (20th century).  He comes up with a theory of Forms.  However, Plato fails to define what a just person and just act is.  In his later dialogues, Plato becomes skeptical about his theory because it has a critical flaw ? infinite regress.

Aristotle
(259 - 322 B.C.)  (Melcert: 143)
 Plato’s student.  Aristotle clearly defines logic in a way to strengthen Plato’s arguments against the sophists.  The only modification made to Aristotle’s logic was made in the 20th century.  Unlike Plato, Aristotle is more down to earth and empirical, which is probably due to his upbringing (his father was a doctor) and the fact that Aristotle was a biologist.  Aristotle is also known for his virtue ethics, which has become quite popular in contemporary times.  Aristotle was also considered “the Philosopher” for many centuries until Descartes because his theories are compatible with Christianity.

Rene Descartes
(1596-1650)
 Descartes is important because he was the first philosopher ever to discover an absolute truth: “I think, therefore I am.”  This argument begins a new era in philosophy about what the standards of knowledge are.  The philosophers before Descartes did not draw conclusions that were clear enough like Descartes were.  When one thinks about the issue of knowledge, s/he has to consider Descartes’arguments, whether or not you agree with him or not ? it cannot be ignored.  According to Melcert, Descartes is the king of all skeptics.
 The problem with Descartes’ argument is that it is too limited.  At least before the he proves the existence of God, he can only know that he exists.  However, this is simply not the case.  If I were the only one who existed, I should be able to change things the way I want to.  However, that is not that the case; there are many things that exist that do act independently of myself.  Hegel and Heidegger undermine Descartes’ argument in this same way.  The main point is that we can know more than “I think, therefore I am.”  Descartes is starting with nothing, which is not the correct way to approach knowledge.  We have to look at what we have, then build from there, not from nothing, like Descartes does.  Descartes’ approach to knowing things is too limited.

Thomas Hobbes
(1588-1679)
 Hobbes is an advocate of the social contract theory.  The social contract theory begins with the premise that humans are selfish by nature, and only laws can keep them in order.  The type of law that can keep humans in order are laws that benefit all.  Hobbes comes up with the example of the Prisoner’s Dilemma to illustrate how this is so.  As the example illustrates, it is most beneficial to cooperate than to act in one’s own interest.  Thus, the social contract theory maintains that the moral act is an act that in accord with laws that benefit all.

David Hume
(1711-1776)
 I like Hume a lot because his reasoning is clear and simple.  Hume thinks ideas are copies of an impression, which can also be called an image.  Each idea originates from past experience (Melcert: 390).  His main point is that causality is not empirically observable.  His final conclusion about knowledge is very skeptical, that we can only know impressions one after another.  He is an advocate of moral relativism.

Kant
(1724-1804)
 Kant critiques Hume’s conclusions about knowledge.  Basically, he thinks Hume’s notion of knowledge is not detailed enough.  Kant says that knowledge can be divided into several categories, two of which are Hume’s.  At least to me, it seems that Kant is criticizing Hume’s Ideas, claiming that that is the mind is not a blank slate; we have intuition that organizes Hume’s ideas.  In other words, Hume was only looking at objects, Kant is also looking at what is observing the objects ? the mind.  With the new variable of the mind, Kant is able to escape Hume’s skepticism.
 Kant is an advocate of a motive-based ethical theory.  Basically, he claims that the ends do not justify the means.

