MAJOR EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHIES

"In modern times there are opposing views about the practice of education. There is no general

agreement about what the young should learn either in relation to virtue or in relation to the best life;

nor is it clear whether their education ought to be directed more towards the intellect than towards the

character of the soul.... And it is not certain whether training should be directed at things useful in life,

or at those conducive to virtue, or at non-essentials.... And there is no agreement as to what in fact

does tend towards virtue. Men do not all prize most highly the same virtue, so naturally they differ also

about the proper training for it."

Aristotle wrote that passage more than 2,300 years ago, and today educators are still debating the

issues he raised. Different approaches to resolving these and other fundamental issues have given rise

to different schools of thought in the philosophy of education. We will examine five such schools of

thought: Essentialism, Progressivism, Perennialism, Existentialism, and Behaviorism. Each has many

supporters in American education today. Taken together, these five schools of thought do not exhaust

the list of possible educational philosophies you may adopt, but they certainly present strong

frameworks from which you can create your own educational philosophy.

Educational essentialism

Educational essentialism is an educational philosophy whose adherents believe that children should

learn the traditional basic subjects thoroughly and rigorously. In this philosophical school of thought, the

aim is to instill students with the "essentials" of academic knowledge, enacting a back-to-basics

approach. Essentialism ensures that the accumulated wisdom of our civilization as taught in the

traditional academic disciplines is passed on from teacher to student. Such disciplines might include

Reading, Writing, Literature, Foreign Languages, History, Mathematics, Science, Art, and Music.

Moreover, this traditional approach is meant to train the mind, promote reasoning, and ensure a

common culture.

Progressive education

Progressive education is a pedagogical movement that began in the late nineteenth century and has

persisted in various forms to the present. More recently, it has been viewed as an alternative to the

test-oriented instruction legislated by the No Child Left Behind educational funding act.

Educational perennialism

Perennialists believe that one should teach the things that one deems to be of everlasting pertinence to

all people everywhere. They believe that the most important topics develop a person. Since details of

fact change constantly, these cannot be the most important. Therefore, one should teach principles, not

facts. Since people are human, one should teach first about humans, not machines or techniques.

Since people are people first, and workers second if at all, one should teach liberal topics first, not

vocational topics.

A particular strategy with modern perennialists is to teach scientific reasoning, not facts. They may

illustrate the reasoning with original accounts of famous experiments. This gives the students a human

side to the science, and shows the reasoning in action. Most importantly, it shows the uncertainty and

false steps of real science.

Although perennialism may appear similar to essentialism, perennialism focuses first on personal

development, while essentialism focuses first on essential skills. Essentialist curricula thus tend to be

much more vocational and fact-based, and far less liberal and principle-based. Both philosophies are

typically considered to be teacher-centered, as opposed to student-centered philosophies of education

such as progressivism. However, since the teachers associated with perennialism are in a sense the

authors of the Western masterpieces themselves, these teachers may be open to student criticism

through the associated Socratic method, which, if carried out as true dialogue, is a balance between

students, including the teacher promoting the discussion.

Existentialism

Existentialism is the philosophical and cultural movement which holds that the starting point of

philosophical thinking must be the experiences of the individual. Moral and scientific thinking together

do not suffice to understand human existence, so a further set of categories, governed by "authenticity",

is necessary to understand human existence. ("Authenticity", in the context of existentialism, is being

true to one's own personality, spirit, or character.

Existentialism began in the mid-19th century as a reaction against the then-dominantsystematic

philosophies, such as those developed by Hegel and Kant. Søren Kierkegaard, generally considered to

be the first existentialist philosopher, posited that it is the individual who is solely responsible for

giving meaning to life and for living life passionately and sincerely ("authentically").Existentialism

became popular in the years followingWorld War II and influenced a range of disciplines besides

philosophy, including theology, drama, art, literature, and psychology.

Existentialists generally regard traditional systematic or academic philosophies, in both style and

content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience. Scholars generally consider the

views of existentialist philosophers to be profoundly different from one another relative to those of other

philosophies. Criticisms of existentialist philosophers include the assertions that they confuse their use

of terminology and contradict themselves.

Educational behaviourism

Educational behaviourism is an educational philosophy built around the premise that environment

determines behaviour, and regulating the environment of students to influence their behaviour in

positive ways.

Figure 1Baviourism

Student –Centered

Focus on Self and Society

Teacher –Centered

Focus on the subject

Christian philosophy

There is no record of any written works produced by Jesus. Nor is there a record of any any systematic

philosophy or theology written by him. Several accounts of his life and many of his teachings are

Existentialism

Progressivism

BahaviourismPerennialism

Essentialism

recorded in the New Testament. Those records form the basis for some Christian philosophies, such

as Jesusism.

Saul of Tarsus (later Paul the Apostle or St. Paul) was a Jew who persecuted the early Christian church

and who helped to facilitate the martyrdom of Saint Stephen, a Greek-speaking Jewish Christian. Saul

underwent a dramatic conversion, becoming a Christian leader who wrote a number of epistles, or

letters, to early churches in which he taught doctrine and theology. In some ways he functioned in the

manner of the popular marketplace philosophers of his day (Cynics, Skeptics, and some Stoics). A

number of his speeches and debates with Greek philosophers are recorded in the Biblical Book of Acts,

and his epistles became a significant source for later Christian philosophies.

Hellenistic Christian philosophy and early Christian philosophy

Hellenism is the traditional designation for the Greek culture of the Roman Empire in the days of Jesus,

Paul, and for centuries after. Classical philosophies of the Greeks had already expired and diluted

beyond recognition except for small bands of continuators of the traditions of the Pythagoreans, of

Plato, and Aristotle (whose library was lost for centuries). The new philosophies of the Hellenistic world

were those of the Cynics, Skeptics, and increasingly the Stoics; it's these philosophers who bring us

into the world of Hellenistic philosophy. Slowly, a more integral and rounded tendency emerged within

Hellenism, but also in certain respects in opposition at times to it in regard to one philosophical problem

or another, or an ensemble of problems. Here are some of those thinkers most closely associated with

Hellenistic Christian philosophies, listed more or less in chronological order:

Justin Martyr: Christian apologist and philosopher whose work often focused on the doctrine of

the Logos and argued that manyStoic and Platonic philosophical ideas were similar to ideas in the

Old Testament

Tertullian: Tertullian was a philosopher before he converted to Christianity; after that change of

direction he remained a prolific writer in the second century A.D., and is commonly called the

"Father of the Western Church." He was the first church father to use the term Trinitas in reference

to the Godhead and developed the doctrine of traducianism, or the idea that the soul was inherited

from the parents, the idea that God had corporeal (although not fleshly) existence, and the doctrine

of the authority of the gospels. He fought voraciously against Marcionism, and considered Greek

philosophy to be incompatible with Christian wisdom. Toward the end of his life, he joined the

heterodox sect of Montanism, and thus has not been canonized by the Catholic Church.

Irenaeus of Lyons: Irenaeus is best known for his writings arguing for the unity of God, and

against Gnosticism. He argued thatoriginal sin is latent in humanity, and that it was by Jesus'

incarnation as a man that he "undid" the original sin of Adam, thus sanctifying life for all mankind.

Irenaeus maintained the view that Christ is the Teacher of the human race through whom wisdom

would be made accessible to all.

Clement of Alexandria: Theologian and apologist who wrote on Greek philosophy, using ideas from

pagan literature, Stoic and Platonic philosophy, and Gnosticism to argue for Christianity

Origen: Origen was influential in integrating elements of Platonism into Christianity. He incorporated

Platonic idealism into his conceptions of the Logos, and the two churches, one ideal and one real.

He also held a strongly Platonic view of God, describing him as the perfect, incorporeal ideal. He

was later declared a heretic for subscribing to the "too Platonistic" doctrine of the preexistence of

the soul.

Augustine of Hippo: Augustine developed classical Christian philosophy, and the whole of Western

thought, largely by synthesizing Hebrew and Greek thought. He drew particularly from Plato,

the Neoplatonism of Plotinus, and Stoicism, which he altered and refined in light of divine

revelation of Christian teaching and the Scriptures. Augustine wrote extensively on many religious

and philosophical topics; he employed an allegorical method of reading the Bible, further developed

the doctrine of hell as endless punishment, original sin as inherited guilt, divine grace as the

necessary remedy for original sin, baptismal regeneration and consequently infant baptism, inner

experience and the concept of "self", the moral necessity of human free will, and

individualelection to salvation by eternal predestination. He has been a major influence in the

development of Western theology and his thought, and in particular his works, City of

God and Confessions, laid the foundations for Western Philosophy, influencing many of

philosophers and making him one of the most influential figures in the history of philosophy.

Athanasius of Alexandria: father of trinitarian orthodoxy involved in the formation of the Nicene

Creed, who vehemently opposedArius, the bishop of Alexandria who held that Christ was a created

being, and his following.

Dioscorus of Aphrodito

John Chrysostom

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

The Cappadocian Fathers: Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil the Great.

Medieval Christian philosophy

Scholasticism and History of science in the Middle Ages

Peter Abelard: Abelard was a leading 12th-century philosopher and theologian, best known for his

association with conceptualismand his development of the moral influence theory of atonement.

Anselm of Canterbury: Anselm is best known for the ontological argument for God's existence, i.e.:

God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. But to exist is greater than not to exist. If

God does not exist then he wouldn't be "that than which nothing greater can be conceived."

Therefore, God exists. Anselm's argumentation was used as a theological directive for

conceptualizing divine perfection. He was one of the first Western thinkers to directly engage the

reintroduction of Aristotle to the West. However, he didn't have all of Aristotle's works and those he

had access to were from Arabic translations and Islamic commentaries. Also developed

the satisfaction theory of atonement.

Thomas Aquinas: Aquinas was the student of Albert the Great, a brilliant Dominican

experimentalist, much like the Franciscan,Roger Bacon, of Oxford in the 13th century. Aquinas

synthesized Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity. He believed that there was no contradiction

between faith and secular reason, but that they complemented each other epistemically. He

thought Aristotle had achieved the pinnacle of human striving for truth apart from divine revelation

and thus adopted Aristotle's philosophy as a framework in constructing his theological and

philosophical outlook. Thomas Aquinas was a professor at the prestigious University of Paris, a

contemporary of Bonaventure, a Franciscan Professor at the University of Paris whose approach

differed significantly from Aquinas' in favor of the more traditional Augustinian Platonism. Widely-

accepted as one of the most influential figures in the history of philosophy, his philosophy is the

foundation for Thomism. His most famous work is Summa Theologica

William of Ockham: philosopher and theologian who developed Ockham's razor and wrote

extensively on metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, theology, logic, and politics

John Duns Scotus: John Duns Scotus is known as the "subtle doctor" whose hair-splitting

distinctions were important contributions in scholastic thought and the modern development of

logic. Scotus was also a Professor at the University of Paris, but not at the same time as Aquinas.

Along with Aquinas, he is one of the two giants of Scholastic philosophy

Albert of Saxony

Alcuin of York

Adelard of Bath

Petrus Aureolus

Boëthius

Bonaventure

Roger Bacon

Gabriel Biel

John Blund

Siger of Brabant

Thomas Bradwardine

Adam de Buckfield

Jean Buridan

Walter Burley

Saint Catherine of Siena

Juan de Celaya

William of Conches

Cesare Cremonini

Henry Ercole

Vincent Ferrer

Godfrey of Fontaines

Francis of Marchia

Gaunilo of Marmoutiers

Giles of Rome

Gregory of Rimini

Robert Grosseteste

Henry of Ghent

Jerome Leocata

John of Paris

Johannes Scotus Eriugena

Marsilius of Inghen

Albertus Magnus

John Mair

Richard of Middleton

Robert of Melun

Hervaeus Natalis

Francisco Suárez

Paul of Venice

Francisco de Vitoria

Renaissance and Reformation Christian philosophy

Renaissance philosophy and Protestant Reformation

Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) A preacher, theologian, and church court operative.

Jean Bodin (1530–1596) French legal scholar and political philosopher, he wrote widely in a

number of areas

Desiderius Erasmus (1466–1536) was not a philosopher strictly speaking; indeed, he wrote

excoriatingly about philosophers. He consolidated the space of Humanism in the late Medieval

scholarship of letters, and came to represent its acme. He was a leader of the development of the

humanities into a department of European scholarly activities. He bent his studies to recovery and

exegesis of the Hebrew Bible's ancient languages and began building the first critical text, and the

New Testament became a formal scholarly text. He wrote about issues relevant to the Catholic

Church and its ignorance. He spent six years in an Augustinian monastery; he was a joyful satirist;

and became most famous for his book The Praise of Folly.

Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) His early work on the law of the seas was outdistanced by On the law of

war and peace (1625).

Martin Luther (1483–1546) -- also not strictly a philosopher, although he knew something of William

of Occam and nominalist epistemology), from an earlier era of European thought. He had also

studied some philosophical materials of Augustine of Hippo, and did not follow Thomas Aquinas.

Luther followed Erasmus in developing a critical text of the Biblical manuscripts. Luther went a step

beyond Erasmus in actually translating the Bible into the vernacular. Luther's German Bible had a

tremendous impact on the development of the German language and its literature.

John Calvin (1509–1564). Calvin was a dogmatician (systematic theology), as exhibited in

his Institutes of the Christian Religion, and an exegete who over time translated the Bible from the

"original languages" in the form of his grand series of Commentaries on all but one of its books

(the Book of Revelation, which provided a problem to him in its metaphory, not yielding robustly to

his binomial formula of letter and spirit: either literal, or figurative). He courageously tried to

avoid allegorizing, which had had a long history ever since Philo of Alexandria had interpreted

the Pentateuch in an allegorical fashion that de-literalized and over-metaphorized (into symbolic

systems) many passages of the ancient manuscripts of the Bible (now and developingly a critical

textitself). Calvin tried to distance himself from the allegorical method of Christian interpretation of

the Bible, attempted distance certainly from the method's primacy, while facing in the Gospels "the

parabolic message of the Cross" (Leon Morris, etc.). Not strictly a philosopher, he had a major

impact on the quest for a Protestant philosophy (see Jacob Klapwijk, "John Calvin" in the volume

he edited with Griffioen and Groenewoud, Bringing into Captivity Every Thought (Eng trans 1991;

pp 241–266)). Calvin's seed begat Reformational philosophy 450 years after he planted it.

Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) Influential Italian humanist philosopher who revived Neoplatonism and

was a leader in the Renaissance; translated all of Plato's and Plotinus' works into Latin, as well as

many Neoplatonic authors and the Corpus Hermeticum. He also wrote many commentaries on

Plato and Christian authors as Pseudo Dyonisius.

