**What is Philosophy Anyway?** Right off the bat, the sources tell us that defining 'philosophy' can be tricky because the word has been used in so many ways. But for the purpose of this history, it's understood in a pretty wide sense. Philosophy, in this view, sits somewhere comfortably (or perhaps uncomfortably!) between theology and science. - Like theology, philosophy speculates on big questions that we don't have definite answers for _yet_. - But like science, it leans on human reason instead of just accepting tradition or revelation as truth. Imagine a "No Man's Land" between science (where we have definite knowledge) and theology (where dogma reigns about things beyond definite knowledge). This is where philosophy lives, wrestling with questions that science can't currently answer and for which traditional theological answers might not seem as convincing today. Think about those big questions: Is the world just mind or matter? Does the universe have a purpose? Are there real laws of nature? What does it mean to live a noble life? These aren't questions you can answer with a test tube or a telescope. Studying these kinds of questions, even if we can't definitively answer them, is what philosophy is all about. Philosophy itself is born from two main ingredients: inherited religious and ethical ideas, and scientific investigation (using 'scientific' very broadly here). Philosophers mix these ingredients in different amounts, but the presence of both, to some degree, is what makes it philosophy. **Why Bother with Seemingly Unsolvable Questions?** You might ask, why spend time on questions that seem impossible to solve? Well, historically speaking, people's actions, in countless important ways, have been shaped by their theories about the world and life – about what's good and evil. This isn't just true for ancient times; it's true today too. To really understand a historical period or a nation, you need to grasp its philosophy, and to do that, you have to think like a philosopher yourself a bit. There's a back-and-forth here: life circumstances influence philosophy, but philosophy also influences how we live. - **Further thought:** How much do _your_ actions today depend on philosophical ideas, even if you don't realize it? **A Whirlwind Tour Through Time** Philosophy didn't just appear fully formed. It has a history! The excerpts outline three main periods: 1. **Ancient Philosophy:** This began in Greece around the 6th century B.C.. We'll spend a good bit of time here, as this is where many foundational ideas first emerged. 2. **Medieval Period:** After the fall of Rome and the rise of Christianity, philosophy was largely "submerged" by theology, with this period (11th to 14th centuries) being dominated by the Catholic Church. There were some rebels, but the explicit philosophy often reflected the views of only one party, largely the clergy. Dante is mentioned as achieving a synthesis of the medieval world of ideas. 3. **Modern Period:** Starting around the 17th century, this period is heavily influenced by science. While traditional religious beliefs are still important, they often feel the need for justification and are modified when science seems to require it. Secular states became more prominent in philosophical thought than the Church. Modern philosophy is said to begin with Descartes. - **Further thought:** How does the rise of science continue to challenge or reshape philosophical and religious ideas today? **The Dawn of Greek Thought: The Pre-Socratics** Philosophy, distinct from theology, kicked off in Greece in the 6th century B.C.. Fun fact: Philosophy and science weren't separate back then; they were born together. **The Milesian School:** Our journey begins in Miletus, a busy commercial city in Asia Minor. The very first philosopher typically mentioned in histories is **Thales**, who lived around 585 B.C.. He's famous for saying everything is made of water. While that might sound simple now, it was a groundbreaking attempt to find a single underlying principle for everything. Thales is respected more as a man of science than a philosopher in the modern sense, but his thinking stimulated both thought and observation. There are cool legends about him, like how he used his knowledge of astronomy to predict an olive harvest and make a fortune, just to show that philosophers _could_ be rich if they wanted to, but their ambition lies elsewhere. The Milesians asked good questions and didn't rely on gods with human-like desires for their explanations, inspiring future thinkers. **Rationalists vs. Mystics:** As philosophy developed, especially in southern Italy, a more religious and mystical trend emerged, contrasting with the more scientific spirit of the Milesians. Generally speaking, there were two main currents in Greek thought: 1. **Passionate, Religious, Mystical, Otherworldly:** This tendency was linked to cults like Bacchus and Orphism. It emphasized intense feeling, sometimes through 'intoxication' (physical or spiritual), finding delight and beauty, and liberating imagination. The Bacchic element made life dangerous but interesting; science alone, while sober, isn't always satisfying; people need passion, art, and religion. Orphism, an ascetic sect, sought intoxication as a form of 'enthusiasm' or union with the god, believing it granted mystical knowledge. This mystical element profoundly influenced Greek philosophy, notably through Pythagoras and Plato. Orphics founded religious communities open to anyone, originating the idea of philosophy as a _way of life_. 2. **Cheerful, Empirical, Rationalistic:** This tendency is represented by thinkers like Herodotus and the early Ionian philosophers. Aristotle is also seen as part of this trend to a point. These two tendencies represent an ongoing conflict between the rational and the mystical throughout history. **Pythagoras:** An intellectually monumental figure, Pythagoras lived in the Greek cities of southern Italy. He's where demonstrative deductive argument in mathematics begins, and for him, mathematics was deeply intertwined with a unique kind of mysticism. Pythagoras reformed Orphism, and his influence, mixed with Orphic ideas, heavily shaped Plato. The Pythagorean ethic praised the contemplative life, seeing humans as strangers in this world, the body as a tomb for the soul. Escape from suffering was sought not in suicide, but in purification, with disinterested science being the greatest purification, releasing the true philosopher from the "wheel of birth". The very word 'theory' was originally an Orphic word meaning 'passionate sympathetic contemplation,' which for Pythagoras became intellectual contemplation leading to mathematical knowledge. While later generations may find it strange, those who experience the "intoxicating delight" of mathematical understanding might find this Pythagorean view natural. The influence of geometry, starting with self-evident axioms and using deduction (like in Euclid), profoundly impacted philosophy, science, and even theology, setting a style found in Plato, Kant, Newton, and scholastic theology. This blend of religion derived from ecstasy and theology derived from mathematics is found in Pythagoras. **Heraclitus:** Flourishing around 500 B.C., Heraclitus is best known for his doctrine that everything is in a state of flux or continuous change. Even so, he allowed for something everlasting: a central fire that never dies. **Parmenides:** Providing a stark contrast to Heraclitus, Parmenides retorted that _nothing_ changes. He lived in Elea, in southern Italy, in the first half of the 5th century B.C.. Parmenides invented a powerful form of metaphysical argument based on logic. His core idea can be seen as arguing from thought and language to the nature of reality itself. He implicitly assumed that words must have constant meaning and refer to something real that exists independent of whether we talk about it. While his specific argument about, say, George Washington still existing because we can use his name is seen as fallacious due to not understanding how names refer to things present to sense or memory, his method of drawing metaphysical conclusions from language was influential. A major concept accepted from Parmenides in subsequent philosophy, even if his denial of all change was too paradoxical, was the **indestructibility of substance**. Substance, conceived as the persistent subject of varying predicates, became a fundamental concept for over two thousand years. Reconciling Parmenides' logical arguments against change with the obvious fact of motion and change became a major task for later philosophers. - **Further thought:** How does the debate between change (Heraclitus) and permanence (Parmenides) still show up in modern science or philosophy? **Empedocles and Leucippus:** Following Parmenides, Empedocles is noted for discovering air as a distinct substance through observation. Leucippus was also concerned with reconciling Parmenides' arguments with the reality of change and motion. **The Sophists: The Rise of Skepticism and Rhetoric** In the latter half of the 5th century B.C., the great pre-Socratic systems faced a skeptical challenge from thinkers known as Sophists. Originally, 'Sophist' just meant something like 'professor'. These were men who taught useful skills for practical life, like arguing, for a fee. Because they charged money, they primarily taught the wealthy, contributing to a class bias. **Protagoras:** A leading Sophist, Protagoras is known for the idea that "man is the measure of all things". Plato interprets this as meaning one opinion can be _better_ than another, even if not strictly _truer_ (like the difference between the world as seen by a healthy person vs. someone with jaundice). This view is akin to pragmatism. Since there's no objective truth, Protagoras was led to see the majority as the practical arbiters of belief, defending law, convention, and traditional morality. He believed the gods should be worshipped, even if he wasn't sure they existed. While he taught practical efficiency and higher mental culture for a fee, Plato, having private means, criticized the Sophists for charging money. **Gorgias:** Another Sophist, Gorgias, took skepticism to an extreme, arguing