Hegel
(1770-1831)
 Hegel thinks that knowledge should be viewed like history, improving over time and subject to revision.  Thinking of knowledge as absolute in black and white terms (i.e. You either know it or you don’t) is a very limited to way to think about knowledge.  As Descartes demonstrated, there are only a few things we can know with absolute certainty.  We (humans) can’t live a life based on only what we know for certain if there are going to be so few absolute truths.  We have to accept that there are some things we know a little about, even if it isn’t the entire, absolute truth.
 Hegel makes a very important critique of Hume and Kant.  Hume tries to figure out what we can know, while Kant tries to figure out how we come to understand appearances in terms of concepts using intuition.  These approaches are based on pure logic.  Hegel thinks we should look at what we already know to figure out what the tool of knowledge is.  And he concludes that our tool for understanding knowledge is progressive.
 Here are some important points to keep in mind about Hegel.  Hegel’s philosophy is somewhat reminiscient of Nietcze’s discussion of the “One.”  In Melcert’s words, Hegel argues that “…an individual must be thought of as socially shaped and constructed; no one is an island” (Melcert: 434).  This is why Descartes’ view of knowledge is too limited.  Hegel argues that knowledge can be attained by actualizing consciousness, or making reason into actuality.
Hegel’s philosophy is against Hume’s philosophy, as Melcert’s quote demonstrates: “Reason is not, and cannot be, simply the slave of the passions…” (Melcert: 432).  Hegel also makes a lot of references to Kant, such as refuting Kant’s motive-based ethical theory (Melcert: 432).
There is a contradictory nature to Hegel’s philosophy about his ideal community.  On one hand, he says that no community as of present is perfect because we are still moving toward actualizing reason completely.  However, on the other hand, Hegel says we should “look on” and let “Spirit” develop as history has developed over the ages (Melcert: 435).  He thinks that only specific people like Caesar and Napolean can change history for the better, although they themselves will not know they are doing so.  My question is, if someone is doing the right thing toward Hegel’s ideal State but others are not, how are we supposed to know who to embrace and follow?  Is there a way to know who is right and who is not?  Hegel says that we can only know after the fact (Melcert: 439), but by then it is too late.  I think this is an unsatisfactory answer.  Knowing that there are “right” people somewhere but not knowing who doesn’t give us any direction as to how we should go about achieving Hegel’s ideal state.  Because of this ambiguity, 2 groups of Hegelians have emerged: the radical (such as Marx) and the conservative (Kierkegaard?).

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
Follower of Hegel. Kierkegaard focuses on the individual and the meaning of life, or the ways to live life.  He comes up with 3 ways:

1) Aesthetic
2) Ethcial
3) Religious

Kierkegaard writes stories to illustrate the differences between each of these lives.
 The aesthetic life is lived by Johannes the seducer.  Johannes goal in life is to live an interesting life and avoid the boring as much as possible.  He considers living a life like Don Juan, moving from woman to woman, but he rejects this idea and instead focuses on the thrill that leads up to the event.  But eventually Johannes considers his life to be meaningless because it is transient ? always changing.  He asks for the judge for advice.
 The judge suggests he should just get married instead of moving from woman to woman.  Although this is not as interesting as the aesthetic life, such an life has meaning because it is not transient ? the meaning of life does not change from woman to woman.  It’s not a matter of choosing right or wrong, but simply to choose.
 The religious life is a life of faith, and not necessarily religious. Kierkegaard claims that life is most meaningful when there is a huge gap between what we want.  For example, Socrates dedicates his entire life to finding the truth, although it is highly unlikely he will find it.  Religion is another example ? a Christian tries not to sin, although that is highly unlikely.  A religious life is beyond the observable truth.

Marx (1818-1883)
 Follower of Hegel.  Marx focuses on society as a whole.

John Stuart Mill
(1806-1873)
 John Stuart Mill is an advocate of the theory of Utilitarianism.  This theory maintains that a moral act is an act that produces the maximum happiness for all.  Basically, utilitarianism maintains that the ends do justify the means, which is contrary to Kant’s motive-based moral theory.

Nietzsche
(1844-1900)
 Nietzsche writes stories to illustrate his philosophical points, much like Kierkegaard did.  The stories are written in a dialectic format.  The first work he published analyzes the meaning of life by examining Greek tragedies.  In this work, Nietzsche claims that the meaning of life can be discovered by accepting the tragic.
 In another work, Nietzsche uses a character called Zarathustra to present his idea of the overman.  The overman accepts reality as it is, regardless of whether it is tragic or not.  The test he comes up with is by asking oneself the question if one had to repeat his or her life for eternity, would one say yes or no?  He suggests that the way to live life is to accept everything for as it is, not make it into some ideal we think would be fair, etc.  If we are immoral, greedy, etc., that’s just the way humans are ? trying to justify being otherwise is just reflecting our ideals.   Nietzsche claims that philosophers before him were tending to do after-the-fact justification, especially when it comes to ethics.