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494) Italian philosopher who was a major figure in the

Renaissance; at the age of 23 he proposed 900 theses on religion, natural philosophy and magic,

writing the Oration on the Dignity of Man, which was a central text inRenaissance humanism and

has been called the movement's manifesto

Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531) was a leading Reformer who was influenced by a party in his church

congregation to de-metaphorize the understanding of the Lord's Supper into a memorial only (no

real presence, and no communion of saints, therefore no eschatological community of saints

composed of the believers at the Communion Table).

In most cases, these writers reference something in an earlier philosopher, without adding to the

ongoing problem-historical shape of Western philosophical knowledge. Between Calvin, and Arminius,

born four years before Calvin's death, a Protestant Scholasticism took from various loci and authorities

of the Western Middle Ages. It begins already with Luther's colleague Philip Melancthon, who turned

from Luther's sola Scriptura to philosophical theology; but Protestant Scholasticism's Reformed variants

are diverse. There were no real alternatives until Herman Dooyeweerd and D. H. Th. Vollenhoven in

the last century.

Modern Christian philosophy

 Modern philosophy

17th century

17th-century philosophy

Thomas Browne (1605–1682) English philosopher and scientist who also made contributions to the

field of medicine

Joseph Butler (1692–1752) English bishop, theologian, apologist and philosopher who offered

critiques of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke and influenced figures such as David Hume, Thomas

Reid, and Adam Smith

Rene Descartes (1596–1650) French philosopher and mathematician sometimes labelled "The

Father of Modern Philosophy" who was a leading exponent of rationalism; most famous for his

concept Cogito ergo sum (I Think Therefore I Am)

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Italian philosopher, physicist, mathematician, and astronomer who

played a central role in the Scientific Revolution, controversially advocating heliocentrism, leading

to the Galileo Affair, he also wrote about the relationship between science and religion; often

labelled "The Father of Modern Science"

Joseph Glanvill (1636–1680) English philosopher, writer, and clergyman who was a major apologist

for natural philosophy, although he was not himself a scientist

John Locke (1632–1704) Extremely influential political philosopher often dubbed "The Father of

Classical Liberalism"; many of his philosophical concepts were developed from his religious beliefs,

which included his development of the social contract theory

Nicolas Malebranche (1638–1715) French rationalist philosopher best known for his ideas

of occasionalism and Vision in God; he drew heavily from the work of Augustine and Thomas

Aquinas

Isaac Newton (1642–1727) English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher,

alchemist, and theologian who was one of the leading figures of the Scientific Revolution, he wrote

often about religious and theological issues; authored Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica;

considered by some to be the most influential scientist of all-time.

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) French mathematician, physicist, inventor, and philosopher who wrote

widely on religion and Catholic theology. Pensées is considered a masterpiece of theological

thought and Will Durant hailed it as "the most eloquent book in French prose." Also

developed Pascal's Wager to argue for belief in Christianity.

18th century

18th-century philosophy

George Berkeley Influential Anglo-Irish philosopher who developed the theory of subjective

idealism and who wrote prolifically in a number of areas, such as metaphysics, epistemology, the

philosophy of language and the philosophy of mathematics

Johann Gottfried Herder, German philosopher, theologian, and literary critics who was associated

with the Sturm und Drang andWeimar Classicism

Francis Hutcheson, Scottish philosopher who was an important figure in the Scottish

Enlightenment and is associated withempiricism

William Paley

Joseph Priestley

Karl Leonhard Reinhold

19th and early 20th century

19th-century philosophy

Owen Barfield, philosopher, author, poet, and literary critic who had a profound influence on C.S.

Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien

Karl Barth: a Swiss Reformed neo-orthodox theologian, he wrote the massive Church

Dogmatics (German, Kirchliche Dogmatik)—unfinished at about six million words by his death in

1968. Barth emphasized the distinction between human thought and divine reality, and that while

humans may attempt to understand the divine, our concepts of the divine are never precisely

aligned from the divine reality itself, although God reveals his reality in part through human

language and culture. Barth strenuously disavowed being a philosopher; he considered himself a

dogmatician of the Church and a preacher. The Center for Barth Studies at Princeton Theological

Seminary holds the world's most extensive collection of his works.

Nikolai Berdyaev, Russian philosopher of religion and political theorist

Rudolf Bultmann, German Lutheran theologian who was one of the most influential biblical scholars

of the 20th century and a major figure in liberal Christianity and Christian existentialism; a close

friend of philosopher Martin Heidegger, he based his hermeneutics on an existentialist mode of

thinking, developing an interpretive perspective known as demythology

G. K. Chesterton: a British Catholic author, art and literary critic and philosopher, he applied

Christian thought in the form of non-fiction, fiction, and poems addressing a variety of theological,

moral, political, and economic issues, particularly the importance of seeking truth, distributism, and

opposition to eugenics.

Herman Dooyeweerd, philosopher who wrote the monumental trilogy, A New Critique of Theoretical

Thought

Fyodor Dostoevsky, Russian writer known primarily for his works The Brothers

Karamazov and Crime and Punishment

Pavel Florensky, Russian Orthodox theologian, philosopher, priest, mathematician, and inventor

William K. Frankena, American philosopher who was a professor at the University of Michigan for

over forty years; he specialized in moral philosophy, writing extensively about the relationship

between Christianity and ethics

Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov, Russian Orthodox philosopher and futurist who was a leader in

the Russian cosmism movement and major inspiration for transhumanism

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Preeminent German philosopher who was a leading figure

in German Idealism and whose thought created the philosophical school known as Hegelianism, his

philosophy was influenced greatly by his Lutheran religious beliefs; also wrote a number of works

regarding the philosophy of religion

Søren Kierkegaard, a Danish Lutheran philosopher, the father of existentialist philosophy and

particularly the school of Christian existentialism.

C. S. Lewis, a massively influential literary critic and medievalist, and mythologist, a mythographer

in his children's fantasies, and an apologist for the Christian faith to which he adhered in the latter

half of his life. He claimed not to be a philosopher, but his apologetics are foundational to the

formation of a Christian worldview for many modern readers.

John Henry Newman, a Catholic philosopher, converted from Anglicanism

Reinhold Niebuhr, Neo-Orthodox theologian and public intellectual who developed the philosophical

perspective known as Christian realism and influenced figures such as Martin Luther King Jr, Hillary

Clinton, Barack Obama, Madeline Albright, Jimmy Carter andJohn McCain

Michael Polanyi, Hungarian-British polymath and brother of Karl Polanyi

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, German philosopher who was a major figure in German

idealism

Edith Stein, German Roman Catholic nun, mystic and philosopher who grew up Jewish and

converted to atheism before becoming a Christian, writing widely on phenomenology and

existentialism

Vladimir SolovyovRussian philosopher, theologian, and poet

Albert Schweitzer, German-French philosopher, theologian and physician wrote widely on a

number of subjects, most notably ethics and the Quest for the Historical Jesus

Leo Tolstoy, Russian writer who he is one of the most-celebrated authors in modern literary history,

known for his works such asWar and Peace and Anna Karenina; his writing was strongly influenced

by his religious beliefs; he became an early champion ofChristian anarchism, writing on his

religious and philosophical beliefs in works such as The Kingdom of God Is Within You and A

Confession; his writings influenced figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi

Contemporary philosophy

Contemporary philosophy

William J. Abraham, Irish philosopher, theologian, and United Methodist pastor teaching

at Southern Methodist University, known for his contributions to the philosophy of

religion and religious epistemology,

Diogenes Allen, philosopher of religion who spent most of his career at Princeton Theological

Seminary

William Alston, leading figure in Reformed epistemology who specializes in the philosophy of

language and epistemology

Rubem Alves, philosopher, psychoanalyst, and theologian who is a major figure in liberation

theology

Robert Audi, philosopher whose work focuses on epistemology and ethics who has also written on

the relationship between church and state

C. Anthony Anderson, philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of religion, philosophy of

language, and philosophy of logic

G. E. M. Anscombe, British analytic philosopher who was a close friend and student of Ludwig

Wittgenstein; influential in the fields of the philosophy of logic, philosophy of action, and philosophy

of the mind, and ethics, writing from the perspective of Analytical Thomism

Craig Bartholomew, philosopher dealing with biblical hermeneutics, postmodernism, and

deconstruction

Francis Beckwith, social philosopher and ethicist

Leonardo Boff, Brazilian philosopher and theologian who is one of the leading figures in liberation

theology

Daniel Bonevac, logician at the University of Texas at Austin

Jay Budziszewski, a political philosopher at the University of Texas at Austin who develops the

natural law ethical tradition.

Marilyn McCord Adams, philosopher of religion and philosophical theologian who is also a leading

authority on medieval philosophy

Robert Merrihew Adams, analytic philosopher specializing in metaphysics, morality, and the

philosophy of religion who taught at Yale, UCLA, and Oxford; husband of Marilyn McCord Adams

(see directly above)

Maxence Caron, French write, poet, philosopher, and musicologist

John D. Caputo: American Catholic deconstructionist theologian; most famous for his development

of weak theology

Gordon Clark, American Calvinist philosopher, polemicist, and staunch defender of Platonic

realism. He developed a strictly rationalist variety of presuppositional apologetics in contrast to Van

Til's fideistic approach.

Stephen R. L. Clark, British philosopher of religion who also wrote extensively on animals and

applied philosophy

Sarah Coakley-Anglican philosopher of religion and systematic theologian who has taught at

Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, and Lancaster University

Paul Copan, professor of philosophy at Palm Beach Atlantic University currently holding the

Pledger Family Endowed Chair of Philosophy and Ethics as well as president of the Evangelical

Philosophical Society

Robin Collins, an expert in philosophy of science. He is thought be the leading expert on the

teleological argument. He is a professor of philosophy at Messiah College. He is a senior research

fellow at the Institute for Faithful Research

William Lane Craig, Evangelical apologist, philosopher and theologian; frequently participates in

debate on topics related to Christianity and theism. He is known especially for his methodical

presentation as well as his articulation and defense of the kalam cosmological argument.

Keith DeRose, philosopher of language and epistemologist at Yale University.

Herman Dooyeweerd, Reformational philosopher and legal scholar; brother-in-law of D.H. Th.

Vollenhoven

Terry Eagleton, Not a philosopher by vocation, he is a leading British literary critic and important

figure in contemporary social philosophy, often addressing religious issues from a Christian Marxist

perspective

C. Stephen Evans, American historian and philosopher teaching at Baylor University

Jacques Ellul, French philosopher, legal scholar, sociologist, and legal scholar who was a

leading Christian anarchist who wrote prolifically on topics such as technology, propaganda, and

justice

John Frame: an American Calvinist philosopher focused in the areas of epistemology and ethics

Étienne Gilson, who wrote The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy, The Spirit of Thomism, Being and

Some Philosophers, and many other works. In the field of Thomism he is considered one of the

main figures credited with starting the movement within Thomism known as Existential Thomism,

which emphasis the primacy of the act of Being (Esse) in understanding everything else that is.

René Girard, French philosopher of social science, anthropologist, historian and literary critic who

developed the idea of mimetic desire and wrote on scapegoating, reinterpreting the atonement as

an mechanism for overcoming human violence and the sacrifice system

Juozas Girnius, Lithuanian existentialist philosopher

Robert Kane, philosopher who works on free will, now emeritus at the University of Texas at Austin,

who is also a Catholic

Anthony Kenny, English philosopher specializing in the philosophy of the mind, philosophy of

religion, and the history of philosophy; leading figure in Analytical Thomism

Luigi Giussani, an Italian priest of 1922-2005, who wrote the Why the Church?

William Hasker, American philosopher who specializing in philosophy of the mind, writing

extensively on the mind-body problem and arguing for emergentism, former editor of the

journal Faith and Philosophy; advocates for open theism

Robert Koons, metaphysician at the University of Texas at Austin

Peter Kreeft, an American Catholic philosopher and Christian apologist at Boston College

Roel Kuiper, Dutch historian and philosopher who is part of the Reformational philosophy

movement

Jon Kvanvig, epistemologist at Baylor University

John Lennox, mathematician and philosopher of science

Knud Ejler Løgstrup: Danish philosopher of religion who wrote widely in the area of ethics,

metaphysics, and phenomonlogy

Bernard Lonergan: He was a Canadian Jesuit. The Lonergan Institute specializes in his works,

while The Lonergan Review is an academic journal which is dedicated to researching and

expanding upon his thought.

Aleksei Losev, Russian philosopher, philologist, and culturologist who was a leading figure in 20th-

century philosophical and religious thought

J.P. Moreland, American philosopher, apologist, and theologian

Alasdair MacIntyre, Scottish ethicist and political philosopher whose works After Virtue and Whose

Justice? Which Rationality?have been massively-influential in modern ethics; notable advocate

of virtue ethics; argues from a Thomistic perspective

John Macquarrie, Scottish theologian and philosopher who was one of the most influential figures in

20th-century Anglicanism

Gabriel Marcel, French existentialist philosopher and playwright who wrote on metaphysics,

ontology, and ethics

Jean-Luc Marion, French postmodern philosopher and student of Jacques Derrida who specializes

in phenomenology andphilosophical theology

Jacques Maritain, a French philosopher in the Thomistic tradition

Trenton Merricks, renowned metaphysician at the University of Virginia

Paul Moser, American philosopher focusing on the philosophy of religion and epistemology

Nancey Murphy, philosopher of science who has written extensively on postmodernism and

currently teaches at Fuller Theological Seminary

Tim O'Connor, metaphysician at the Indiana University, Bloomington

Thomas Jay Oord: theologian and philosopher of religion who is a leading advocate of open theism,

and writes on topics such as the relationship between science and religion and postmodernism

Jean-Michel Oughourlian French philosopher, psychologist and neuropsychiatrist has worked with

René Girard, further developing a mimetic theory of desire and its religious implications

Pope John Paul II, who wrote Fides et Ratio

Josef Pieper, a German Catholic philosopher whose work concentrates particularly on Plato and

Thomas Aquinas

Alvin Plantinga. moderately Calvinist American philosopher, one of the key figures in the movement

of Reformed epistemology, which synthesizes Analytical Philosophy and Christian philosophical

concerns. He is professor emeritus at the University of Notre Dame.

Vern Poythress, Calvinist philosopher and New Testament scholar who

advocates multiperspectivalism and specializes in the philosophy of philosophy of science,

philosophy of mathematics, linguistics, and hermeneutics

Stephen G. Post, American ethicist and interdisciplinary scholar specializing in the study of

altruism, bioethics, and compassion

Alex Pruss, metaphysician at Baylor University

Michael C. Rea, analytic philosopher specializing in metaphysics and the philosophy of religion who

teaches at the University of Notre Dame

Paul Ricouer: philosopher who wrote written widely in the areas of hermeneutics, phenomenology,

psychoanalysis, political philosophy, ethics, and the philosophy of language

Hans Rookmaaker, philosopher specializing in art theory, art history, and music; friend of Francis

Schaeffer

Peter Rollins: an Irish philosopher whose work brings together the deconstruction of Jacques

Derrida, the "religious turn" of recent works by Slavoj Zizek, and traditions of apophatic

theology within Christian mysticism.