that nothing exists, that if anything exists it's unknowable, and even if knowable, it's incommunicable. The Sophists were prepared to follow arguments wherever they led, often towards skepticism. This willingness to argue for or against any opinion, like modern lawyers, shocked those who saw philosophy as a way of life tied to religion. Plato, in particular, is described as hostile to the Sophists, sometimes twisting arguments to reach morally desirable conclusions rather than following purely theoretical standards. This practice, prioritizing virtuous outcomes over intellectual honesty, is seen as a vice Plato introduced into philosophy. - **Further thought:** How does the Sophists' emphasis on rhetoric and winning arguments for hire relate to political discourse today? **Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle: The Giants of Greek Philosophy** These three figures are arguably the most influential in the history of Western philosophy. **Socrates:** Historically, Socrates is a bit mysterious. We know he was an Athenian citizen who debated philosophy with young people, but unlike the Sophists, he didn't charge fees. He was famously tried, condemned, and executed in 399 B.C.. Our main sources are his pupils, Xenophon and Plato, whose accounts differ. Plato's Socrates often uses a method of questioning (dialectic) to elicit knowledge, comparing himself to a midwife helping others 'give birth' to ideas. Plato also connects this to the idea that we learn by remembering knowledge from a past existence. However, this method isn't suitable for empirical science, like discovering bacteria; you can't just question someone into knowing that. **Plato:** Born into an aristocratic family in Athens around 428–7 B.C., Plato lived through Athens' defeat in the Peloponnesian War, which he blamed on democracy. His teacher, Socrates, was put to death by that same democracy. These experiences, along with his aristocratic background, likely made him critical of democracy and open to authoritarian ideas. - **Influence of Sparta:** Sparta, with its rigid, militaristic society and its famous (and partly mythical) constitution attributed to Lycurgus, heavily influenced Plato's political theories, particularly his ideal state in the _Republic_. While modern readers might see Spartan ideals reflected in totalitarian regimes like the Nazis, the ancient Greeks often admired its stability. Plutarch's later accounts solidified the myth of Sparta, influencing subsequent thinkers like Rousseau, Nietzsche, and even the founders of the United States (indirectly). - **Sources of Plato's Ideas:** Plato synthesized ideas from various predecessors: - From **Parmenides**, he took the idea that true reality is eternal and unchanging, and that change is an illusion. - From **Heraclitus**, he adopted the negative view that the sensible world is constantly changing and lacks permanence. Combining these two led to the conclusion that real knowledge isn't found through the senses but only through the intellect. - This intellectual focus fit well with **Pythagoreanism**. - From **Socrates**, he likely inherited a focus on ethics and seeking purpose-driven (teleological) explanations. The concept of "The Good" became central to his thought, likely influenced by Socrates. - **Plato's _Republic_:** This major dialogue tackles the question of 'justice' by first designing an ideal state (a Utopia). A key conclusion is that rulers must be philosophers. Plato then defines what a philosopher is. - **The Theory of Ideas (Forms):** This is perhaps the most famous and influential part of the _Republic_. Based on the distinction between reality and appearance (from Parmenides), Plato argues that the sensible world we experience with our senses is not truly real; it's just an imperfect copy. True reality consists of eternal, unchanging "Ideas" or "Forms". For example, there are many individual beds, but there is only one perfect "idea" or "form" of a bed, made by God. Particular beds in the world are just imperfect copies. Knowledge can only be had of the real Ideas, while we can only have "opinion" about the changing sensible world. A philosopher is a lover of "the vision of truth," seeking to know beauty itself, not just beautiful things. - **The Cave Allegory:** Plato uses the famous simile of the cave to illustrate this distinction. People without philosophy are like prisoners in a cave seeing only shadows on a wall, mistaking them for reality. The philosopher is like someone who escapes the cave, sees the real objects and the sun (representing the Idea of the Good), and understands that the shadows were just appearances. The philosopher feels a duty to return to the cave to enlighten others, but they'll have trouble being believed. - **Importance and Criticism:** Plato's theory is a major step in philosophy because it brings up the problem of universals (how general words like 'man' or 'cat' can have meaning if only particular things exist). Even if his specific arguments don't hold up entirely, the problem remains important. However, Plato's theory also has flaws. He gets tripped up by relative terms (like something being both 'great' and 'small' depending on comparison). The dialogue _Parmenides_ raises various difficulties, such as how individuals "partake" in an idea, leading to infinite regress (the "third man" argument), or whether ideas are just thoughts (which must be _of_ something). Despite these criticisms, Plato's ideas profoundly influenced subsequent philosophy and Christian theology. - **Knowledge vs. Perception:** Plato strongly argues that true knowledge isn't based on the senses, which are unreliable. Knowledge comes from thought about concepts. Logic and mathematics are examples, but for them to give us categorical truth about the real world, we need something like the Idea of the Good, which allows the philosopher to infer that the world of ideas is the real world. - **Mystical Elements:** Plato's ideas connect to Orphic and mystical traditions, seeing the body as a hindrance to knowledge and emphasizing 'purity' as freedom from bodily needs. He even links war to the love of money needed for the body. While he recognized philosophy requires economic support (like Athens' imperialism providing leisure), his ideal was somewhat detached from material concerns. - **Cosmogony (briefly):** His dialogue _Timaeus_, the only one widely known in the West during the Middle Ages, influenced later thought despite containing "more that is simply silly than is to be found in his other writings". It describes the creation of the world, influenced by Pythagorean ideas about number. **Aristotle:** Born around 384 B.C., Aristotle was Plato's pupil for nearly 20 years. He later tutored Alexander the Great, though the extent of his influence on Alexander is uncertain and debated. Aristotle is one of the most influential philosophers ever, but his later authority, particularly in science, became an obstacle to progress. - **Critique of Plato's Ideas:** Aristotle provides strong arguments against Plato's theory of Ideas, many of which were already present in Plato's own _Parmenides_ dialogue, such as the "third man" argument. - **Doctrine of Universals:** Aristotle offers his own view on universals (general concepts or predicates). He distinguishes between universals (like 'man', 'white') which can be predicated of many subjects, and individuals (like 'Socrates', 'France'). His view is often seen as a more common-sense approach: universals depend on individuals for their existence, but individuals don't depend on universals in the same way. - **Metaphysics:** In his _Metaphysics_, Aristotle distinguishes between 'soul' and 'mind' (nous), considering the mind higher, less tied to the body, and potentially immortal. The mind understands timeless objects like those in mathematics and philosophy. - **Logic:** Aristotle's most important contribution to logic is the doctrine of the syllogism (an argument with three parts: major premiss, minor premiss, conclusion). Examples include "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal". However, he made errors by sometimes confusing names (particulars) and predicates (universals), leading to problematic ideas, like a species being a substance. His work on _The Categories_ lists ten basic ways things can be described (substance, quantity, quality, etc.), though the exact meaning of 'category' can be obscure. His _Posterior Analytics_ explores how we gain the initial, unproved principles needed for deductive reasoning, linking this to the notion of essence. - **Physics:** Aristotle's books _Physics_ and _On the Heavens_ were hugely influential for centuries, dominating science until Galileo. While largely outdated now, they shaped the understanding of the physical world. His views were often influenced by underlying "imaginative preconceptions". For instance, he rejected Anaximander's idea of a freely floating Earth, arguing that if the Earth were at the center, it would have no reason to move one way or another (an argument related to the "Buridan's ass" paradox). - **Further thought:** How did Aristotle's emphasis on logic and categorization shape scientific thinking for so long? **Ancient Philosophy After Aristotle: The Hellenistic Period** After Alexander the Great, the Greek world entered the Hellenistic age, characterized by subjection and disorder under Macedonian rule, before eventually falling under Roman subjection and order. While science and mathematics flourished, philosophy, though still important, was arguably less creative than during the time of Plato and Aristotle. This period saw an increase in the influence of non-Greek religions and superstitions, especially Babylonian astrology and magic. Philosophy also shifted focus. With political power moving away from the Greek City States to larger empires, philosophers turned inward, focusing less on creating a good state and more on individual virtue and salvation in a difficult world. This growing subjectivism and individualism helped pave the way for the rise of Christianity. New schools emerged: **Cynicism:** While not detailed in these excerpts, Cynicism is mentioned as influencing Stoicism. **Skepticism:** Formalized by **Pyrrho**, who traveled