Francis Schaeffer: pastor, philosopher and theologian who founded the L'Abri community in

Switzerland and was a major influence in conservative evangelicalism

Egbert Schuurman, the leading philosopher of technology who actively espouses a Christian

philosophical approach

Robert Spaemann, German Roman Catholic philosopher

Holmes Rolston III, American philosopher dealing with environmental ethics and the relationship

between science and religion

Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, German historian and social philosopher

Pope Shenouda III, (b. Nazeer Gayed, 1923) Pope of Alexandria (1971–2012) has written on

almost every aspect of Oriental Orthodox Christianity. Has pioneered Christian ecumenism and

written over 150 books on many topics including theology, dogma, comparative theology, spiritual

theology, and church history.

Melville Y. Stewart, editor, author of books in philosophy of religion, and a Series on Science and

Religion 科学与宗教 (5-volume Series in Chinese, and 2-volume Series in English). Visiting

Philosopher at various universities in China.

James K.A. Smith: a Canadian-American philosopher who draws on three different traditions of

Christian thought (Pentecostalism, Calvinism, and Radical Orthodoxy) in dialogue with

deconstruction and phenomenology to create practical works for broad, general audiences

Richard Swinburne: British philosopher of religion

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Russian writer and philosopher; won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature

Peter van Inwagen, a metaphysician who is one of the leading figures in contemporary philosophy

of religion, teaching at the University of Notre Dame

Charles Taylor: Canadian political philosopher, philosopher of social science and social theorist

Charles Taliaferro, an expert in the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of mind. He is a

professor of philosophy at St. Olaf College and a senior research fellow at the Institute for Faithful

Research

Paul Tillich Rather than beginning his philosophical work with questions of God or gods, Tillich

began with a "phenomenology of the Holy." His basic thesis is that religion is Ultimate Concern.

What a person is Ultimately Concerned with in regard to their Ultimate meaning and being can be

understood as religion because, "There is nobody to whom nothing is sacred because no one can

rid themselves of their humanity no matter how desperately they may try" (Young-Ho Chun, Tillich

and Religion, 1998, pg. 14.

Denys Turner: British philosopher and theologian teaching at Yale University whose work focuses

on political philosophy, social theory, and mystical theology

Nick Trakakis: Australian philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of religion and theodicy

Bas Van Fraassen, world-renowned philosopher of science, who is also a Catholic

Cornelius Van Til: Dutch-American Calvinist philosopher, who contributed especially in

epistemology and developed one variety of philosophical apologetics known as presuppositional

apologetics.

Gregory Vlastos: philosopher specializes in ancient philosophy

D. H. Th. Vollenhoven: Vollenhoven's Calvinism and the Reformation of Philosophy (Dutch, 1933)

launched a philosophical movement that, after the massive re-inforcing effect of his brother-in-law

Herman Dooyeweerd's first trilogy, Philosophy of the Law-Idea (1935–36), led to the formation of

the Association for Calvinist Philosophy in 1936. For decades, Vollenhoven served as president of

the aforementioned association, which has become the Association for Reformational Philosophy/

Vereniging voor Reformatorische Wijsbegeerte (VRW), still based in the Netherlands but with ever-

enlarging interest in the rest of the world. It is disputed whether Vollenhoven's, his colleague

Herman Dooyeweerd's, and many among the subsequent generations of philosophers in the

Reformational philosophy movement are best described as "modern" or "postmodern," since they

anticipated numerous themes that resurfaced in postmodernism, yet remain steadfastly and would-

be distinctively Christian and non-Roman.

Keith Ward: British philosopher, theologian, and pastor who has written widely in the areas of the

philosophy of religion andcomparative theology, has also made major contributions related to the

relationship between science and religion; advocates for open theism

Simone Weil: French philosopher, mystic, and social activist

Cornel West, Philosopher, writer, public speaker and political activist who argues for Christian

Socialism; has taught at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Union Theological Seminary in New York

Dallas Willard: notable Christian philosopher at the University of Southern California. Willard has

written extensively in philosophy but also in practical Christian theology with an emphasis in

Christian spiritual formation.

Nicholas Wolterstorff: American philosopher at Yale University associated with Reformed

epistemology who has written on epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics, political philosophy, and

the philosophy of religion

Christos Yannaras, Greek philosopher

Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski, American philosopher specializing in the philosophy of religion,

epistemology and ethics; pioneer in the field of virtue epistemology

Dean Zimmerman, American philosopher whose work deals with metaphysics and the philosophy

of ereligion

Shawn Graves, American philosopher who specializes in epistemology, ethics, and philosophy of

religion.

Rationalism

In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of

knowledge or justification". In more technical terms, it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of

the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".Different degrees of emphasis on this method or

theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has

precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the more extreme position that reason is "the

unique path to knowledge". Given a pre-modern understanding of reason, rationalism is identical

to philosophy, the Socratic life of inquiry, or the zetetic (skeptical) clear interpretation of authority (open to

the underlying or essential cause of things as they appear to our sense of certainty). In recent

decades, Leo Strauss sought to revive "Classical Political Rationalism" as a discipline that understands

the task of reasoning, not as foundational, but as maieutic. Rationalism should not be confused

with rationality, nor with rationalization.

In politics, rationalism since the Enlightenment historically emphasized a "politics of reason" centered

upon rational choice,utilitarianism, secularism, and irreligion — the antitheistic tendencies of this last aspect

since having been partly ameliorated bymillennials' more tolerant and utilitarian adoption of

methodological, pluralistic rationalist practices applicable irrespective of religious or political affiliation.

Since the Enlightenment, rationalism is usually associated with the introduction of mathematical

methods into philosophy, as in Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza. This is commonly called continental

rationalism, because it was predominant in the continental schools of Europe, whereas in

Britain empiricism dominated.

Rationalism is often contrasted with empiricism. Taken very broadly these views are not mutually

exclusive, since a philosopher can be both rationalist and empiricist.[1] Taken to extremes the empiricist

view holds that all ideas come to us through experience, either through the external senses or through

such inner sensations as pain and gratification, and thus that knowledge is essentially based on or

derived from experience. At issue is the fundamental source of human knowledge, and the proper

techniques for verifying what we think we know (see Epistemology).

Proponents of some varieties of rationalism argue that, starting with foundational basic principles, like

the axioms of geometry, one could deductively derive the rest of all possible knowledge. The

philosophers who held this view most clearly were Baruch Spinoza andGottfried Leibniz, whose

attempts to grapple with the epistemological and metaphysical problems raised by Descartes led to a

development of the fundamental approach of rationalism. Both Spinoza and Leibniz asserted that, in

principle, all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, could be gained through the use of reason

alone, though they both observed that this was not possible in practicefor human beings except in

specific areas such as mathematics. On the other hand, Leibniz admitted in his book Monadology that

"we are all mere Empirics in three fourths of our actions." Rationalism is predicting and explaining

behavior based on logic.

Philosophical usage

The distinction between rationalists and empiricists was drawn at a later period, and would not have

been recognized by the philosophers involved. Also, the distinction was not as clear-cut as is

sometimes suggested; for example, Descartes and Locke have similar views about the nature of

human ideas.The three main rationalists were all committed to the importance of empirical science, and

in many respects the empiricists were closer to Descartes in their methods and metaphysical theories

than were Spinoza and Leibniz.

History

René Descartes (1596–1650)

René Descartes

Descartes thought that only knowledge of eternal truths – including the truths of mathematics, and the

epistemological and metaphysical foundations of the sciences – could be attained by reason alone;

other knowledge, the knowledge of physics, required experience of the world, aided by the scientific

method. He also argued that although dreams appear as real as sense experience, these dreams

cannot provide persons with knowledge. Also, since conscious sense experience can be the cause of

illusions, then sense experience itself can be doubtable. As a result, Descartes deduced that a rational

pursuit of truth should doubt every belief about reality. He elaborated these beliefs in such works

as Discourse on Method, Meditations on First Philosophy, and Principles of Philosophy. Descartes

developed a method to attain truths according to which nothing that cannot be recognised by the

intellect (orreason) can be classified as knowledge. These truths are gained "without any sensory

experience", according to Descartes. Truths that are attained by reason are broken down into elements

that intuition can grasp, which, through a purely deductive process, will result in clear truths about

reality.

Descartes therefore argued, as a result of his method, that reason alone determined knowledge, and

that this could be done independently of the senses. For instance, his famous dictum, cogito ergo sum,

is a conclusion reached a priori i.e. not through an inference from experience. This was, for Descartes,

an irrefutable principle upon which to ground all forms of other knowledge. Descartes posited a

metaphysical dualism, distinguishing between the substances of the human body ("res extensa") and

the mind or soul ("res cogitans"). This crucial distinction would be left unresolved and lead to what is

known as the mind-body problem, since the two substances in the Cartesian system are independent of

each other and irreducible.

Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677)

Philosophy of Spinoza

The philosophy of Baruch Spinoza is a systematic, logical, rational philosophy developed in

seventeenth-century Europe. Spinoza's philosophy is a system of ideas constructed upon basic

building blocks with an internal consistency with which Spinoza tried to answer life's major questions

and in which he proposed that "God exists only philosophically." He was heavily influenced by thinkers

such as Descartes, Euclid and Thomas Hobbes,[9] as well as theologians in the Jewish philosophical

tradition such asMaimonides.[9] But his work was in many respects a departure from the Judeo-

Christian tradition. Many of Spinoza's ideas continue to vex thinkers today and many of his principles,

particularly regarding the emotions, have implications for modern approaches topsychology. Even top

thinkers have found Spinoza's "geometrical method"difficult to comprehend: Goethe admitted that he

"could not really understand what Spinoza was on about most of the time." His magnum opus, Ethics,

contains unresolved obscurities and has a forbidding mathematical structure modeled on Euclid's

geometry. Spinoza's philosophy attracted believers such as Albert Einstein and much intellectual

attention.

Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716)

Gottfried Leibniz

Leibniz was the last of the great Rationalists who contributed heavily to other fields such

as mathematics. He did not develop his system, however, independently of these advances. Leibniz

rejected Cartesian dualism and denied the existence of a material world. In Leibniz's view there are

infinitely many simple substances, which he called "monads" (possibly taking the term from the work

of Anne Conway).

Leibniz developed his theory of monads in response to both Descartes and Spinoza. In rejecting this

response he was forced to arrive at his own solution. Monads are the fundamental unit of reality,

according to Leibniz, constituting both inanimate and animate things. These units of reality represent

the universe, though they are not subject to the laws of causality or space (which he called "well-

founded phenomena"). Leibniz, therefore, introduced his principle of pre-established harmony to

account for apparent causality in the world.

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)

 Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant started as a traditional rationalist, having studied the rationalists Leibniz and Wolff, but

after studying David Hume'sworks, which "awoke [him] from [his] dogmatic slumbers", he developed a

distinctive and very influential rationalism of his own, which attempted to synthesize the traditional

rationalist and empiricist traditions.

Kant named his branch of epistemology Transcendental Idealism, and he first laid out these views in

his famous work The Critique of Pure Reason. In it he argued that there were fundamental problems

with both rationalist and empiricist dogma. To the rationalists he argued, broadly, that pure reason is

flawed when it goes beyond its limits and claims to know those things that are necessarily beyond the

realm of all possible experience: the existence of God, free will, and the immortality of the human soul.

Kant referred to these objects as "The Thing in Itself" and goes on to argue that their status as objects

beyond all possible experience by definition means we cannot know them. To the empiricist he argued

that while it is correct that experience is fundamentally necessary for human knowledge, reason is

necessary for processing that experience into coherent thought. He therefore concludes that both

reason and experience are necessary for human knowledge.

Empiricism

Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily from

sensory experience. One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along

with rationalism, idealism, and historicism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence,

especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions;

[2] empiricists may argue however that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense

experiences.

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered inexperiments. It

is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses andtheories must be tested

against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition,

or revelation.

Philosophers associated with empiricism include Aristotle, Alhazen, Avicenna, Ibn Tufail,Robert

Grosseteste, William of Ockham, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Robert Boyle,John Locke, George

Berkeley, Hermann von Helmholtz, David Hume, Leopold von Ranke,John Stuart Mill, and Karl Popper.

Etymology

The English term "empiric" derives from the Greek word ἐμπειρία, which is cognate with and translates

to the Latin experientia, from which we derive the word "experience" and the related "experiment". The

term was used of the Empiric school of ancient Greek medical practitioners, who rejected the doctrines

of the (Dogmatic school), preferring to rely on the observation of phenomena.

History

Background

Empirical method

A central concept in science and the scientific method is that it must be empirically based on the

evidence of the senses. Both naturaland social sciences use working hypotheses that

are testable by observation and experiment. The term semi-empirical is sometimes used to describe

theoretical methods that make use of basic axioms, established scientific laws, and previous

experimental results in order to engage in reasoned model building and theoretical inquiry.

Philosophical empiricists hold no knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced unless it is derived from

one's sense-based experience. This view is commonly contrasted with rationalism, which asserts that

knowledge may be derived from reasonindependently of the senses. For example John Locke held that

some knowledge (e.g. knowledge of God's existence) could be arrived at through intuition and

reasoning alone. Similarly Robert Boyle, a prominent advocate of the experimental method, held that we

have innate ideas. The main continental rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz) were also

advocates of the empirical "scientific method".

Early empiricism

 Tabula Rasa and Nous

The notion of tabula rasa ("clean slate" or "blank tablet") connotes a view of mind as an originally blank

or empty recorder (Locke used the words "white paper") on which experience leaves marks. This

denies that humans have innate ideas. The image dates back toAristotle;

What the mind (nous) thinks must be in it in the same sense as letters are on a tablet (grammateion)

which bears no actual writing (grammenon); this is just what happens in the case of the mind.

(Aristotle, On the Soul, 3.4.430a1).

Aristotle's explanation of how this was possible, was not strictly empiricist in a modern sense, but rather

based on his theory ofpotentiality and actuality, and experience of sense perceptions still requires the

help of the active nous. These notions contrasted withPlatonic notions of the human mind as an entity

that pre-existed somewhere in the heavens, before being sent down to join a body on Earth (see

Plato's Phaedo and Apology, as well as others). Aristotle was considered to give a more important

position to sense perception than Plato, and commentators in the middle ages summarized one of his

positions as "nihil in intellectu nisi prius fuerit in sensu" (Latin for "nothing in the intellect without first

being in the senses").

A drawing of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) from 1271

During the middle ages Aristotle's theory of tabula rasa was developed by Islamic philosophers starting

with Al Farabi, developing into an elaborate theory by Avicenna[10] and demonstrated as a thought

experiment by Ibn Tufail.[11] For Avicenna (Ibn Sina), for example, the a tabula rasa is a pure potentiality

that is actualized through education, and knowledge is attained through "empirical familiarity with objects

in this world from which one abstracts universal concepts" developed through a "syllogistic method

of reasoning in which observations lead to propositional statements which when compounded lead to

further abstract concepts." The intellect itself develops from a material intellect (al-'aql al-hayulani), which

is a potentiality "that can acquire knowledge to the active intellect (al-'aql al-fa'il), the state of the human

intellect in conjunction with the perfect source of knowledge".So the immaterial "active intellect",

separate from any individual person, is still essential for understanding to occur.

In the 12th century CE the Andalusian Muslim philosopher and novelist Abu Bakr Ibn Tufail(known as

"Abubacer" or "Ebn Tophail" in the West) included the theory of tabula rasa as athought experiment in

his Arabic philosophical novel, Hayy ibn Yaqdhan in which he depicted the development of the mind of

a feral child "from a tabula rasa to that of an adult, in complete isolation from society" on a desert island,

through experience alone. The Latintranslation of his philosophical novel, entitled Philosophus

Autodidactus, published byEdward Pococke the Younger in 1671, had an influence on John Locke's

formulation oftabula rasa in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

A similar Islamic theological novel, Theologus Autodidactus, was written by the Arab theologian and

physician Ibn al-Nafis in the 13th century. It also dealt with the theme of empiricism through the story of

a feral child on a desert island, but departed from its predecessor by depicting the development of the

protagonist's mind through contact with society rather than in isolation from society.[12]

During the 13th century Thomas Aquinas adopted the Aristotelian position that the senses are essential

to mind into scholasticism, making it a dogma of Roman Catholic belief. Bonaventure (1221–1274), one of

Aquinas' fiercest intellectual opponents, offered some of the strongest arguments in favour of the

Platonic idea of the mind.

Renaissance Italy

In the late renaissance various writers began to question the medieval and classical understanding of

knowledge acquisition in a more fundamental way. In political and historical writing Niccolò

Machiavelli and his friend Francesco Guicciardini initiated a new realistic style of writing. Machiavelli in

particular was scornful of writers on politics who judged everything in comparison to mental ideals and

demanded that people should study the "effectual truth" instead.

Their contemporary, Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) said,

If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has

written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings.

The decidedly anti-Aristotelian and anti-clerical music theorist Vincenzo Galilei (ca. 1520–1591), father

of Galileo and the inventor ofmonody, made use of the method in successfully solving musical

problems, firstly, of tuning such as the relationship of pitch to string tension and mass in stringed

instruments, and to volume of air in wind instruments; and secondly to composition, by his various

suggestions to composers in his Dialogo della musica antica e moderna (Florence, 1581). The Italian

word he used for "experiment" was esperienza. It is known that he was the essential pedagogical

influence upon the young Galileo, his eldest son (cf. Coelho, ed.Music and Science in the Age of

Galileo Galilei), arguably one of the most influential empiricists in history. Vincenzo, through his tuning

research, found the underlying truth at the heart of the misunderstood myth of 'Pythagoras' hammers'

(the square of the numbers concerned yielded those musical intervals, not the actual numbers, as

believed), and through this and other discoveries that demonstrated the fallibility of traditional

authorities, a radically empirical attitude developed, passed on to Galileo, which regarded "experience

and demonstration" as the sine qua non of valid rational enquiry.

British empiricism

British empiricism, though it was not a term used at the time, derives from the 17th century period

of early modern philosophy andmodern science. The term became useful in order to describe

differences perceived between two of its founders Francis Bacon, described as empiricist, and René

Descartes, who is described as a rationalist. Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza, in the next

generation, are often also described as an empiricist and a rationalist respectively. John Locke, George

Berkeley, and David Hume were the primary exponents of empiricism in the 18th

century Enlightenment, with Locke being the person who is normally known as the founder of

empiricism as such.

In response to the early-to-mid-17th century "continental rationalism" John Locke (1632–1704)

proposed in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) a very influential view wherein

the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori, i.e., based upon experience. Locke is famously

attributed with holding the proposition that the human mind is a tabula rasa,

a "blank tablet," in Locke's words "white paper," on which the experiences

derived from sense impressions as a person's life proceeds are written.

There are two sources of our ideas: sensation and reflection. In both cases,

a distinction is made between simple and complex ideas. The former are

unanalysable, and are broken down into primary and secondary qualities.

Complex ideas combine simple ones, and divide into substances, modes,

and relations. According to Locke, our knowledge of things is a perception of ideas that are in

accordance or discordance with each other, which is very different from the quest

for certainty of Descartes.

Bishop George Berkeley

A generation later, the Irish Anglican bishop, George Berkeley (1685–1753), determined that Locke's

view immediately opened a door that would lead to eventual atheism. In response to Locke, he put forth

in his Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710) an important challenge to

empiricism in which things only exist either as a result of their being perceived, or by virtue of the fact

that they are an entity doing the perceiving. (For Berkeley, God fills in for humans by doing the

perceiving whenever humans are not around to do it). In his text Alciphron, Berkeley maintained that

any order humans may see in nature is the language or handwriting of God. Berkeley's approach to

empiricism would later come to be called subjective idealism. The Scottish philosopher David

Hume (1711–1776) responded to Berkeley's criticisms of Locke, as well as other differences between

early modern philosophers, and moved empiricism to a new level ofskepticism. Hume argued in

keeping with the empiricist view that all knowledge derives from sense experience, but he accepted that

this has implications not normally acceptable to philosophers. He wrote for example, "Mr. Locke divides

all arguments into demonstrative and probable. In this view, we must say, that it is only probable all

men must die, or that the sun will rise to-morrow."  And, "Mr. Locke, in his chapter of power, says that,

finding from experience, that there are several new productions in nature, and concluding that there

must somewhere be a power capable of producing them, we arrive at last by this reasoning at the idea

of power. But no reasoning can ever give us a new, original, simple idea; as this philosopher himself

confesses. This, therefore, can never be the origin of that idea."

Hume divided all of human knowledge into two categories: relations of ideas and matters of fact (see

also Kant's analytic-synthetic distinction). Mathematical and logical propositions (e.g. "that the square of

the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the two sides") are examples of the first, while

propositions involving some contingent observation of the world (e.g. "the sun rises in the East") are

examples of the second. All of people's "ideas", in turn, are derived from their

"impressions". For Hume, an "impression" corresponds roughly with what we

call a sensation. To remember or to imagine such impressions is to have an "idea". Ideas are therefore

the faint copies of sensations.

David Hume's empiricism led to numerous philosophical schools

Hume maintained that all knowledge, even the most basic beliefs about the natural world, cannot be

conclusively established by reason. Rather, he maintained, our beliefs are more a result of

accumulated habits, developed in response to accumulated sense experiences. Among his many

arguments Hume also added another important slant to the debate aboutscientific method — that of

the problem of induction. Hume argued that it requires inductive reasoning to arrive at the premises for

the principle of inductive reasoning, and therefore the justification for inductive reasoning is a circular

argument. Among Hume's conclusions regarding the problem of induction is that there is no certainty

that the future will resemble the past. Thus, as a simple instance posed by Hume, we cannot know with

certainty byinductive reasoning that the sun will continue to rise in the East, but instead come to expect

it to do so because it has repeatedly done so in the past.

Hume concluded that such things as belief in an external world and belief in the existence of the self

were not rationally justifiable. According to Hume these beliefs were to be accepted nonetheless

because of their profound basis in instinct and custom. Hume's lasting legacy, however, was the doubt

that his skeptical arguments cast on the legitimacy of inductive reasoning, allowing many skeptics who

followed to cast similar doubt.

Pragmatism

In the late 19th and early 20th century several forms of pragmatic

philosophy arose. The ideas of pragmatism, in its various forms, developed

mainly from discussions that took place while Charles Sanders

Peirce and William James were both at Harvard in the 1870s. James

popularized the term "pragmatism", giving Peirce full credit for its

patrimony, but Peirce later demurred from the tangents that the movement

was taking, and redubbed what he regarded as the original idea with the name of "pragmaticism".

Along with its pragmatic theory of truth, this perspective integrates the basic insights of empirical

(experience-based) and rational (concept-based) thinking.

Charles Sanders Peirce

Charles Peirce (1839–1914) was highly influential in laying the groundwork for today's

empiricalscientific method. Although Peirce severely criticized many elements of Descartes' peculiar

brand of rationalism, he did not reject rationalism outright. Indeed, he concurred with the main ideas of

rationalism, most importantly the idea that rational concepts can be meaningful and the idea that

rational concepts necessarily go beyond the data given by empirical observation. In later years he even

emphasized the concept-driven side of the then ongoing debate between strict empiricism and strict

rationalism, in part to counterbalance the excesses to which some of his cohorts had taken pragmatism

under the "data-driven" strict-empiricist view. Among Peirce's major contributions was to place inductive

reasoning and deductive reasoning in a complementary rather than competitive mode, the latter of

which had been the primary trend among the educated since David Hume wrote a century before. To

this, Peirce added the concept of abductive reasoning. The combined three forms of reasoning serve

as a primary conceptual foundation for the empirically based scientific method today. Peirce's approach

"presupposes that (1) the objects of knowledge are real things, (2) the characters (properties) of real

things do not depend on our perceptions of them, and (3) everyone who has sufficient experience of

real things will agree on the truth about them. According to Peirce's doctrine of fallibilism, the

conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on

the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the

method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of

truth".

William James

In his Harvard "Lectures on Pragmatism" (1903), Peirce enumerated what he

called the "three cotary propositions of pragmatism" (L: cos, cotis whetstone),

saying that they "put the edge on the maxim of pragmatism". First among these

he listed the peripatetic-thomist observation mentioned above, but he further observed that this link

between sensory perception and intellectual conception is a two-way street. That is, it can be taken to

say that whatever we find in the intellect is also incipiently in the senses. Hence, if theories are theory-

laden then so are the senses, and perception itself can be seen as a species of abductive inference, its

difference being that it is beyond control and hence beyond critique – in a word, incorrigible. This in no

way conflicts with the fallibility and revisability of scientific concepts, since it is only the immediate

percept in its unique individuality or "thisness" – what theScholastics called its haecceity – that stands

beyond control and correction. Scientific concepts, on the other hand, are general in nature, and

transient sensations do in another sense find correction within them. This notion of perception as

abduction has received periodic revivals in artificial intelligence and cognitive science research, most

recently for instance with the work of Irvin Rock onindirect perception.

Around the beginning of the 20th century, William James (1842–1910) coined the term "radical

empiricism" to describe an offshoot of his form of pragmatism, which he argued could be dealt with

separately from his pragmatism – though in fact the two concepts are intertwined in James's published

lectures. James maintained that the empirically observed "directly apprehended universe needs ... no

extraneous trans-empirical connective support",by which he meant to rule out the perception that there

can be any value added by seeking supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. James's "radical

empricism" is thus notradical in the context of the term "empiricism", but is instead fairly consistent with

the modern use of the term "empirical". (His method of argument in arriving at this view, however, still

readily encounters debate within philosophy even today.)

John Dewey (1859–1952) modified James' pragmatism to form a theory known as instrumentalism. The

role of sense experience in Dewey's theory is crucial, in that he saw experience as unified totality of

things through which everything else is interrelated. Dewey's basic thought, in accordance with

empiricism was that reality is determined by past experience. Therefore, humans adapt their past

experiences of things to perform experiments upon and test the pragmatic values of such experience.

The value of such experience is measured by scientific instruments, and the results of such

measurements generate ideas that serve as instruments for future experimentation. Thus, ideas in

Dewey's system retain their empiricist flavour in that they are only known a posteriori.

Pragmaticism

Pragmaticism is a term used by Charles Sanders Peirce for his pragmatic philosophy starting in 1905,

in order to distance himself and it from pragmatism, the original name, which had been used in a

manner he did not approve of in the "literary journals". Peirce in 1905 announced his coinage

"pragmaticism", saying that it was "ugly enough to be safe from kidnappers" (Collected Papers (CP)

5.414). Today, outside of philosophy, "pragmatism" is often taken to refer to a compromise of aims or

principles, even a ruthless search for mercenary advantage. Peirce gave other or more specific reasons

for the distinction in a surviving draft letter that year and in later writings. Peirce's pragmatism, that is,

pragmaticism, differed in Peirce's view from other pragmatisms by its commitments to the spirit of strict

logic, the immutability of truth, the reality of infinity, and the difference between (1) actively willing to

control thought, to doubt, to weigh reasons, and (2) willing not to exert the will, willing to believe.  In his

view his pragmatism is, strictly speaking, not itself a whole philosophy, but instead a general method for

the clarification of ideas. He first publicly formulated his pragmatism as an aspect of scientific logic

along withprinciples of statistics and modes of inference in his "Illustrations of the Logic of Science"

series of articles in 1877-8.

Pragmatic maxim

Whether one chooses to call it "pragmatism" or "pragmaticism"—and Peirce himself was not always

consistent about it even after the notorious renaming—his conception of pragmatic philosophy is based

on one or another version of the so-called "pragmatic maxim". Here is one of his more emphatic

statements of it:

Pragmaticism was originally enounced in the form of a maxim, as follows: Consider what effects, that

might conceivablyhave practical bearings, you conceive the objects of your conception to have. Then,

your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object (CP 5.438).

In the 1909 Century Dictionary Supplement, the entry for pragmaticism, written, it now appears, by

John Dewey, was

pragmaticism (prag-mat′ i-sizm), n. [pragmatic + ism.] A special and limited form of pragmatism, in

which the pragmatism is restricted to the determining of the meaning of concepts (particularly of

philosophic concepts) by consideration of the experimental differences in the conduct of life which

would conceivably result from the affirmation or denial of the meaning in question.

He [the writer] framed the theory that a conception, that is, the rational purport of a word or other

expression, lies exclusively in its conceivable bearing upon the conduct of life. . . . To serve the precise

purpose of expressing the original definition, he begs to announce the birth of the word "pragmaticism."

C. S. Peirce, in The Monist, April, 1905, p. 166.

Pragmatism's origin

Pragmatism as a philosophical movement originated in 1872 in discussions in The Metaphysical

Club among Peirce, William James,Chauncey Wright, John Fiske, Francis Ellingwood Abbot, Nicholas

St. John Green, and Joseph Bangs Warner. The first use in print of the name pragmatism appears to

have been in 1898 by James, who credited Peirce with having coined the name during the early 1870s.