with Alexander to India. Pyrrho questioned the possibility of certain knowledge, whether from the senses, morals, or logic. A key argument, advanced by his follower **Timon**, was that any attempt to prove initial principles leads either to circular reasoning or an endless chain of unproven statements, meaning nothing can truly be proven. The Platonic Academy itself became skeptical for about 200 years, starting with **Arcesilaus**, who interpreted Plato's dialectic as a tool for showing the plausibility of opposing views. He famously refused to maintain any thesis, only refuting those proposed by others. **Carneades**, another skeptic from the Academy, gained notoriety in Rome for arguing against traditional ideas of justice, suggesting that great states grew through injustice and that practical self-interest often overrides ethical rules (like abandoning a wounded comrade for his horse). The Skeptics did offer a constructive idea: since certainty is impossible, we should use degrees of probability as a guide for action. - **Further thought:** In an age of "alternative facts" and deep disagreements, what can we learn from the ancient skeptics' challenges to certainty? **The Epicureans:** Founded by **Epicurus** (born around the same time as Zeno, the Stoic founder). Epicurean philosophy aimed primarily at achieving **tranquillity**. Epicurus famously held that **pleasure is the good**. While he said the root of all good is the pleasure of the stomach, in practice he advocated for the absence of pain as the wise man's goal. This led him to live simply (bread and cheese) and avoid things that bring restlessness, like wealth, honor, and public life. He even advised avoiding complex "culture". His main follower was the Roman poet **Lucretius**, whose poem _On the Nature of Things_ beautifully captured Epicurean ideas. Epicureanism, particularly through Lucretius, was seen as a **gospel of liberation** from religious fear, arguing against materialism, divine providence, and immortality. - **Further thought:** How is the Epicurean pursuit of pleasure different from hedonism as it's often understood today? **Stoicism:** Also founded by **Zeno** around the same time as Epicureanism, Stoicism had a longer history, evolving over centuries through figures like Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Panaetius, Posidonius, Seneca, Epictetus, and finally, the Roman Emperor **Marcus Aurelius**. Early Stoics were often Syrian, later ones Roman, and some see Chaldean influences. Stoicism is described as less purely Greek, being more emotionally narrow and somewhat fanatical, but also containing religious elements. It was particularly appealing to rulers. - **Doctrine:** Early Stoicism, influenced by Cynicism and Heraclitus, was materialistic. Zeno saw God as the fiery mind pervading the world, with God, Mind, Destiny, and Zeus all being one universal reason or law that moves matter. He was skeptical of building temples. Later Stoics, influenced by Platonism (like Panaetius and Posidonius), abandoned materialism. - **Ethics:** While other doctrines changed, Stoic ethics remained relatively constant, and this was seen as most important. Stoics emphasized virtue and living in accordance with nature or universal reason. They faced the challenge of reconciling determinism (the idea that everything is fated) with human freedom and moral responsibility. Later figures like Marcus Aurelius also wrestled with contradictions between their high-minded ideals (only virtuous will is good, others can't harm you) and the practical duties of administering an empire (needing to care about things like grain shipments and defense). They developed a doctrine on degrees of probability based on perception, seen as "sane and scientific". - **Further thought:** How does Stoicism's emphasis on accepting fate and focusing on what you can control (your own will/virtue) resonate in difficult times? **Rome and the Transmission of Knowledge** Rome's rise to power, conquering the Hellenistic world and establishing an empire, had a complex impact on culture. While Rome was powerful politically (building roads, establishing laws), its direct influence on Greek thought and art was generally seen as negative, leading to decline. Greeks often viewed Romans with a mix of contempt and fear, feeling more civilized but less powerful. Some exceptions existed, like the historian Polybius who admired the Roman constitution, or Greek Stoics living in Rome like Epictetus, or Plutarch who tried to reconcile Greek and Roman figures in his writings. Crucially, Rome played a role in the _transmission_ of Greek culture. When Western Europe was in decline, the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire and, importantly, the Islamic world (Arabs) preserved parts of the Greek tradition. Contact with Arabs, particularly in Spain, exposed Western Europe to Aristotle, mathematics, and science, sparking the revival of learning that led to Scholasticism in the 11th century. Later, direct study of Greek texts became possible, but the Arabs had kept the flame alive. **Neoplatonism: A Late Flourish** In the 3rd century A.D., after centuries of relative philosophical stagnation (except for the Stoics in the Roman period), a new movement called Neoplatonism arose, largely independent of Roman influence. **Plotinus:** The central figure of Neoplatonism, Plotinus, represents a significant type of philosophy. His work provided a "secure refuge" for ideals and hopes in a troubled age, requiring moral and intellectual effort. His philosophy is described as having beauty and expressing a kind of "melancholy optimism" – finding happiness not in the difficult everyday world, but through reflection on a remote, super-sensible reality. - **Plotinus's System:** His system involves an emanation from a ultimate source called **The One** (the First Person). From The One emanates **Nous** (the Second Person), sometimes translated as "Intellectual-Principle" or "Spirit". Nous embodies the world of ideas and all non-sensible thought, retaining the intellectual element found in earlier Greek mystical philosophies like Pythagoras and Plato. It was this intellectual element that led early Christians to link Christ with the Logos (Reason). From Nous emanates **Soul** (the Third Person). - **Other Views:** Matter is created by Soul and lacks independent reality. Souls descend into bodies, driven by something like desire. Sin leads to natural punishment in future lives. - **Legacy:** Plotinus's philosophy encouraged looking inward towards the divine Nous rather than outward at the imperfect sensible world. This subjectivity, though present in earlier Greek thought, contributed to a decline in scientific curiosity and a focus on virtue as just a virtuous will, detached from understanding the physical world or improving society. However, Neoplatonism was important historically because it preserved valuable Greek intellectual and moral ideas that influenced Christian theology and the later revival of learning. He stands as an end to Greek philosophy and a beginning for Christian thought, transmitting key ideas to the developing Christian world. - **Further thought:** How is Plotinus's idea of emanation different from the Christian concept of creation? #### The Renaissance Shift: From Aristotle Back to Plato and the Dawn of Political Realism Our journey begins with a look at the Renaissance, a time marked by a renewed interest in classical antiquity. Interestingly, this period saw a significant shift in philosophical taste: the scholastic focus on Aristotle began to wane, hastened by exposure to Byzantine scholars who championed Plato's superiority. Figures like Gemistus Pletho and Bessarion actively promoted Platonism in Italy. Even the powerful Medici family, like Cosimo and Lorenzo, were drawn to Plato, with Cosimo founding and Lorenzo continuing the Florentine Academy dedicated to Platonic studies. Can you imagine dying while listening to one of Plato's dialogues, as Cosimo is said to have done?. It makes you wonder about the power of ideas! While these humanists were busy rediscovering the past, they weren't necessarily producing original philosophy themselves. But the Renaissance wasn't just about dusty manuscripts; it was also a time of intense political maneuvering, nowhere more evident than in Italy. This brings us to the compelling figure of **Machiavelli** (1467–1527). A Florentine from a modest background, he lived through the turbulent years when Savonarola dominated Florence. Savonarola's tragic end profoundly affected Machiavelli, leading him to the stark observation that "all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed". He even used Savonarola as an example of the latter, contrasting him with figures like Moses and Romulus – notable indeed that Christ isn't mentioned in this Renaissance context. Machiavelli got involved in the Florentine government after Savonarola's execution, serving in various capacities, including important diplomatic missions, until the Medici returned in 1512. Having opposed the Medici, he was arrested but later acquitted and retired to the country. It was out of necessity, lacking other occupation, that he became an author. His most famous work, _The Prince_, was penned in 1513, perhaps with the practical aim of winning favor with the Medici, although it proved vain. This might explain its particular tone. _The Prince_ is fundamentally concerned with the nitty-gritty of how principalities are won, held, and lost, drawing lessons from the numerous examples, both big and small, available in 15th-century Italy. This was a time when few rulers were legitimate, and even popes often gained election through corruption. The rules for success were different then; cruelties and treacheries that would shock later centuries were not disqualifying. Interestingly, the source suggests our own age might better appreciate Machiavelli's insights, given that some notable successes in our time have been achieved through similarly base methods. The author even controversially suggests Machiavelli would have applauded events like Hitler's Reichstag fire or his purge of party members as statecraft. However, getting a full picture of Machiavelli just from _The