James, among others, regarded Peirce's 1877-8 "Illustrations of the Logic of Science" series, especially

"How to Make Our Ideas Clear" (1878) as pragmatism's foundation. Peirce (CP 5.11-12), like

James saw pragmatism as embodying familiar attitudes, in philosophy and elsewhere, elaborated into a

new deliberate method of thinking and resolving dilemmas. Peirce differed from James and the

earlyJohn Dewey, in some of their tangential enthusiasms, in being decidedly more rationalistic and

realistic, in several senses of those terms, throughout the preponderance of his own philosophical

moods.

In a 1906 manuscript, Peirce wrote that, in the Metaphysical Club decades earlier, Nicholas St. John

Green

often urged the importance of applying Bain's definition of belief, as "that upon which a man is prepared

to act." From this definition, pragmatism is scarce more than a corollary; so that I am disposed to think

of him as the grandfather of pragmatism.

James and Peirce, inspired by crucial links among belief, conduct, and disposition, agreed with Green.

John Shook has said, "Chauncey Wright also deserves considerable credit, for as both Peirce and

James recall, it was Wright who demanded a phenomenalist and fallibilist empiricism as a vital

alternative to rationalistic speculation."

Pragmatism is regarded as a distinctively American philosophy. As advocated by James, John

Dewey, Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller, George Herbert Mead, and others, it has proved durable and

popular. But Peirce did not seize on this fact to enhance his reputation, and even coined the word

"pragmaticism" to distinguish his philosophical position.

The clarification of ideas in inquiry

Pragmatism starts with the idea that belief is that upon which one is prepared to act. Peirce's

pragmatism is about conceptions of objects. His pragmatism is a method for fruitfully sorting out

conceptual confusions caused, for example, by distinctions that make (sometimes needful) formal yet

not practical differences. It equates any conception of an object with a conception of that object's

effects to a general extent of those conceived effects' conceivable implications for informed practice.

Those conceivable practical implications are the conception's meaning. The meaning is the consequent

form of conduct or practice that would be implied by accepting the conception as true. Peirce's

pragmaticism, in the strict sense, is about the conceptual elucidation of conceptions into such meanings

— about how to make our ideas clear. Making them true, in the sense of proving and bearing them out

in fruitful practice, goes beyond that. A conception's truth is its correspondence to the real, to that which

would be found by investigation taken far enough. A conception's actual confirmation (if it occurs) is

neither its meaning nor its truth per se, but an actual upshot.

In "How to Make Our Ideas Clear", Peirce discusses three grades of clearness of conception:

1. Clearness of a conception familiar and readily used even if unanalyzed and undeveloped.

2. Clearness of a conception in virtue of clearness of its definition's parts, in virtue of which

logicians called an idea distinct, that is, clarified by analysis of just what elements make the

given idea applicable. Elsewhere, echoing Kant, Peirce calls such a definition "nominal" (CP

5.553).

3. Clearness in virtue of clearness of conceivable practical implications of the object's effects as

conceived of, such as can lead to fruitful reasoning, especially on difficult problems. Here he

introduces that which he later called the pragmatic maxim.

By way of example of how to clarify conceptions, he addressed conceptions about truth and the real as

questions of thepresuppositions of reasoning in general. To reason is to presuppose (and at least to

hope), as a principle of the reasoner's self-regulation, that the truth is independent of our vagaries of

opinion and is discoverable. In clearness's second grade (the "nominal" grade), he defines truth as the

correspondence of a sign (in particular, a proposition) to its object, and the real as the object (be it a

possibility or quality, or an actuality or brute fact, or a necessity or norm or law) to which a true sign

corresponds, such that truth and the real are independent of that which you or I or any actual,

definite community of inquirers think. After that needful but confined step, next in clearness's third

grade (the pragmatic, practice-oriented grade) he defines truth — not as actual consensus, such that to

inquire would be to poll the experts — but as that which would be reached, sooner or later but still

inevitably, by research taken far enough, such that the real does depend on that ideal final opinion—a

dependence to which he appeals in theoretical arguments elsewhere, for instance for the long-run

validity of the rule of induction. (Peirce held that one cannot have absolute theoretical assurance of

having actually reached the truth, and later said that the confession of inaccuracy and one-sidedness is

an essential ingredient of a true abstract statement. Peirce argues that even to argue against the

independence and discoverability of truth and the real is to presuppose that there is, about that very

question under argument, a truth with just such independence and discoverability. For more on Peirce's

theory of truth, see the Peirce section in Pragmatic theory of truth. Peirce's discussions and definitions

of truth have influenced several epistemic truth theorists and been used as foil

for deflationary and correspondence theories of truth.

Peirce said that a conception's meaning consists in "all general modes of rational conduct" implied by

"acceptance" of the conception—that is, if one were to accept, first of all, the conception as true, then

what could one conceive to be consequent general modes of rational conduct by all who accept the

conception as true?—the whole of such consequent general modes is the whole meaning. His

pragmatism, since a conception is general, does not equate a conception's meaning, its intellectual

purport, with any definite set of actual consequences or upshots corroborating or undermining the

conception or its worth, nor does it equate its meaning, much less its truth (if it is true), with the

conceived or actual benefit or cost of the conception itself, like a meme (or, say, propaganda), outside

the perspective of its being true in what it purports. If it is true, its truth is not transitory but instead

immutable and independent of actual trends of opinion. His pragmatism also bears no resemblance to

"vulgar" pragmatism, which misleadingly connotes a ruthless andMachiavellian search for mercenary or

political advantage. Rather, Peirce's pragmatic maxim is the heart of his pragmatism as a method of

experimentational mental reflection arriving at conceptions in terms of conceivable confirmatory and

disconfirmatory circumstances—a method hospitable to the generation of explanatory hypotheses, and

conducive to the employment and improvement of verification[14] to test the truth of putative knowledge.

Peirce's pragmatism, as method and theory of definitions and the clearness of ideas, is a department

within his theory of inquiry, which he variously called "Methodeutic" and "Philosophical or Speculative

Rhetoric". He applied his pragmatism as a method throughout his work.

Peirce called his pragmatism "the logic of abduction",that is, the logic of inference to explanatory

hypotheses. As a method conducive to hypotheses as well as predictions and testing, pragmatism

leads beyond the usual duo of foundational alternatives, namely:

Deduction from self-evident truths, or rationalism;

Induction from experiential phenomena, or empiricism.

His approach is distinct from foundationalism, empiricist or otherwise, as well as from coherentism, by

the following three dimensions:

Active process of theory generation, with no prior assurance of truth;

Subsequent application of the contingent theory in order to clarify its logical and practical implications;

Testing and evaluation of the provisional theory's utility for the anticipation of future experience, and

that in dual senses of the word: prediction and control. Peirce's appreciation of these three dimensions

serves to flesh out a physiognomy of inquiry far more solid than the flatter image of inductive

generalization simpliciter, which is merely the relabeling of phenomenological patterns. Peirce's

pragmatism was the first time the scientific method was proposed as an epistemology for philosophical

questions.

A theory that proves itself more successful than its rivals in predicting and controlling our world is said

to be nearer the truth. This is an operational notion of truth employed by scientists.

In "The Fixation of Belief", Peirce characterized inquiry in general not as the pursuit of truth per se but

as the struggle to settle disturbances or conflicts of belief, irritating, inhibitory doubts, belief being that

on which one is willing to act. That let Peirce frame scientific inquiry not only as a special kind of inquiry

in a broader spectrum, but also, like inquiry generally, as based on actual doubts, not mere verbal

doubts (such as hyperbolic doubt), which he held to be fruitless, and it let him also frame it, by the

same stroke, as requiring that proof rest on propositions free from actual doubt, rather than on ultimate

and absolutely indubitable propositions. He outlined four methods, ordered from least to most

successful in achieving a secure fixation of belief:

1. The method of tenacity (policy of sticking to initial belief) — which brings comforts and decisiveness,

but leads to trying to ignore contrary information and others' views, as if truth were intrinsically private,

not public. The method goes against the social impulse and easily falters since one may well fail to

avoid noticing when another's opinion is as good as one's own initial opinion. Its successes can be

brilliant but tend to be transitory.

2. The method of authority — which overcomes disagreements but sometimes brutally. Its successes can

be majestic and long-lasting, but it cannot regulate people thoroughly enough to suppress doubts

indefinitely, especially when people learn about other societies present and past.

3. The method of congruity or the a priori or the dilettante or "what is agreeable to reason" — which

promotes conformity less brutally, but depends on taste and fashion in paradigms and can lead in

circles over time, along with barren disputation. It is more intellectual and respectable but, like the first

two methods, sustains capricious and accidental beliefs, destining some minds to doubts.

4. The method of science — the only one whereby inquiry can, by its own account, go wrong (fallibilism),

and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.

Peirce held that, in practical affairs, slow and stumbling ratiocination is often dangerously inferior to

instinct and traditional sentiment, and that the scientific method is best suited to theoretical

research, which in turn should not be bound to the other methods and to practical ends; reason's "first

rule" is that, in order to learn, one must desire to learn and, as a corollary, must not block the way of

inquiry. What recommends the scientific method of inquiry above all others is that it is deliberately

designed to arrive, eventually, at the ultimately most secure beliefs, upon which the most successful

practices can eventually be based. Starting from the idea that people seek not truth per se but instead

to subdue irritating, inhibitory doubt, Peirce shows how, through the struggle, some can come to submit

to truth, seek as truth the guidance of potential practice correctly to its given goal, and wed themselves

to the scientific method.

Pragmaticism's name

William James

1842–1910

F. C. S. Schiller

1863–193

It is sometimes stated that James' and other philosophers' use of the word pragmatism so dismayed

Peirce that he renamed his own variant pragmaticism. Susan Haack has disagreed,[19] pointing out the

context in which Peirce publicly introduced the latter term in 1905. Haack's excerpt of Peirce begins

below at the words "But at present...," and continues with some ellipses. The fuller excerpt below

supports her case further:

[The] word "pragmatism" has gained general recognition in a generalised sense that seems to argue

power of growth and vitality. The famed psychologist, James, first took it up, seeing that his "radical

empiricism" substantially answered to the writer's definition of pragmatism, albeit with a certain

difference in the point of view. Next, the admirably clear and brilliant thinker, Mr.Ferdinand C. S.

Schiller, casting about for a more attractive name for the "anthropomorphism" of his Riddle of the

Sphinx, lit, in that most remarkable paper of his on Axioms as Postulates, upon the same designation

"pragmatism," which in its original sense was in generic agreement with his own doctrine, for which he

has since found the more appropriate specification "humanism," while he still retains "pragmatism" in a

somewhat wider sense. So far all went happily. But at present, the word begins to be met with

occasionally in the literary journals, where it gets abused in the merciless way that words have to

expect when they fall into literary clutches. Sometimes the manners of the British have effloresced in

scolding at the word as ill-chosen, —ill-chosen, that is, to express some meaning that it was rather

designed to exclude. So then, the writer, finding his bantling "pragmatism" so promoted, feels that it is

time to kiss his child good-by and relinquish it to its higher destiny; while to serve the precise purpose of

expressing the original definition, he begs to announce the birth of the word "pragmaticism", which is

ugly enough to be safe from kidnappers.

Then, in a surviving draft letter to Calderoni, dated by the CP editors as circa that same year 1905,

Peirce said regarding his above-quoted discussion:

In the April number of the Monist I proposed that the word 'pragmatism' should hereafter be used

somewhat loosely to signify affiliation with Schiller, James, Dewey, Royce, and the rest of us, while the

particular doctrine which I invented the word to denote, which is your first kind of pragmatism, should be

called 'pragmaticism.' The extra syllable will indicate the narrower meaning.

Indeed in the Monist article Peirce had said that the coinage "pragmaticism" was intended "to serve the

precise purpose of expressing the original definition". Of course this does not mean that Peirce

regarded his fellow pragmatist philosophers as word-kidnappers. To the contrary he had said, regarding

James's and Schiller's uses of the word "pragmatism": "So far, all went happily." So it would seem that

Peirce intended the coinage "pragmaticism" for two distinguishable purposes: (1) protection from

literary journals and word-kidnappers, and (2) reference strictly to his own form of pragmatism, as

opposed even to other pragmatisms that had not moved him to the new name. In the letter to

Calderoni, Peirce did not reject all significant affiliation with fellow pragmatists, and instead said "the

rest of us". Nor did he reject all such affiliation in later discussions.

However, in the following year 1906, in a manuscript "A Sketch of Logical Critics", Peirce wrote:

I have always fathered my pragmaticism (as I have called it since James and Schiller made the word

[pragmatism] imply "the will to believe," the mutability of truth, the soundness of Zeno's refutation of

motion, and pluralism generally), upon Kant, Berkeley, and Leibniz....

(Peirce proceeded to criticize J. S. Mill but acknowledged probable aid from Mill's Examination.)

Then, in 1908, in his article "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God", mentioning both James and

the journalist, pragmatist, and literary author Giovanni Papini, Peirce wrote:

In 1871, in a Metaphysical Club in Cambridge, Mass., I used to preach this principle as a sort of logical

gospel, representing the unformulated method followed by Berkeley, and in conversation about it I

called it "Pragmatism." In December 1877 and January 1878 I set forth the doctrine in the Popular

Science Monthly, and the two parts of my essay were printed in French in the Revue Philosophique,

volumes vi. and vii. Of course, the doctrine attracted no particular attention, for, as I had remarked in

my opening sentence, very few people care for logic. But in 1897 Professor James remodelled the

matter, and transmogrified it into a doctrine of philosophy, some parts of which I highly approved, while

other and more prominent parts I regarded, and still regard, as opposed to sound logic. About the time

Professor Papini discovered, to the delight of the Pragmatist school, that this doctrine was incapable of

definition, which would certainly seem to distinguish it from every other doctrine in whatever branch of

science, I was coming to the conclusion that my poor little maxim should be called by another name;

and accordingly, in April 1905, I renamed it Pragmaticism.

Peirce proceeded in "A Neglected Argument" to express both deep satisfaction and deep dismay with

his fellow pragmatists. He singled F.C.S. Schiller out by name and was vague about which among the

others he most particularly referred to. Peirce wrote "It seems to me a pity they should allow a

philosophy so instinct with life to become infected with seeds of death...."

Peirce remained allied with them about:

the reality of generals and habits, to be

but was dismayed with their "angry hatred of strict

understood, as arehypostatic abstractions, in

terms of potential concrete effects even if

unactualized;

the falsity of necessitarianism;

the character of consciousness as only

"visceral or other external sensation".

logic" and saw seeds of philosophical death in:

their view that "truth is mutable";

their view that infinity is unreal; and

"such confusions of thought as of active willing

(willing to control thought, to doubt, and to

weigh reasons) with willing not to exert the will

(willing to believe)".

There has been some controversy over Peirce's relation to other pragmatists over the years and over

the question of what is owed to Peirce, with visible crests in titles such as literary essayist Edward

Dahlberg's "Cutpurse Philosopher"about James, in which Dahlberg claimed that Peirce had "tombstone

reticences" about making accusations, and Kenneth Laine Ketner's and Walker Percy'sA Thief of

Peirce,[26] in which Percy described himself as "a thief of Peirce" (page 130). Meanwhile, Schiller,

James's wife Alice, and James's son Henry James III believed that James had a habit of overstating his

intellectual debts to others such as Peirce.

In another manuscript "A Sketch of Logical Critic" dated by the CP editors as 1911, Peirce discussed

one of Zeno's paradoxes, that of Achilles and the Tortoise, in terms of James's and others' difficulties

with it. Peirce therein expressed regret at having used a "contemptuous" manner about such difficulties

in his 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism (which James had arranged), and said of James, who had

died in August 1910: "Nobody has a better right to testify to the morality of his attitude toward his own

thoughts than I, who knew and loved him for forty-nine or fifty years. But owing to his almost

unexampled incapacity for mathematical thought, combined with intense hatred for logic — probably for

its pedantry, its insistence on minute exactitude — the gêne of its barbarous formulations, etc. rendered

him an easy victim to Zeno and the Achilles....", called James "about as perfect a lover of truth as it is

possible for a man to be...."[ and said: "In speaking, then, of William James as I do, I am saying the

most that I could of any man's intellectual morality; and with him this was but one of a whole diadem of

virtues."

Reconstructivism

Reconstructivism is a philosophical theory holding that societies should continually reform themselves

in order to establish more perfect governments or social networks.[1] This ideology involves recombining

or recontextualizing the ideas arrived at by the philosophy of deconstruction, in which an existing

system or medium is broken into its smallest meaningful elements and in which these elements are

used to build a new system or medium free from the strictures of the original.

Some thinkers have attempted to ascribe the term Reconstructivism to the post-postmodern art

movement. In an essay by Chris Sunami, (Art Essays: Reconstructivist Art) "reconstructivist art" is

described as follows:

A reconstructivist art work builds upon prior, deconstructionist artworks and techniques, but adapts

them to classic themes and structures, with the goal of creating works of genuine emotion and

significance. In this way, reconstructivism (when it works) combines the vitality and originality of

deconstructionism with the comforts, pleasures and rewards ofclassicism. The overall purpose of

reconstructivism is to reawaken a sense of the Real in a world where everything has been

demonstrated to be an illusion.

One of the examples Sunami provides of this technique is the way some modern music incorporates

deconstructed samples of older music and combines and arranges the samples in a new way as part of

a new composition.

Confucianism

Confucianism is a Chinese ethical and philosophical system developed from the teachings of the

Chinese philosopher Confucius (孔夫子 Kǒng Fūzǐ, or K'ung-fu-tzu, lit. "Master Kong", 551–479 BC).

Confucianism originated as an "ethical-sociopolitical teaching" during the Spring and Autumn Period,

but later developed metaphysical and cosmological elements in the Han Dynasty.[1] Following the

abandonment of Legalism in China after the Qin Dynasty, Confucianism became the official state

ideology of China, until it was replaced by the "Three Principles of the People" ideology with the

establishment of the Republic of China, and then Maoist Communism after the ROC was replaced by

the People's Republic of China in Mainland China.

The core of Confucianism is humanism, the belief that human beings are teachable, improvable and

perfectible through personal and communal endeavour especially including self-cultivation and self-

creation. Confucianism focuses on the cultivation of virtue and maintenance of ethics, the most basic of

which are ren, yi, and li. Ren is an obligation ofaltruism and humaneness for other individuals within a

community, yi is the upholding of righteousness and the moral disposition to do good, and li is a system

of norms andpropriety that determines how a person should properly act within a community.

Confucianism holds that one should give up one's life, if necessary, either passively or actively, for the

sake of upholding the cardinal moral values of ren and yi. Although Confucius the man may have been

a believer in Chinese folk religion, Confucianism as an ideology is humanistic and non-theistic, and

does not involve a belief in the supernatural or in a personal god.

Cultures and countries strongly influenced by Confucianism include

mainland China,Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Vietnam, as well as various territories settled predominantly

byChinese people, such as Singapore. Although Confucian ideas prevail in these areas, few people

outside of academia identify themselves as Confucian, and instead see Confucian ethics as a

complementary guideline for other ideologies and beliefs,

includingdemocracy, Marxism, capitalism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism.

Names and Etymology

Strictly speaking, there is no term in Chinese which directly corresponds to "Confucianism." Several

different terms are used in different situations, several of which are of modern origin:

"School of the scholars" (Chinese: 儒 家 ; pinyin: Rújiā)

"Teaching of the scholars" (Chinese: 儒 教 ; pinyin: Rújiào)

"Study of the scholars" (simplified Chinese: 儒 学 ; traditional Chinese: 儒 學 ; pinyin: Rúxué)

"Teaching of Confucius" (Chinese: 孔 教 ; pinyin: Kǒngjiào)

"Kong Family's Business" (Chinese: 孔 家 店 ; pinyin: Kǒngjiādiàn)[14]

Three of these use the Chinese character 儒 rú, meaning "scholar". These names do not use the name

"Confucius" at all, but instead center on the figure or ideal of the Confucian scholar; however, the

suffixes of jiā, jiào, and xué carry different implications as to the nature of Confucianism itself.

Rújiā contains the character jiā, which literally means "house" or "family". In this context, it is more

readily construed as meaning "school of thought", since it is also used to construct the names of

philosophical schools contemporary with Confucianism: for example, the Chinese names

for Legalism and Mohism end in jiā.

Rújiào and Kǒngjiào contain the Chinese character jiào, the noun "teach", used in such as terms as

"education", or "educator". The term, however, is notably used to construct the names of religions in

Chinese: the terms for Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and other religions in Chinese all end with jiào.

Rúxué contains xué 'study'. The term is parallel to -ology in English, being used to construct the names

of academic fields: the Chinese names of fields such as physics, chemistry, biology, political science,

economics, and sociology all end in xué.

Themes in Confucian thought

Six books

Confucius taught six books to followers when he was in state of lu,there were:

Classic of Poetry（诗),is a collection of former prophecy

Book of Documents（书）,is a collection of history recorded by vassals.

Book of Rites（礼）,is a collection of fomer laws.

Book of Music（乐）,is a collection about former rituals.

I Ching or Classic of Change(易）,this book is descibed "Classic of all Classics" ,"Primate Classic"

by Confucians even today

Spring and Autumn Annals（春秋）,annuals of the whole land during that period ,maybe written by

Confucius to reveal the Classic of Change.

The six books' name is traditionally written in a sequence "诗书礼乐易春秋".When the Classic of

Change(易）is verbal,it could read as "Poetry,documents,rites,music changed the annals of Spring and

Autumn."

There is also a Chinese idiom "A big dream such like Spring and Autumn"(春秋大梦）.

Humanism

Humanism is at the core in Confucianism. A simple way to appreciate Confucian thought is to consider

it as being based on varying levels of honesty, and a simple way to understand Confucian thought is to

examine the world by using the logic of humanity. In practice, the primary foundation and function of

Confucianism is as an ethical philosophy to be practiced by all the members of a society. Confucian

ethics is characterized by the promotion of virtues, encompassed by the Five Constants, or the

Wuchang (五常), extrapolated by Confucian scholars during the Han Dynasty.[16] The five virtues are:

Rén  (仁, Humaneness)

Yì  (義, Righteousness or Justice)

Lǐ  (禮, Propriety or Etiquette)

Zhì (智, Knowledge)

Xìn (信, Integrity).

These are accompanied by the classical Sìzì (四字) with four virtues:

Zhōng (忠, Loyalty)

Xiào (孝, Filial piety)

Jié (節, Continency)

Yì (義, Righteousness).

There are still many other elements, such as Chéng (誠, honesty), Shù (恕, kindness and forgiveness),

Lián (廉 , honesty and cleanness), Chǐ (恥 , shame, judge and sense of right and wrong), Yǒng (勇 ,

bravery), Wēn (溫, kind and gentle), Liáng (良, good, kindhearted), Gōng (恭, respectful, reverent), Jiǎn

(儉, frugal), Ràng (讓, modestly, self-effacing). Among all elements, Ren and Yi are fundamental.

Ren

Ren (Confucianism)

Ren is one of the basic virtues promoted by Confucius, and is an obligation of altruism and

humaneness for other individuals within a community.[3] Confucius' concept of humaneness

(Chinese: 仁; pinyin: rén) is probably best expressed in the Confucian version of theethic of reciprocity,

or the Golden Rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you."

Confucius never stated whether man was born good or evil, noting that 'By nature men are similar; by

practice men are wide apart'[18]—implying that whether good or bad, Confucius must have perceived all

men to be born with intrinsic similarities, but that man is conditioned and influenced by study and

practise. Xunzi's opinion is that men originally just want what they instinctively want despite positive or

negative results it may bring, so cultivation is needed. In Mencius' view, all men are born to share

goodness such as compassion and good heart, although they may become wicked. The Three

Character Classic begins with "People at birth are naturally good (kind-hearted)", which stems from

Mencius' idea. All the views eventually lead to recognize the importance of human education and

cultivation.

Rén also has a political dimension. If the ruler lacks rén, Confucianism holds, it will be difficult if not

impossible for his subjects to behave humanely. Rén is the basis of Confucian political theory: it

presupposes an autocratic ruler, exhorted to refrain from acting inhumanely towards his subjects. An

inhumane ruler runs the risk of losing the "Mandate of Heaven", the right to rule. A ruler lacking such a

mandate need not be obeyed. But a ruler who reigns humanely and takes care of the people is to be

obeyed strictly, for the benevolence of his dominion shows that he has been mandated by heaven.

Confucius himself had little to say on the will of the people, but his leading follower Mencius did state on

one occasion that the people's opinion on certain weighty matters should be considered.

Etiquette

 Li (Confucianism)

In Confucianism, the term "li" (Chinese: 禮 ; pinyin: lǐ), sometimes translated into English as rituals,

customs, rites, etiquette, or morals, refers to any of the secular social functions of daily life, akin to the

Western term for culture. Confucius considered education and music as various elements of li. Li were

codified and treated as a comprehensive system of norms, guiding the propriety or politeness which

colors everyday life. Confucius himself tried to revive the etiquette of earlier dynasties.

It is important to note that, although li is sometimes translated as "ritual" or "rites", it has developed a

specialized meaning in Confucianism, as opposed to its usual religious meanings. In Confucianism, the

acts of everyday life are considered rituals. Rituals are not necessarily regimented or arbitrary

practices, but the routines that people often engage in, knowingly or unknowingly, during the normal

course of their lives. Shaping the rituals in a way that leads to a content and healthy society, and to

content and healthy people, is one purpose of Confucian philosophy.

Loyalty

Loyalty (Chinese: 忠; pinyin: zhōng) is the equivalent of filial piety on a different plane. It is particularly

relevant for the social class to which most of Confucius' students belonged, because the only way for

an ambitious young scholar to make his way in the Confucian Chinese world was to enter a ruler's civil

service. Like filial piety, however, loyalty was often subverted by the autocratic regimes of China.

Confucius had advocated a sensitivity to the realpolitik of the class relations in his time; he did not

propose that "might makes right", but that a superior who had received the "Mandate of Heaven" (see

below) should be obeyed because of his moral rectitude.

In later ages, however, emphasis was placed more on the obligations of the ruled to the ruler, and less

on the ruler's obligations to the ruled.

Loyalty was also an extension of one's duties to friends, family, and spouse. Loyalty to one's family

came first, then to one's spouse, then to one's ruler, and lastly to one's friends. Loyalty was considered

one of the greater human virtues.

Confucius also realized that loyalty and filial piety can potentially conflict.

Filial piety

Filial piety

"Filial piety" (Chinese: 孝; pinyin: xiào) is considered among the greatest of virtues and must be shown

towards both the living and the dead (including even remote ancestors). The term "filial" (meaning "of a

child") characterizes the respect that a child, originally a son, should show to his parents. This

relationship was extended by analogy to a series of five relationships (Chinese: 五 倫 ; pinyin:wǔlún):

The Five Bonds

Ruler to Ruled

Father to Son

Husband to Wife

Elder Brother to Younger Brother

Friend to Friend

Specific duties were prescribed to each of the participants in these sets of relationships. Such duties

were also extended to the dead, where the living stood as sons to their deceased family. This led to the

veneration of ancestors. The only relationship where respect for elders wasn't stressed was the Friend

to Friend relationship. In all other relationships, high reverence was held for elders.

The idea of Filial piety influenced the Chinese legal system: a criminal would be punished more harshly

if the culprit had committed the crime against a parent, while fathers often exercised enormous power

over their children. A similar differentiation was applied to other relationships. Now filial piety is also

built into law. People have the responsibility to provide for their elderly parents according to the law.

The main source of our knowledge of the importance of filial piety is the Classic of Filial Piety, a work

attributed to Confucius and his son but almost certainly written in the 3rd century BCE. The Analects,

the main source of the Confucianism of Confucius, actually has little to say on the matter of filial piety

and some sources believe the concept was focused on by later thinkers as a response to Mohism.

Filial piety has continued to play a central role in Confucian thinking to the present day.

Relationships

Relationships are central to Confucianism. Particular duties arise from one's particular situation in

relation to others. The individual stands simultaneously in several different relationships with different

people: as a junior in relation to parents and elders, and as a senior in relation to younger siblings,

students, and others. While juniors are considered in Confucianism to owe their seniors reverence,

seniors also have duties of benevolence and concern toward juniors. This theme of mutuality is

prevalent in East Asian cultures even to this day.

Social harmony—the great goal of Confucianism—therefore results in part from every individual

knowing his or her place in the social order, and playing his or her part well. When Duke Jing

of Qi asked about government, by which he meant proper administration so as to bring social harmony,

Confucius replied:

There is government, when the prince is prince, and the minister is minister; when the father is father,

and the son is son. (Analects XII, 11, trans. Legge)

Mencius says: "When being a child, yearn for and love your parents; when growing mature, yearn for

and love your lassie; when having wife and child(ren), yearn for and love your wife and child(ren); when

being an official (or a staffer), yearn for and love your sovereign (and/or boss).