Prince_ is like looking at a single brushstroke instead of the whole painting. His longer work, the _Discourses_, written concurrently, offers a markedly different perspective. Nominally a commentary on Livy, the _Discourses_ contain chapters that sound remarkably like later liberal thinkers such as Montesquieu. Most of the book, in fact, could have been read with approval by an eighteenth-century liberal. It explicitly sets forth the doctrine of checks and balances, suggesting that princes, nobles, and the people should all have a part in the constitution to keep each other in check. The constitution of Sparta is praised for its balance, while Athens' under Solon is criticized for being too democratic, leading to tyranny. Even the Roman republic is seen as good because of the conflict between the Senate and the people. So, thinking about Machiavelli, it's fascinating to consider the contrast between his works. It raises a question: How much of _The Prince_ was pragmatic advice for a specific, brutal time, and how much represented his deepest political convictions? Machiavelli's story, ending in retirement until the sack of Rome in 1527, is seen by the source as marking the death of the Italian Renaissance. #### Voices for Reform: Erasmus Next, we encounter **Erasmus** (1466–1536), a figure described not as a philosopher in the strict sense, but as someone who perfectly illustrates the temper of a pre-revolutionary age. This was a time with a widespread desire for moderate reform, before extremists frightened timid men into reaction. Erasmus also embodies the reaction against scholasticism, particularly a dislike for anything systematic in theology or philosophy. His life story is quite interesting. Born illegitimate in Rotterdam, he later invented a more romantic tale about his birth. His father was a priest, learned and with knowledge of Greek. Orphaned young, his guardians apparently swindled him and coerced him into becoming a monk, a step he regretted his entire life. His schooling was such that he already knew more Latin than one of his guardians, a schoolmaster, who asked for a commentary on Erasmus's elegant Latin letters. He spent time at the University of Paris, but found it profitless. The great days of scholasticism were over, and the old disputes between Thomists, Scotists (the 'Ancients'), and Occamists/Terminists ('Moderns') had become arid. They eventually united against the humanists who were gaining ground outside university walls. Erasmus detested the scholastics, viewing them as superannuated and antiquated. He humorously noted that when seeking his doctorate, he deliberately avoided anything graceful or witty. He wasn't keen on philosophy in general, though he paid lip service to ancient greats like Plato and Aristotle. One of his striking contributions was his view on religion. In his work _The Praise of Folly_, he suggests, perhaps seriously, that true religion is a form of Folly. He praises a 'Folly' displayed in Christian simplicity, linking this to his dislike of scholastic philosophy and overly learned doctors. But there's a deeper layer: it's presented as an early example of the idea that true religion comes from the heart, not the head, and elaborate theology is just superfluous. This view, later echoed by Rousseau, is seen as a rejection of Greek intellectualism by Northern sentimentalism and has become quite common, especially among Protestants. Thinking about this, doesn't it make you wonder about the ongoing tension between faith, reason, and feeling throughout history? Erasmus had a significant influence on English humanism, partly due to a five-year stay (1509–14). His ideal for English public schools (until recently!) was a thorough grounding in Greek and Latin, including composition. Science, despite its growing intellectual dominance, was considered unworthy for gentlemen or divines; Plato should be studied, but not the subjects he actually studied!. This aligns neatly with Erasmus's influence. He was an unashamedly literary man. He wrote _Enchiridion militis christiani_ advising soldiers to read the Bible, but also Plato, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. He compiled vast collections of Latin and Greek proverbs to help people write idiomatically. His wildly successful _Colloquies_ taught practical Latin conversation, like talking about bowling. This was genuinely useful in a time when Latin was the international language, often the only way students from different countries at places like the University of Paris could converse. Despite his criticisms of church abuses, Erasmus didn't embrace the Reformation. He even published a satire, _Julius exclusus_ (1518), depicting Pope Julius II failing to enter heaven. But Luther's violence repelled him, and he hated war. He eventually sided with the Catholics. In 1524, he defended free will against Luther, who followed Augustine in rejecting it. Luther's savage reply pushed Erasmus further into reaction. He became less important from then until his death, living too long for an age that demanded heroism or intolerance, qualities the timid Erasmus lacked. His comment on his friend Sir Thomas More's martyrdom – wishing More had left theology to theologians – perfectly captures his cautious nature. It makes you consider: Are there times when moderation is simply not enough? #### The Scientific Dawn: Bacon, Hobbes, and Descartes Moving into the 17th century, we encounter thinkers profoundly shaped by the burgeoning scientific revolution. **Francis Bacon** (1561–1626) is a pivotal figure, considered the founder of the modern inductive method and a pioneer in attempting to logically systematize scientific procedure. Coming from a family deeply involved in state affairs, Bacon entered Parliament and served as adviser to Essex. He's been criticized for participating in Essex's prosecution after his fall from favor, but the source defends him, arguing he acted when continued loyalty would have been treasonous. His death is memorable, occurring after he caught a chill while experimenting with refrigeration by stuffing a chicken with snow. Bacon's _The Advancement of Learning_ is described as remarkably modern. He's widely credited with popularizing the idea that "Knowledge is power," and his philosophy was fundamentally practical. His goal was to give humanity mastery over nature through scientific discoveries and inventions. Crucially, he argued that philosophy should be kept separate from theology, unlike the scholastic tradition. This practical, empirical focus was a significant departure. This emphasis on using knowledge to control the world is a theme worth exploring further – how has that shaped our relationship with nature? Another significant figure is **Thomas Hobbes** (1588–1679), a scholar deeply influenced by the scientific advancements of his time. Despite a somewhat difficult upbringing after his vicar father lost his job, Hobbes acquired an excellent classical education, even translating Euripides at fourteen. He disliked his university education at Oxford, finding the scholastic logic and Aristotelian philosophy useless, a sentiment he maintained later in life. His turning point came during a Grand Tour as a tutor, where he encountered the work of Galileo and Kepler, which profoundly influenced him. He later visited Galileo in Italy. Hobbes was a prolific writer throughout his long life. He engaged in controversies, notably defending rigid determinism against Bishop Bramhall on free will. Amusingly, he also foolishly debated Wallis, an Oxford geometry professor, claiming to have squared the circle, only to be made to look silly. After the Restoration, Hobbes found some favor with the King, who granted him a pension (though he forgot to pay it!). However, he was suspected of atheism, and Parliament even investigated his writings after the Plague and Great Fire, events that stirred up superstitious fears. This made it difficult for him to print controversial works in England; his history of the Long Parliament, _Behemoth_, had to be printed abroad. His reputation was greater abroad in his old age. In retirement, he kept busy, writing an autobiography in Latin verse at 84 and publishing a translation of Homer at 87. His most famous work is _Leviathan_. Part II expresses the hope that a sovereign will read the book and make himself absolute, a hope perhaps more realistic than Plato's philosopher-king idea. The book assures monarchs it's easy and interesting reading. Part III, 'Of a Christian Commonwealth,' argues that the Church must depend on the civil government, with the King as its head, rejecting papal authority and infallibility. It suggests outward conformity to non-Christian sovereigns is acceptable. Part IV, 'Of the Kingdom of Darkness,' strongly criticizes the Church of Rome for prioritizing spiritual over temporal power and attacks 'vain philosophy,' usually meaning Aristotle. The source notes that _Leviathan_ is complex, with good and bad parts closely mixed. Hobbes's clear rejection of papal power and assertion of state authority over the church is a fascinating aspect of his political thought, especially considering the religious conflicts of his time. Often considered the founder of modern philosophy, **René Descartes** (1596–1650) brought an outlook deeply shaped by the new physics and astronomy. While retaining some scholastic elements, he aimed to build a philosophical system from the ground up, a level of self-confidence not seen since Aristotle, fueled by scientific progress. The source finds a freshness in his work reminiscent of Plato, noting that unlike many intermediate philosophers who wrote as teachers, Descartes writes as a discoverer, eager to share his findings. His style is praised as easy, unpedantic, and extraordinarily excellent, addressing intelligent people of the world rather than just pupils. This accessible style was fortunate for modern philosophy, influencing successors who also adopted a less professional tone. Descartes made significant contributions to mathematics, most notably analytic geometry, which uses coordinates to relate geometry and algebra. He didn't fully realize its power, but his work made further progress easy. His scientific theories were largely presented