The gentleman

 Junzi

The term jūnzǐ (Chinese: 君 子 ; literally "lord's child") is crucial to classical Confucianism. Confucianism

exhorts all people to strive for the ideal of a "gentleman" or "perfect man". A succinct description of the

"perfect man" is one who "combines the qualities of saint, scholar, and gentleman." In modern times the

masculine translation in English is also traditional and is still frequently used. Elitism was bound up with

the concept, and gentlemen were expected to act as moral guides to the rest of society.

They were to:

cultivate themselves morally;

show filial piety and loyalty where these are due;

cultivate humanity, or benevolence.

The great exemplar of the perfect gentleman is Confucius himself. Perhaps the tragedy of his life was

that he was never awarded the high official position which he desired, from which he wished to

demonstrate the general well-being that would ensue if humane persons ruled and administered the

state.

The opposite of the Jūnzǐ was the Xiǎorén (Chinese: 小 人 ; pinyin: xiǎorén; literally "small person"). The

character 小 in this context means petty in mind and heart, narrowly self-interested, greedy, superficial,

or materialistic.

Rectification of names

Rectification of Names

Confucius believed that social disorder often stemmed from failure to perceive, understand, and deal

with reality. Fundamentally, then, social disorder can stem from the failure to call things by their proper

names, and his solution to this was Zhèngmíng (Chinese: [ 正 名 ];pinyin: zhèngmíng; literally

"rectification of terms"). He gave an explanation of zhengming to one of his disciples.

Zi-lu said, "The vassal of Wei has been waiting for you, in order with you to administer the government.

What will you consider the first thing to be done?" The Master replied, "What is necessary to rectify

names." "So! indeed!" said Zi-lu. "You are wide off the mark! Why must there be such rectification?"

The Master said, "How uncultivated you are, Yu! The superior man cannot care about the everything,

just as he cannot go to check all himself!

        If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.

        If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.

        When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish.

        When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded.

        When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.

Therefore if the superior have got everything the a propriate name,he would find it convient to give

orders.If he give orders ,it will be always appropriately carried out.Then,he cannot blame you,because

you can always appropicately.."

(Analects XIII, 3, tr. Legge)

Xun Zi chapter (22) "On the Rectification of Names" claims the ancient sage-kings chose names

(Chinese: [名 ]; pinyin: míng) that directly corresponded with actualities (Chinese: [實 ]; pinyin: shí), but

later generations confused terminology, coined new nomenclature, and thus could no longer distinguish

right from wrong.

Governance

Confucian temple in Kaohsiung, Taiwan,Republic of China

To govern by virtue, let us compare it to the North Star: it stays in its place, while the myriad stars wait

upon it. (Analects II, 1)

Another key Confucian concept is that in order to govern others one

must first govern oneself. When developed sufficiently, the king's

personal virtue spreads beneficent influence throughout the

kingdom. This idea is developed further in the Great Learning, and

is tightly linked with the Taoist concept of wu wei (simplified

Chinese: 无为; traditional Chinese: 無為;pinyin: wú wéi): the less the king does, the more gets done. By

being the "calm center" around which the kingdom turns, the king allows everything to function

smoothly and avoids having to tamper with the individual parts of the whole.

This idea may be traced back to early Chinese shamanistic beliefs, such as the king being the axle

between the sky, human beings, and the Earth.Another complementary view is that this idea may have

been used by ministers and counselors to deter aristocratic whims that would otherwise be to the

detriment of the state's people.

Meritocracy

In teaching, there should be no distinction of classes. (Analects XV, 39)

The main basis of his teachings was to seek knowledge, study, and become a better person.

Although Confucius claimed that he never invented anything but was only transmitting ancient

knowledge (see Analects VII, 1), he did produce a number of new ideas. Many European and American

admirers such as Voltaire and H. G. Creel point to the revolutionary idea of replacing nobility of blood

with nobility of virtue. Jūnzǐ (君子, lit. "lord's child"), which originally signified the younger, non-inheriting,

offspring of a noble, became, in Confucius' work, an epithet having much the same meaning and

evolution as the English "gentleman". A virtuous plebeian who cultivates his qualities can be a

"gentleman", while a shameless son of the king is only a "small man". That he admitted students of

different classes as disciples is a clear demonstration that he fought against the feudal structures that

defined pre-imperial Chinese society.

Another new idea, that of meritocracy, led to the introduction of the Imperial examination system in

China. This system allowed anyone who passed an examination to become a government officer, a

position which would bring wealth and honour to the whole family. The Chinese Imperial examination

system seems to have been started in 165 BC, when certain candidates for public office were called to

the Chinese capital for examination of their moral excellence by the emperor. Over the following

centuries the system grew until finally almost anyone who wished to become an official had to prove his

worth by passing written government examinations.

His achievement was the setting up of a school that produced statesmen with a strong sense of

patriotism and duty, known as Rujia (Chinese: 儒 家 ; pinyin: Rújiā). During the Warring States

Period and the early Han Dynasty, China grew greatly and the need arose for a solid and centralized

cadre of government officers able to read and write administrative papers. As a result, Confucianism

was promoted by the emperor and the men its doctrines produced became an effective counter to the

remaining feudal aristocrats who threatened the unity of the imperial state.

During the Han Dynasty, Confucianism developed from an ethical system into a political ideology used

to legitimize the rule of the political elites. Most Chinese emperors used a mix of Legalism and

Confucianism as their ruling doctrine, often with the latter embellishing the former. The practice of using

the Confucian meritocracy to justify political actions continues in countries in theSinosphere, including

post-economic liberalization People's Republic of China, Chiang Kai-Shek's Republic of China, and

modernSingapore.

Influence in 17th-century Europe

Life and works of Confucius, by Prospero Intorcetta, 1687

The works of Confucius were translated into European languages through the agency of Jesuit scholars

stationed in China. Matteo Ricci was among the very earliest to report on the thoughts of Confucius,

and father Prospero Intorcetta wrote about the life and works of Confucius in Latin in 1687. Translations

of Confucian texts influenced European thinkers of the period, particularly among the Deists and other

philosophical groups of the Enlightenment who were interested by the integration of the system of

morality of Confucius into Western civilization. Confucianism influenced Gottfried Leibniz, who was

attracted to the philosophy because of its perceived similarity to his own. It is postulated that certain

elements of Leibniz's philosophy, such as "simple substance" and

"preestablished harmony", were borrowed from his interactions with

Confucianism. The French philosopher Voltaire was also influenced by

Confucius, seeing the concept of Confucian rationalism as an alternative to

Christian dogma. He praised Confucian ethics and politics, portraying the sociopolitical hierarchy of

China as a model for Europe.

Confucius has no interest in falsehood; he did not pretend to be prophet; he claimed no inspiration; he

taught no new religion; he used no delusions; flattered not the emperor under whom he lived...

—Voltaire

Influence on Islamic thought

From the late 17th century onwards a whole body of literature known as the Han Kitab developed

amongst the Hui Muslims of China who infused Islamic thought with Confucianism. Especially the

works of Liu Zhi such as Tiānfāng Diǎnlǐ（天方典禮） sought to harmonize Islam with not only

Confucianism but Daoism and is considered to be one of the crowning achievements of the Chinese

Muslim culture.

Influence in modern times

Important military and political figures in modern Chinese history continued to be influenced by

Confucianism, like the Muslim warlordMa Fuxiang. The New Life Movement relied heavily on

Confucianism.

Referred to variously as the Confucian hypothesis and as a debated component of the more all-

encompassing Asian Development Model, there exists among political scientists and economists a

theory that Confucianism plays a large latent role in the ostensibly non-Confucian cultures of modern-

day East Asia, in the form of the rigorous work ethic it endowed those cultures with. These scholars

have held that, if not for Confucianism's influence on these cultures, many of the people of the East

Asia region would not have been able to modernize and industrialize as quickly

as Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and even China have done. Most

scholars attribute the origins of this idea to futurologist Herman Kahn's World Economic Development:

1979 and Beyond. In years since, this hypothesis has been thoroughly discredited. See Hicks' account

of it referenced above for details, or for an alternate and more current explanation, Cristobal Kay's

"Why East Asia Overtook Latin America: Agrarian Reform, Industrialization, and Development."

Criticism

For many years since the era of Confucius, various critiques of Confucianism have arisen,

including Laozi's philosophy and Mozi's critique. Lu Xun also criticised Confucianism heavily for

shaping Chinese people into the condition they had reached by the late Qing Dynasty: his criticisms are

well portrayed in two of his works, A Madman's Diary and The True Story of Ah Q.

In modern times, waves of critique along with vilification against Confucianism arose. The Taiping

Rebellion, May Fourth Movement andCultural Revolution are some upsurges of those waves in China.

Taiping rebels described many sages in Confucianism as well as gods in Taoism and Buddhism as

mere legends. Marxists during the Cultural Revolution described Confucius as the general

representative of the class of slave owners. Numerous opinions and interpretations of Confucianism (of

which many are actually opposed by Confucianism) were invented.

In South Korea, there has been long criticism to Confucianism. Many Koreans believe Confucianism

has not contributed to the modernization of Korea. For example, South Korean writer Kim-kyong-

li wrote a criticism named "Must Kill Confucius, This Nation will be Solved" (공자가 죽어야 나라가 산

다, gongjaga jug-eoya nalaga sanda). The writer said that filial relationships are one-side and blind. He

writes that if these circumstance continue, social problems will continue to be caused by society and

the government forcing Confucian filial obligations onto families. 

Women in Confucian thought

Confucianism "largely defined the mainstream discourse on gender in China from the Han

dynasty onward," and its strict, obligatory gender roles as a cornerstone of family, and thus, societal

stability, continue to shape social life throughout East Asia. Confucians taught that a virtuous woman

was supposed to uphold 'three subordinations': be subordinate to her father before marriage, to her

husband after marriage, and to her son after her husband died. Men could remarry and have

concubines, whereas women were supposed to uphold the virtue of chastity when they lost their

husbands. Chaste widows were revered as heroes during the Ming andQing periods,[34] and were

deemed so central to China’s culture and the fate of all peoples, the Yongle Emperor distributed 10,000

copies of the Biographies of Exemplary Women (Lienü Zhuan) to various non-Chinese countries for

their moral instruction. The book served as Confucianism's seminal textbook for Chinese women for

two millennia, but cementing the "cult of chastity" as an exemplar of Chinese superiority also

condemned many widows to lives of "poverty and loneliness."

However, recent reexaminations of Chinese gender roles suggest that many women flourished within

Confucianism.[34] During the Han dynasty period, the important Confucian text Lessons for

Women (Nüjie), was written by Ban Zhao (45-114 CE): by a woman, for women.

She wrote the Nüjie ostensibly for her daughters, instructing them on how to live proper Confucian lives

as wives and mothers. Although this is a relatively rare instance of a female Confucian voice, Ban Zhao

almost entirely accepts the prevailing views concerning women's proper roles; they should be silent,

hard-working, and compliant. She stresses the complementarity and equal importance of the male and

female roles according to yin-yang theory, but she clearly accepts the dominance of the yang-male. Her

only departure from the standard male versions of this orthodoxy is that she insists on the necessity of

educating girls and women. We should not underestimate the significance of this point, as education

was the bottom line qualification for being a junzi or "noble person,"...her example suggests that the

Confucian prescription for a meaningful life as a woman was apparently not stifling for all women. Even

some women of the literate elite, for whom Confucianism was quite explicitly the norm, were able to

flourish by living their lives according to that model.

In 2009, for the first time women (and ethnic minorities and people living overseas) were officially

recognized as being descendants of Confucius.  These additions more than tripled the number of

officially recognized descendants of Confucius. 

Debate over classification

Ever since Europeans first encountered Confucianism, the issue of how Confucianism should be

classified has been subject to debate. In the 16th and the 17th centuries, the earliest European arrivals

in China, the Christian Jesuits, considered Confucianism to be an ethical system, not a religion, and

one that was compatible with Christianity.The Jesuits, including Matteo Ricci, saw Chinese rituals as

"civil rituals" that could co-exist alongside the spiritual rituals of Catholicism. ]By the early 18th century,

this initial portrayal was rejected by the Dominicans and Franciscans, creating a dispute among

Catholics in East Asia that was known as the "Rites Controversy". The Dominicans and Franciscans

argued that ancestral worship was a form of pagan idolatry that was contradictory to the tenets of

Christianity. This view was reinforced by Pope Benedict XIV, who ordered a ban on Chinese rituals.

This debate continues into the modern era. There is consensus among scholars that, whether or not it

is religious, Confucianism is definitively non-theistic. Confucianism is humanistic, and does not involve

a belief in the supernatural or in a personal god. On spirituality, Confucius said to Chi Lu, one of his

students, that "You are not yet able to serve men, how can you serve spirits?"Attributes that are seen

as religious—such as ancestor worship, ritual, and sacrifice—were advocated by Confucius as

necessary for social harmony; however, these attributes can be traced to the traditional non-Confucian

Chinese beliefs of Chinese folk religion, and are also practiced by Daoists and Chinese Buddhists.

Scholars recognize that classification ultimately depends on how one defines religion. Using stricter

definitions of religion, Confucianism has been described as a moral science or philosophy. But using a

broader definition, such as Frederick Streng's characterization of religion as "a means of ultimate

transformation",Confucianism could be described as a "sociopolitical doctrine having religious

qualities." With the latter definition, Confucianism is religious, even if non-theistic, in the sense that it

"performs some of the basic psycho-social functions of full-fledged religions", in the same way that non-

theistic ideologies like Communism do.

Hindu philosophy

Hindu philosophy is traditionally divided into six āstika (Sanskrit: आस्ति��क "orthodox") schools of

thought,[1] or darśanas (दर्श�नस्�, "views"), which accept the Vedas as supreme revealed scriptures. Three

other nāstika (न�स्ति��क "heterodox") schools do not accept theVedas as authoritative. The āstika schools

are:

1. Samkhya, an atheistic and strongly dualist theoretical exposition of consciousness andmatter.

2. Yoga, a school emphasizing meditation, contemplation and liberation.

3. Nyaya or logic, explores sources of knowledge. Nyāya Sūtras.

4. Vaisheshika, an empiricist school of atomism

5. Mimāṃsā, an anti-ascetic and anti-mysticist school of orthopraxy

6. Vedanta, the last segment of knowledge in the Vedas, or the 'Jnan' (knowledge) 'Kanda'

(section). Vedanta came to be the dominant current of Hinduism in the post-medieval period.

The nāstika schools are (in chronological order):

1. Cārvāka

2. Jainism

3. Buddhism

However, medieval philosophers like Vidyāraṇya classify Indian philosophy into sixteen schools, where

schools belonging to Saiva,Pāṇini and Raseśvara thought are included with others, and the

three Vedantic schools Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita (which had emerged as distinct schools by

then) are classified separately.