in _Principia Philosophiae_. He also wrote on optics and even the formation of a fetus. He welcomed Harvey's discovery of blood circulation and hoped (in vain) to make medical discoveries himself. His view on bodies was mechanical. He saw the bodies of men and animals as machines, considering animals pure automata governed by physical laws, devoid of feeling or consciousness. Humans were different due to having a soul residing in the pineal gland. Here, the soul interacted with 'vital spirits,' allowing interaction between soul and body. However, believing the total quantity of motion in the universe is constant, Descartes thought the soul couldn't _add_ motion, but could alter the _direction_ of the vital spirits, and thus indirectly affect the body. The core of Descartes's theory of knowledge, and what's most important in his philosophy, is captured in "I think, therefore I am" (_Cogito ergo sum_). This makes the mind more certain than matter, and one's own mind more certain than others'. This led to a tendency towards subjectivism in philosophies derived from Descartes, where matter becomes something perhaps knowable only by inference from what is known of the mind. This subjectivism is seen in both Continental idealism and British empiricism. While modern philosophy has largely adopted the problems framed by Descartes, it hasn't necessarily accepted his solutions. Another crucial aspect of Cartesian philosophy is the completion, or near completion, of the dualism between mind and matter. This dualism began with Plato and was developed for religious reasons by Christian philosophy. Ignoring the somewhat awkward pineal gland interaction (which followers dropped), the Cartesian system presents two separate, parallel worlds that can be studied independently. The idea that the mind doesn't move the body (attributed implicitly to Descartes, explicitly to Geulincx) had the advantage of allowing the opposite: the body doesn't move the mind. This raised questions, like why the mind feels 'sorrow' when the body is thirsty, explained by the analogy of two clocks running in parallel. While having religious advantages, this mind-body separation also presented a grave drawback. Reflecting on Descartes, isn't it remarkable how his starting point "I think, therefore I am" shifted the focus inward, influencing centuries of philosophy towards examining the nature of knowledge and the subject's role? #### The Grand Systems: Spinoza and Leibniz Moving deeper into the 17th century, we encounter philosophers building grand, systematic views of reality. **Spinoza** (1632–1677) is one such figure, although the provided sources offer only a brief glimpse into his work. His chief work, the _Ethics_, was published posthumously. We also learn about his _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_, a blend of biblical criticism and political theory, and the _Tractatus Politicus_, focusing only on political theory. In his biblical criticism, Spinoza anticipated modern views, particularly regarding the dating of Old Testament books. He aimed to show that Scriptures could be interpreted compatibly with liberal theology. **Leibniz** (1646–1716) is described as one of the supreme intellects of all time, though perhaps not admirable as a human being (industrious, frugal, temperate, honest, but lacking higher philosophic virtues compared to Spinoza). A key distinction is made between Leibniz's published, popular philosophy and his unpublished, esoteric philosophy. The popular version, found in works like the _Monadology_ and _Théodicée_, was designed to please princes and princesses. This is the optimistic, orthodox, fantastic, and shallow Leibniz who famously proposed "this is the best of all possible worlds" (parodied by Voltaire). However, his truly profound thought was often kept unpublished, slowly unearthed from manuscripts by later editors. This esoteric philosophy is described as profound, coherent, largely Spinozistic, and amazingly logical. Leibniz himself marked one manuscript with "Here I have made enormous progress," yet it wasn't published until almost two centuries after his death. His letters to Arnauld also contained deeper philosophy, but Arnauld found them shocking, likely leading Leibniz to be secretive about his real thoughts. Like Descartes and Spinoza, Leibniz based his philosophy on the notion of substance, derived from the logical category of subject and predicate. A substance is something that can only be a subject, never a predicate, and persists through time (unless God destroys it). Every true proposition, even about contingent happenings like making a journey, means the predicate is contained in the subject's notion from eternity. Leibniz believed a substance's notion was so complete it comprehended and allowed deduction of all its predicates. Leibniz differed significantly from Descartes and Spinoza regarding the number of substances and the relation of mind and matter. Descartes had three substances (God, mind, matter), Spinoza only one (God). Leibniz rejected extension as an attribute of substance because extension involves plurality, meaning it can only belong to an aggregate of substances, not a single one. Therefore, each single substance must be unextended. This led him to posit an infinite number of substances, which he called **monads**. Since extension was out, the only remaining essential attribute seemed to be thought. Consequently, he denied the reality of matter, replacing it with this infinite family of souls. Isn't it fascinating how a seemingly logical point about extension led to such a radically different view of reality? In his popular philosophy, Leibniz emphasized free will, stating that while reasons incline actions, they do not necessitate them. However, his secret doctrine seems to have had a different view, kept private after Arnauld's negative reaction. Leibniz firmly believed in logic as the basis for metaphysics. He did important unpublished work on mathematical logic that would have made him its founder much earlier. He hesitated to publish because he found points where it seemed Aristotle's syllogism doctrine was wrong, thinking the error must be his own. He dreamed of a "Characteristica Universalis," a generalized mathematics where thinking could be replaced by calculation. He famously imagined philosophers settling controversies by taking pencils and saying, "Let us calculate". He based his philosophy on two logical laws: contradiction and sufficient reason. The law of contradiction applies to analytic propositions (predicate in subject), stating they are true. The law of sufficient reason (in his esoteric system) states _all_ true propositions are analytic. Despite his brilliance, the source finds Leibniz a dull writer whose influence made German philosophy pedantic and arid. His disciple Wolf dominated German universities until Kant. Outside Germany, Leibniz had less influence initially; Locke was dominant in Britain, and Descartes in France until Voltaire made English empiricism fashionable. Leibniz rejected monism partly due to his interest in dynamics and his argument about extension. Thinking about Leibniz's unpublished work and his dream of a calculating philosophy, one might ask: How different would the history of philosophy (and logic) have been if he had published his most profound thoughts and logical insights earlier? #### The Rise of Empiricism and Liberalism: Locke, Berkeley, and Hume Now, let's turn our attention to the British Isles, where a different philosophical tradition flourished, heavily influenced by the ideas of **John Locke**. The rise of liberalism, both politically and philosophically, presents an interesting puzzle about the reciprocal interaction between ideas and social circumstances. The sources caution against overestimating philosophers' influence (parties might just acclaim them because they recommend desired actions) and conversely, seeing theorists as passive products of their environment. Instead, the truth lies in between: ideas and practical life interact. The first comprehensive statement of liberal philosophy comes from **John Locke** (1632–1704), described as the most influential, though not the most profound, of modern philosophers. He is deeply associated with the moderate and successful Revolution of 1688. His most influential works appeared around this time (1687–1693), embodying the spirit of the revolution. Locke is considered the founder of both philosophical liberalism and empiricism in theory of knowledge. He was remarkably fortunate, completing his theoretical work just as his country's government aligned with his political views. For years, his ideas were held by influential politicians and philosophers. His political doctrines, influenced by Montesquieu, are embedded in the American Constitution and the British Constitution (until about fifty years prior to the source), and the French 1871 constitution. His immense influence in 18th-century France came largely through Voltaire, who interpreted English ideas to his compatriots. French followers saw a connection between his epistemology and politics, though this was less evident in England. Locke's approach is often described as contemptuous of metaphysics, preferring concrete details to grand abstractions. He viewed the concept of substance as vague and not very useful, though he didn't reject it entirely. While allowing arguments for God's existence, he seemed uncomfortable with them. His philosophy is seen as piecemeal, like scientific work, rather than a complete system. Locke is the founder of **empiricism**, the doctrine that most of our knowledge comes from experience. His _Essay Concerning Human Understanding_ argues against innate ideas or principles, contrasting with Plato, Descartes, and the scholastics. Book II of the _Essay_ details how experience gives rise to ideas. Locke famously stated that all ideas ultimately derive from sensation or reflection. Book III deals with words, suggesting that much metaphysical knowledge is purely verbal. On universals, he takes an extreme nominalist position: only particulars exist, general terms apply to many particulars, but the ideas in our minds are themselves particular. In his political philosophy, detailed in the _Two Treatises on Government_ (1689-1690), Locke famously critiqued the doctrine of hereditary power, specifically responding to Sir Robert Filmer's defense of divine right. He begins his second treatise by explaining the true origin of government. He posits a **state of nature** antecedent to government, governed by a **law of nature** (divine commands, not human laws). He seems to have viewed this state of nature, and the social contract men used to emerge from it, as more or less historical. Thinking about this, doesn't the idea of a historical 'state of nature' raise questions about how we justify political authority today, given that we don't start from a blank slate? Locke's influence created one of the two main philosophical traditions in Europe from his time onwards, the other stemming from Descartes and Kant. Locke's heirs include Berkeley, Hume, some French philosophes, the Benthamites, and, with caveats, Marx. Voltaire was key in transmitting his ideas to France. English followers like Berkeley and Hume initially didn't focus on his political ideas, perhaps because England was politically quiet before the French Revolution. Shelley, however, shows Locke's influence in his atheism. British philosophy, following Locke, is characterized by a more detailed, piecemeal method compared to the Continental tradition. It tends to prove general principles inductively by examining applications. Locke himself, however, still accepted some Cartesian arguments, like those for God's existence. **George Berkeley** (1685–1753) took Locke's empiricism in a radical direction by denying the existence of matter. His argument was that material objects only exist when perceived. To counter the obvious objection that things would disappear when no one is looking, he proposed that God perceives everything constantly, ensuring their continuous existence. This served as a weighty argument for God's existence for Berkeley. Berkeley was an attractive writer with a charming style, producing his best work young (_New Theory of Vision_ 1709, _Principles of Human Knowledge_ 1710, _Dialogues of Hylas and Philonous_ 1713). He later became Bishop of Cloyne and remarkably, shifted his focus to promoting tar-water for medicinal properties. His argument against matter is best presented in his _Dialogues_, where he argues we perceive only qualities (colors, sounds), not material things. He contends these qualities are 'mental' or 'in the mind'. The source agrees his reasoning is cogent that we perceive qualities, but finds the assertion that qualities are 'mental' suffers from a lack of definition for the word 'mental'. Berkeley seems to rely on the assumption that everything must be either material or mental. He rejects the view that perception is a relation between a subject (mind) and an object, perhaps because he believed in mental substance. His argument that immediate objects of sense must exist in a mind contains a fallacy. Similarly, his argument that conceiving an unperceived house proves it must be mental is flawed; one can understand the _proposition_ that such a house exists without having a mental image of it. Berkeley also argues that primary qualities like extension are subjective because they appear different depending on the percipient (size changing with distance, motion seeming fast or slow). While this might show perceived space is subjective (even physically, like to a camera), the source argues it doesn't prove shape is 'mental'. From Berkeley's arguments, we can conclude that the 'things' we know are bundles of sensible qualities (like a table being its shape, hardness, sound). Common sense groups these into a 'thing' or 'substance,' but the source suggests this concept adds nothing to the perceived qualities and is unnecessary. This seems like firm ground. However, what 'perceiving' means remains a question. Berkeley thinks reality consists in being perceived but doesn't define perception. Can we flip it and say being perceived consists in being real?. The source notes Berkeley believes spiritual substances are unperceived, meaning it's logically possible for things to exist without being perceived. Saying an event is perceived seems to mean more than just that it occurs. Perhaps 'perceived' means having certain kinds of effects. From a theory of knowledge standpoint, starting with 'percepts' as events known without inference is possible. Berkeley thought logical reasons proved only minds and mental events exist, a view shared by Hegel and his followers, which the source believes is a complete mistake. Thinking about Berkeley's system, it's intriguing how his commitment to empiricism led him to deny matter. It makes you wonder: What are the implications of saying that existence is tied to perception? Building directly on Locke and Berkeley, we reach **David Hume** (1711–76), considered one of the most important philosophers because he pushed empiricism to its logical conclusion. In doing so, the source argues, he made it self-consistent but also incredible. Hume represents a "dead end" in that direction. Refuting him has been a popular activity for metaphysicians, though the source finds their refutations unconvincing, while still hoping for a less sceptical system. Hume's chief philosophical work, the _Treatise of Human Nature_, was written in France in his twenties (publ. 1739-40). It fell "dead-born from the press". He later produced essays and a shortened version of the _Treatise_, the _Inquiry into Human Understanding_, which was better known for a time and famously awakened Kant from his "dogmatic slumbers". Hume also wrote _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_ (published posthumously) and an _Essay on Miracles_, arguing against historical evidence for them. His _History of England_ openly favoured Tories and Scotchmen, lacking philosophical detachment. He visited Paris, where he was well-received by the philosophes, but had a famous quarrel with Rousseau, who suffered from persecution mania and suspected Hume of plots, despite Hume's admirable forbearance. Hume's character is described as mild, cheerful, and moderate. Hume himself said his love of fame never soured his temper despite disappointments. The important and novel parts of Hume's philosophy are in the first book of the _Treatise_, dealing with understanding. He strongly agreed with Berkeley's view that general ideas are just particular ones annexed to a term for broader significance. He argued that ideas copy impressions and have the same particularity. However, the source points out two defects in this theory. Logically, common names are just as 'unreal' as universals if you apply the nominalist principle consistently. Psychologically (and more seriously for Hume), the theory ignores vagueness; an image of a colour might correspond to several similar shades, contrary to Hume's claim that the mind forms precise notions of degrees. Hume famously denied knowledge of a simple Self. His conclusion is that we can't know if a Self exists, and the Self (except as a 'bundle' of perceptions) cannot be known. This is seen as an important advance over Berkeley, getting rid of the notion of substance in metaphysics and abolishing supposed knowledge of the soul in theology. It also shows that the subject/object category is not fundamental in analyzing knowledge. The most important part of the _Treatise_ is 'Of Knowledge and Probability,' where Hume examines uncertain knowledge from empirical data that isn't demonstrative – essentially, everything except direct observation, logic, and mathematics. This led him to sceptical conclusions that are hard to refute or accept. The source sees this as a challenge to philosophers that hasn't been adequately met. Hume distinguishes between relations depending only on ideas (giving certain knowledge, like mathematics) and those that can change without changing the ideas (like spatio-temporal and causal relations), which only give probable knowledge. He argues that our idea of power or connection between objects comes not from a single observation, but from the _repetition_ of their union. This repetition, he says, doesn't reveal or cause anything in the objects themselves, but creates a customary mental transition, which is what we experience as power or necessity. The source views Hume's philosophy as the "bankruptcy of eighteenth-century reasonableness". Starting like Locke, empirical and sensible, his sharper intellect and dislike for inconsistency led him to the "disastrous conclusion" that nothing can be learned from experience and observation. He suggests rational belief doesn't exist, and believing things like "fire warms" is just easier than thinking otherwise. While we can't help believing, belief isn't based on reason, and logically, no action is more rational than another. The source notes Hume doesn't seem to draw this last conclusion explicitly. Amusingly, Hume says errors in religion are dangerous, philosophy only ridiculous, a claim the source argues he has no right to make as a sceptic about causation (how can he know something is 'dangerous'?). In practice, Hume often ignores his fundamental doubts, writing like any other moralist and recommending "carelessness and inattention" as a remedy for scepticism. His scepticism is seen as insincere in practice, but it paralyzes efforts to justify one course of action over another. Hume's self-refutation of rationality inevitably led to a reaction of irrational faith. The Hume/Rousseau quarrel is symbolic: Rousseau (mad but influential) vs. Hume (sane but no followers). Later empiricists rejected Hume's scepticism without refuting it. Rousseau and his followers agreed belief wasn't based on reason but championed the heart over the head, leading to different convictions. German idealists like Kant and Hegel are seen as pre-Humian rationalists, whose arguments could be refuted by Hume's insights. Only philosophers who don't claim rationality (Rousseau, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche) are not refuted this way. The growth of unreason in the 19th and 20th centuries is presented as a natural consequence of Hume's destruction of empiricism. Hume's demolition of the rational basis for empirical knowledge is a profound challenge. Thinking about this, how do we justify our beliefs about the world and the future if not through simple cause-and-effect reasoning based on experience? #### The Romantic Turn: Rousseau Emerging from the mid-18th century, we encounter **Jean Jacques Rousseau** (1712–78). Though called a 'philosophe' in the French sense, he wasn't a philosopher in the way we might use the term today. Nevertheless, his influence on philosophy, literature, taste, manners, and politics was immense. This power stemmed from his appeal to the heart and 'sensibility'. He is credited as the father of the romantic movement, the originator of systems inferring non-human facts from human emotions, and the inventor of the political philosophy behind pseudo-democratic dictatorships. Since his time, reformers have often followed either him or Locke, with their incompatibility becoming increasingly clear. The source controversially links Hitler to Rousseau and Roosevelt/Churchill to Locke. Rousseau sent his essay _Discourse on Inequality_ (against the human race, as Voltaire put it) to Voltaire, who famously replied with witty skepticism about returning to walking on all fours. His most productive period saw the publication of his novel _La nouvelle Héloïse_ (1760), and _Emile_ and _The Social Contract_ (both 1762). _Emile_, a treatise on 'natural' education, contained 'The Confession of Faith of a Savoyard Vicar,' advocating natural religion, which irritated both Catholic and Protestant authorities. _The Social Contract_ was considered even more dangerous. Rousseau initially had social success in England and received a pension from George III. His friendship with Burke cooled, with Burke seeing only vanity in Rousseau. Hume remained faithful longer but was eventually accused by Rousseau (suffering from persecution mania) of plotting against him. Hume's description of Rousseau after their split is striking: a man who only felt, with sensibility so acute it brought more pain than pleasure, like someone stripped of his skin battling the elements. While much of Rousseau's work doesn't directly concern the history of philosophical thought, his theology and political theory are key. In 'The Confession of Faith,' the Vicar finds rules of conduct not in philosophy, but "in the depths of my heart, written by Nature". Conscience is presented as an infallible guide. This frees us from philosophical complexities; we can be good without being learned, having a more assured guide in our feelings. Natural feelings supposedly lead to serving the common interest, while reason urges selfishness. Virtue comes from following feeling over reason. In theology, the Vicar believes God exists based on arguments from motion and order. The soul is immaterial, free, and immortal, deduced from analyzing thought. God exists, is willing and intelligent, and is the cause of the universe's order. Rousseau does not accept revelation or the authority of the Bible/miracles. He inclines towards hell not being everlasting and is sure salvation isn't limited to one Church. The rejection of revelation and hell shocked the French government and Council of Geneva. The source critiques the rejection of reason for the heart, noting it emerged when reason (like Voltaire) opposed religion. Reason was seen as abstruse, while the 'savage' (Rousseau's idealized, non-anthropological version) was seen as holding necessary wisdom. In political theory, Rousseau doesn't share Locke's respect for private property, stating the State is master of all its members' goods. His concept of the 'general will' is crucial. The general will isn't the sum of individual wills but aims at the common good, needing a wise legislator to guide it. A significant consequence is his belief that for the general will to express itself, there should be no partial societies (parties, unions) within the state, and citizens should think only their own thoughts. This, he notes, was Lycurgus's system and is supported by Machiavelli. The source points out this leads to the Corporate or Totalitarian State where the individual is powerless. As an afterthought, Rousseau suggests if associations must exist, there should be many to neutralize each other. Rousseau's emphasis on feeling, his idealization of a simple, natural state, and his complex, potentially authoritarian political theory make him a controversial but profoundly influential figure. Thinking about his concept of the 'general will,' how do we ensure collective decisions truly represent the common good without suppressing individual thought or association? #### Reaction and New Directions: Kant, Hegel, Utilitarianism, Marx, Bergson, James, and Dewey Hume's extreme skepticism showed the difficulties of empiricism pushed to its limit, abolishing the distinction between rational belief and credulity. Locke had foreseen this danger. Rousseau reacted by championing the heart over reason. In Germany, the reaction took a more philosophical form with **Immanuel Kant** (1724–1804), **Fichte**, and **Hegel**. These German idealists shared common traits. They emphasized the critique of knowledge. They focused on mind over matter, eventually suggesting only mind exists. They rejected utilitarian ethics in favor of systems based on abstract arguments. Unlike earlier philosophers, they were university professors addressing learned audiences, giving their work a scholastic tone. While their effects were revolutionary, they weren't intentionally subversive; Fichte and Hegel actively defended the State. Their lives were academic and exemplary, their moral views orthodox, and theological innovations were made in the interest of religion. **Kant** is widely considered the greatest modern philosopher, though the source disagrees while acknowledging his importance. He lived an uneventful academic life near Königsberg. Educated in Leibniz's philosophy, he was awakened from "dogmatic slumbers" by Hume's critique of causality, though only temporarily. Rousseau's influence was more profound; Kant's reading of _Emile_ even disrupted his famously regular schedule. Kant was a political and theological liberal, sympathizing with the French Revolution initially and believing in democracy and individual freedom. The principle that every man is an end in himself is seen as a form of the Rights of Man, and his love of freedom is clear in his aversion to one person's actions being subject to another's will. His philosophy allows an appeal to the heart against cold reason, perhaps a pedantic version of Rousseau's Vicar. Hume argued the law of causality wasn't analytic and thus uncertain. Kant agreed it was synthetic but claimed it was known _a priori_ (independently of experience). He also held arithmetic and geometry were synthetic and _a priori_. This led to his central problem: How are synthetic judgments a priori possible?. The answer is the main theme of his _Critique of Pure Reason_. Kant's three 'ideas of reason' are God, freedom, and immortality. Pure reason can't prove their reality, but they are important practically, linked to morals. Theoretical reason leads to fallacies; its only right use is for moral ends. The moral law demands justice (happiness proportional to virtue), which Providence alone can ensure and hasn't in this life. Therefore, God and a future life must exist. Freedom is also necessary, as virtue wouldn't exist otherwise. His treatise _Perpetual Peace_ (1795) proposed an international federation, showing Rousseau's influence in phrasing but not in the idea of federation itself. This work caused Kant disfavor in Germany after 1933. The most important part of the _Critique of Pure Reason_ is the doctrine of space and time, which is complex and not entirely clear. While Kant wasn't heavily influenced by Prussia, later figures like Fichte and Hegel were philosophical mouthpieces for the state, helping to link German patriotism with admiration for Prussia. The culmination of this German philosophical movement is **Hegel** (1770–1831). Despite criticizing Kant, his system depended on Kant's existence. His influence has been vast, even if many of his doctrines are considered false. Academic philosophers in America and Britain were largely Hegelian by the late 19th century. Protestant theologians adopted his ideas, and his philosophy of history impacted political theory. Marx was a youthful disciple, retaining important Hegelian features. Hegel is seen as representing a particular kind of philosophy, more coherent and comprehensive than others of its type. Hegel's life was relatively uneventful. Drawn to mysticism in youth, his later views can be seen as an intellectualization of this insight. He held professorships, ending in Berlin. In later life, he was a patriotic Prussian and loyal State servant. However, in his youth, he despised Prussia and admired Napoleon, even rejoicing in the French victory at Jena. For Hegel, the ultimate reality, 'the Absolute,' is spiritual. He rejects Spinoza's idea that it has extension. Two key aspects distinguish him: his emphasis on logic, believing reality's nature can be deduced from the requirement of non-contradiction, and his triadic method called the **dialectic** (thesis, antithesis, synthesis). The dialectic process, driven by logic from any suggested predicate of the Absolute, supposedly leads to the 'Absolute Idea'. This rests on the assumption that nothing can be truly true unless it is about Reality as a whole. "Reason," for Hegel, is the conscious certainty of being all reality, meaning participation in the Whole. A singular feature is the relationship between ultimate, timeless reality and the time-process of history. Hegel believed world history mirrored the logical dialectic, progressing from Pure Being in China to the Absolute Idea, almost realized in the Prussian State. The source finds no justification for this in his metaphysics and notes it required distorting facts and considerable ignorance, qualities Hegel possessed. He saw Spirit, guided by Reason, as the director of world history. Hegel defines the essence of Spirit as Freedom, contrasting it with matter whose essence is gravity. Spirit has its center in itself, while matter is outside itself. He assigned the highest role in Spirit's terrestrial development to the Germans, seeing the German spirit as realizing absolute Truth and unlimited self-determination of freedom. This freedom, however, doesn't mean typical Liberal freedoms like democracy or a free press; Hegel rejects these. It's the Spirit giving laws to itself, which from a mundane perspective might look like a monarch imprisoning a subject, but from the Absolute view is Spirit freely determining itself. He praised Rousseau for distinguishing the general will (common good) from the will of all (sum of private wills). The source sees Hegel's philosophy as central to the debate between analysis and its enemies. Hegel and 'holists' argue that understanding a simple statement like "John is the father of James" requires knowing the whole universe, as John's characteristics involve relations to everything else. This leads to absurdities, making it impossible for words to acquire meaning. Let's shift to **Utilitarianism**, which, though rationalistic and anti-romantic, emerged from the Lockean tradition, specifically the Philosophical Radicals. **Jeremy Bentham** (1748–1832) was the leader of this school, though not a typical one (shy, wrote much but friends published it). His main interest was jurisprudence, influenced by Helvetius. His philosophy rests on two principles: the association principle (basic psychology, like conditioned reflex) and the greatest-happiness principle. Determinism via the association principle was important for Bentham's goal of creating laws that automatically make men virtuous. The greatest happiness principle defined 'virtue'. Bentham's involvement in practical politics was spurred by **James Mill** (1773–1836), an ardent disciple and active Radical who believed in education's omnipotence. James Mill admired Condorcet and Helvetius. His son, **John Stuart Mill** (1806–1873), carried on a softened version of Benthamism. The Benthamites had astonishing influence on British policy in the mid-19th century despite lacking emotional appeal. Bentham argued for general happiness as the highest good, critiquing other ethics as serving ruling-class interests (foreshadowing Marx). He saw moral order from interest equilibrium and argued the utility principle was needed for morals, legislation, and social science. The ethical part of utilitarianism (independent of psychological) states desires/actions are good if they _in fact_ promote general happiness, regardless of intention. The source sees the disagreement between utilitarian ethics (democratic) and Nietzsche's ethics (minority importance) as political rather than theoretical, refutable only practically. The Philosophical Radicals were a transitional school, giving rise to Darwinism (applying Malthus's population theory to life) and Socialism. **Karl Marx** (1818–1883) is seen partly as an outcome of the Philosophical Radicals' rationalism and anti-romanticism, partly as a revivifier of materialism, and partly as the last great system-builder, a successor to Hegel. He aimed to be scientific, drawing on British classical economics but changing the focus to the wage-earner's interest (unlike classical economists who focused on the capitalist). While passionate in youth (_Communist Manifesto_), he relied on evidence, not intuition. Marx is noted as the first philosopher to criticize the notion of 'truth' from an activist standpoint, though this wasn't heavily emphasized. His philosophy of history blends Hegel and British economics. Like Hegel, he sees world development via a dialectic, but the motive force is matter (man's relation to matter, especially production modes) rather than Hegel's Spirit. Thus, his materialism becomes economics in practice. Finally, we touch upon two figures from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. **Henri Bergson** (1859–1941) was the leading French philosopher of his time, influencing James and Whitehead. His main effect was conservative, harmonizing with movements like Vichy, but his irrationalism also appealed broadly (e.g., Bernard Shaw). The source uses Bergson to exemplify the revolt against reason that began with Rousseau. Bergson's philosophy is classified as 'practical,' seeing action as the supreme good, with knowledge merely an instrument. This is presented as the revolt of the modern man of action against Greek (especially Platonic) authority. Bergson champions a vital life-force (élan vital) that drives us forward. He views pure contemplation as 'dreaming' and condemns it. He argues we can't foresee the end of action because desire is identified with its object, leaving us blind slaves of instinct. Action without purpose is presented as a sufficient good. The source is highly critical, seeing no reason to accept this restless view. It argues anti-intellectual philosophies like Bergson's thrive on intellectual errors and prefer bad thinking. Bergson is accused of deliberately preferring outdated interpretations in mathematics to support his views. While his imaginative picture of the world might be appealing poetry, the source finds nothing in his philosophy for those whose action is built on contemplative vision. Thinking about Bergson's emphasis on action and life-force, does this philosophy reflect a genuine insight into human nature, or is it, as the source suggests, a rejection of careful thought? **William James** (1842–1910) was primarily a psychologist but important philosophically for inventing 'radical empiricism' and being a protagonist of **pragmatism** (or instrumentalism). He became the leader of American philosophy. His essay _The Will to Believe_ argues that where evidence is insufficient, we have a right to believe based on our 'passional nature,' particularly in religious faith, opposing those who say it's wrong to believe without sufficient evidence. The source critiques this, arguing the correct principle is to give credence warranted by evidence and seek more evidence if needed. Pragmatism, for James, is a new definition of 'truth'. Along with F.C.S. Schiller and **John Dewey**, James is a key figure. While Dewey's pragmatism is more scientific, James focuses on religion and morals, roughly advocating that a doctrine is 'true' if it makes people virtuous and happy. Following C.S. Peirce, James suggests philosophy's function is to see what practical difference a world-formula makes; theories are instruments, not answers. In the context of religion, he argues if the hypothesis of God "works satisfactorily" in the widest sense, it is true, and we can believe in higher powers based on religious experience. The source finds intellectual difficulties in this. This definition of truth assumes we know what is 'good' and what a belief's effects are _before_ we can call it 'true,' leading to complications like the Columbus example (how do we ethically weigh the effects of believing he sailed in 1492?). **John Dewey** (1859–1952) was the third main pragmatist. He was also a key figure in education, founding a progressive school and writing extensively on the subject (_The School and Society_ being most influential). He wrote much on social and political issues, negatively influenced by Russia and positively by China. He supported WWI reluctantly. Involved in the Trotsky inquiry, he was convinced the charges were false but doubted the Soviet regime would have been good even under Trotsky. He concluded violent revolution to dictatorship is not the path to a good society. Liberal economically, he wasn't a Marxist, stating he wouldn't shackle himself with a new orthodoxy after escaping theology. His views are described as almost identical to Russell's. Dewey's philosophy diverges from common sense by refusing to admit 'facts' that are stubborn and cannot be manipulated. The source notes common sense might be changing towards this view. The main difference from Russell is judging belief by effects (Dewey, 'warranted assertability') vs. causes (Russell, 'truth' related to past events). If truth depends on the future and our ability to change it, it enlarges human power and freedom. In this view, whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon depends on future events and our power to arrange them to make a specific answer 'warranted'. This perspective makes you ponder the relationship between truth, power, and our ability to shape the future. Until Rousseau, the philosophical world had a certain unity, which has since disappeared but might be recovered through a rationalistic reconquest of minds, avoiding the strife bred by claims to mastery. --- This briefing document has offered a glimpse into the diverse landscape of Western philosophy from the Renaissance to the early 20th century, as presented in these sources. We've seen shifts from theological scholasticism to humanism and political realism, the rise of scientific methods influencing philosophy, the development of empiricism and its challenges, the counter-movement of romanticism and idealism, and the emergence of pragmatism. Thinking about all these figures and movements, here are a few further ideas and questions you might explore: - How did the changing political landscape, from Italian city-states to national monarchies and revolutions, directly shape the philosophical ideas about government and individual rights? - We saw various views on the relationship between philosophy and theology, from scholastic blending to Bacon's separation, Erasmus's heart-based religion, and Spinoza's liberal interpretation. How did the Enlightenment and the rise of science continue to challenge or redefine this relationship? - The tension between reason and feeling/intuition is a recurring theme from Erasmus and Rousseau through Hume's scepticism and Bergson's irrationalism. In what ways does this tension continue to play out in contemporary thought and culture? - We briefly touched on the distinction between British (piecemeal, inductive) and Continental (systematic, deductive?) philosophical methods. How did these different approaches influence the types of problems tackled and the conclusions reached? - The concept of 'truth' itself is challenged by Hume's scepticism regarding empirical inference and later by Marx and Dewey's activist/pragmatist perspectives. How does changing the definition or criteria for 'truth' alter our understanding of knowledge and reality?