In Hindu history, the distinction of the six orthodox schools was current in the Gupta period "golden

age" of Hinduism. With the disappearance of Vaisheshika and Mimamsa, it was obsolete by the later

Middle Ages, when the various sub-schools of Vedanta (Dvaita "dualism", Advaita Vedanta "non-

dualism" and others) began to rise to prominence as the main divisions of religious philosophy. Nyaya

survived into the 17th century as Navya Nyaya "Neo-Nyaya", while Samkhya gradually lost its status as

an independent school, its tenets absorbed into Yoga and Vedanta.

Overview

1. ^ a b c Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita have evolved from an older Vedanta school and all of

them accept Upanishads and Brahma Sutras as standard texts.

2. ^ This is the century in which Patañjali flourished. However, Yoga existed before

Patañjali's lifetime.

3. ^ Dated by the century in which Gaudapada flourished.

4. ^ Vyasa wrote a commentary on Yoga Sutras called Samkhyapravacanabhasya.

(Radhankrishnan, Indian Philosophy, London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1971 edition, Volume

II, p. 344.)

Samkhya

 Samkhya

Samkhya is the oldest of the orthodox philosophical systems in Hinduism. It espouses dualism between

consciousness and matterby postulating two "irreducible, innate and independent realities

1) consciousness itself or Purusha (Sanskrit: पु�रुष, self, atma or soul) 2) primordial materiality

or Prakriti (creative agency or energy)". The unconscious primordial materiality, Prakriti consists of

varying levels of three dispositions or categories of qualities (gunas)— activity (rajas), inactivity (tamas)

and harmony (sattva). An imbalance in the intertwined relationship of these three dispositions causes

the world to evolve from Prakriti. This evolution from Prakriti causes the creation of 23 constituents,

including intellect (buddhi,mahat), ego (ahamkara) and mind (manas).

Samkhya theorizes the existence of are many living souls (Jeevatmas) who possess consciousness.

Samkhya holds that Puruṣa, the eternal pure consciousness, due to ignorance, identifies itself with

products of Prakriti such as intellect (buddhi) and ego (ahamkara). This results in endless

transmigration and suffering. However, once the realization arises that Puruṣa is distinct from Prakriti,

the Self is no longer subject to transmigration and absolute freedom (kaivalya) arises.

Western dualism deals with the distinction between the mind and the body, whereas in Samkhya it is

between the soul and matter. The concept of the atma (soul) is different from the concept of the mind

and mind itself thought to an evolute of matter, rather than the soul. Soul is absolute reality that is all-

pervasive, eternal, indivisible, attributeless, pure consciousness. It is non-matter and is beyond intellect.

Originally, Samkhya was not theistic, but in confluence with Yoga it developed a theistic variant.

Yoga

In Indian philosophy, Yoga is the name of one of the six orthodox philosophical schools. The Yoga

philosophical system is closely allied with the Samkhya school. The Yoga school as expounded by

Patanjali accepts the Samkhya psychology and metaphysics, but is more theistic than the Samkhya, as

evidenced by the addition of a divine entity to the Samkhya's twenty-five elements of reality. The

parallels between Yoga and Samkhya were so close that Max Müller says that "the two philosophies

were in popular parlance distinguished from each other as Samkhya with and Samkhya without a

Lord...." The intimate relationship between Samkhya and Yoga is explained by Heinrich Zimmer:

"These two are regarded in India as twins, the two aspects of a single discipline. Sāmkhya provides a

basic theoretical exposition of human nature, enumerating and defining its elements, analyzing their

manner of co-operation in a state of bondage (bandha), and describing their state of disentanglement

or separation in release (mokṣa), while Yoga treats specifically of the dynamics of the process for the

disentanglement, and outlines practical techniques for the gaining of release, or 'isolation-integration'

(kaivalya)."

The foundational text of the Yoga school is the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, who is regarded as the

founder of the formal Yoga philosophy. The Sutras of the Yoga philosophy are ascribed to Patanjali,

who may have been, as Max Müller explains, "the author or representative of the Yoga-philosophy

without being necessarily the author of the Sutras."

Nyaya

The Nyaya school is based on the Nyaya Sutras. They were written by Aksapada Gautama, probably in

the second century BCE. The most important contribution made by this school is its methodology. This

methodology is based on a system of logic that has subsequently been adopted by the majority of the

Indian schools. This is comparable to the relationship between Western science and philosophy, which

was derived largely from Aristotelian logic.

Nevertheless, Nyaya was seen by its followers as more than logical in its own right. They believed that

obtaining valid knowledge was the only way to gain release from suffering, and they took great pains to

identify valid sources of knowledge and distinguish these from mere false opinions. According to

Nyaya, there are exactly four sources of knowledge: perception, inference, comparison, and testimony.

Knowledge obtained through each of these is either valid or invalid. Nyaya developed several criteria of

validity. In this sense, Nyaya is probably the closest Indian equivalent to analytic philosophy. The later

Naiyanikas gave logical proofs for the existence and uniqueness of Ishvara in response to Buddhism,

which, at that time, was fundamentally non-theistic. An important later development in Nyaya was the

system of Navya-NyÄya.

Vaisheshika

The Vaisheshika school postulates an atomic pluralism in which all objects in the physical universe are

reducible to certain types of atoms, and Brahman is regarded as the fundamental force that causes

consciousness in these atoms. The school was founded by the sage Kaṇāda (or Kana-bhuk,

literally, atom-eater) around the 2nd century BC.[17] Major ideas contained in the Vaisheshika Sutraare:

There are nine classes of realities: four classes of atoms (earth, water, light and air), space

(akasha), time (kāla), direction (dik), infinity of souls (Atman), mind (manas).

Individual souls are eternal and pervade material body for a time.

There are seven categories (padārtha) of experience — substance, quality, activity, generality,

particularity, inherence and non-existence.

Although the Vaisheshika school developed independently from the Nyaya, the two eventually merged

because of their closely related metaphysical theories. In its classical form, however, the Vaisheshika

school differed from the Nyaya in one crucial respect: where Nyaya accepted four sources of valid

knowledge, the Vaisheshika accepted only two—–perception and inference.

Purva Mimamsa

The main objective of the Purva Mimamsa school was to establish the authority of the Vedas.

Consequently, this school's most valuable contribution to Hinduism was its formulation of the rules of

Vedic interpretation. Its adherents propounded unquestionable faith in the Vedas and regular

performance of the yajñas, or fire-sacrifices. They believed in the power of the mantras and yajñas to

sustain all the activity of the universe. In keeping with this belief, they placed great emphasis

on dharma, which consisted of the performance of Vedic rituals.

The Mimamsa philosophers accepted the logical and philosophical teachings of the other schools, but

felt they did not sufficiently emphasize attention to right action. They believed that the other schools of

thought that aimed for release (moksha) were not allowed for complete freedom from desire and

selfishness, because the very striving for liberation stemmed from a simple desire to be free. According

to Mimamsa thought, only by acting in accordance with the prescriptions of the Vedas may one attain

salvation.

The Mimamsa school later shifted its views and began to teach the doctrines of Brahman and freedom.

Its adherents then advocated the release or escape of the soul from its constraints through enlightened

activity. Although Mimamsa does not receive much scholarly attention, its influence can be felt in the

life of the practising Hindu, because all Hindu ritual, ceremony, and law is influenced by this school.

Vedanta

The Vedanta, or later Mimamsa school, concentrates on the philosophical teachings of

the Upanishads rather than the ritualistic injunctions of the Brahmanas. Etymologically, Vedanta

means, the last segment of knowledge in the Vedas. It is also known as the 'Jnan' (knowledge) 'Kanda'

(section). While, the earlier segments of the Vedas are called 'Karma Kanda'. Parts of Vedas that focus

on spiritual practices such as worship, devotion and meditation are called 'Upasana Kanda'.

While the traditional Vedic rituals continued to be practiced as meditative and propitiatory rites, a more

knowledge-centered understanding began to emerge. These were mystical aspects of Vedic

religion that focused on meditation, self-discipline, and spiritual connectivity, more than traditional

ritualism.

The more abstruse Vedanta is the essence of the Vedas, as encapsulated in the Upanishads. Vedantic

thought drew on Vedic cosmology, hymns and philosophy. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is believed

to have appeared as far back as 3,000 years ago. While thirteen or so Upanishads are accepted as

principal, over a hundred exist. The most significant contribution of Vedantic thought is the idea that

self-consciousness is continuous with and indistinguishable from consciousness of Brahman.

The aphorisms of the Vedanta sutras are presented in a cryptic, poetic style, which allows for a variety

of interpretations. Consequently, the Vedanta separated into six sub-schools, each interpreting the

texts in its own way and producing its own series of sub-commentaries.

Advaita

Advaita Vedanta

Advaita literally means "non-duality." This is the oldest and most widely acknowledged Vedantic school.

Its first great consolidator wasAdi Shankaracharya (788 CE – 820 CE), who continued the line of

thought of the Upanishadic teachers, and that of his teacher's teacher Gaudapada. He wrote extensive

commentaries on the major Vedantic scriptures and was successful in the revival and reformation of

Hindu thinking and way of life.

According to this school of Vedanta, Brahman is the only reality, and there exists nothing whatsoever

which is not Brahman. The appearance of dualities and differences in this world is an superimposition

on Brahman, called Maya. Maya is the illusionary and creative aspect of Brahman, which causes the

world to arise. Maya is neither existent nor non-existent, but appears to exist temporarily, as in case of

any illusion (for example mirage).

When a person tries to know Brahman through his mind, due to the influence

of Maya, Brahman appears as God (Ishvara), separate from the world and from the individual. In reality,

there is no difference between the individual soul (Jivatman) and Brahman. The spiritual practices such

as: devotion to God, meditation & self-less action etc. purifies the mind and indirectly helps in

perceiving the real. One whose vision is obscured by ignorance he does not see the non-dual nature of

reality; as the blind do not see the resplendent Sun. [19]Hence, the only direct cause of liberation is self-

knowledge which directly removes the ignorance.[20] After realization, one sees one's own self and the

Universe as the same, non-dual Brahman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss-Absolute.

Vishishtadvaita

Vishishtadvaita

Ramanujacharya (c. 1037–1137 CE) was the foremost proponent of the philosophy of Vishishtadvaita

or qualified non-dualism. Vishishtadvaita advocated the concept of a Supreme Being with essential

qualities or attributes. Vishishtadvaitins argued against the Advaitin conception of Brahman as an

impersonal empty oneness. They saw Brahman as an eternal oneness, but also as the source of all

creation, which was omnipresent and actively involved in existence. To them the sense of subject-

object perception was illusory and a sign of ignorance. However, the individual's sense of self was not a

complete illusion since it was derived from the universal beingness that is Brahman. Ramanuja

saw Vishnu as a personification of Brahman.

Dvaita

Dvaita Vedanta (dualistic conclusions of the Vedas) school of philosophy was founded

by Madhvacharya (c. 1238–1317 CE). It espouses dualism by theorizing the existence of two

separate realities. The first and the more important reality is that of Vishnu or Brahman. Vishnu is the

supreme Self, God, the absolute truth of the universe, the independent reality. The second reality is that

of dependent but equally real universe that exists with its own separate essence. Everything that is

composed of the second reality, such as individual soul (Jiva), matter, etc. exist with their own separate

reality. The distinguishing factor of this philosophy as opposed to Advaita Vedanta (monistic conclusion

of Vedas) is that God takes on a personal role and is seen as a real eternal entity that governs and

controls the universe.

Five further distinctions are made— (1) Vishnu is distinct from souls; (2) Vishnu is distinct from matter;

(3) Souls are distinct from matter; (4) A soul is distinct from another soul, and (5) Matter is distinct from

other matter. Souls are eternal and are dependent upon the will of Vishnu. This theology attempts to

address the problem of evil with the idea that souls are not created. Because the existence of

individuals is grounded in the divine, they are depicted as reflections, images or even shadows of the

divine, but never in any way identical with the divine. Salvation therefore is described as the realization

that all finite reality is essentially dependent on the Supreme.

Dvaitadvaita (Bhedabheda)

Dvaitadvaita was proposed by Nimbarka, a 13th century Vaishnava Philosopher from the Andhra

region. According to this philosophy there are three categories of existence: Brahman, soul, and matter.

Soul and matter are different from Brahman in that they have attributes and capacities different from

Brahman. Brahman exists independently, while soul and matter are dependent. Thus soul and matter

have an existence that is separate yet dependent. Further, Brahman is a controller, the soul is the

enjoyer, and matter the thing enjoyed. Also, the highest object of worship is Krishna and his consort

Radha, attended by thousands of gopis, or cowherdesses; of the celestial Vrindavana; and devotion

consists in self-surrender.

Shuddhadvaita

Shuddhadvaita is the "purely non-dual" philosophy propounded by Vallabhacharya (1479–1531 CE).

The founding philosopher was also the guru of the Vallabhā sampradāya ("tradition of Vallabh") or

Puśtimārg ("The path of grace"), a Hindu Vaishnava tradition focused on the worship of Krishna.

Acintya Bheda Abheda

 Achintya Bheda Abheda

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1534), was stating that the soul or energy of God is both distinct and

non-distinct from God, whom he identified as Krishna, Govinda, and that this, although unthinkable,

may be experienced through a process of loving devotion (bhakti). He followed the Dvaita concept of

Sri Madhva. This philosophy of "inconceivable oneness and difference".

Shaivism

Early history of Shaivism is difficult to determine.However, the Śvetāśvatara   Upanishad (400 – 200

BCE)]is considered to be the earliest textual exposition of a systematic philosophy of

Shaivism.Shaivism is represented by various philosophical schools, including non-dualist (abheda),

dualist (bheda), and non-dualist-with-dualist (bhedābheda) perspectives. Vidyaranya in his works

mentions three major schools of Shaiva thought— Pashupata Shaivism, Shaiva Siddhanta and

Pratyabhijña (Kashmir Shaivism).

Pashupata Shaivism

Pashupata Shaivism is the oldest of the major Shaivite schools.[29] The philosophy of Pashupata sect

was systematized by Lakulish in the 2nd century CE. Pashu in Pashupati refers to the effect (or created

world), the word designates that which is dependent on something ulterior. Whereas, Pati means the

cause (or prinripium), the word designates the Lord, who is the cause of the universe, the pati, or the

ruler. Pashupatas disapproved of the Vaishnava theology, known for its doctrine servitude of souls to

the Supreme Being, on the grounds that dependence upon anything could not be the means of

cessation of pain and other desired ends. They recognized that those depending upon another and

longing for independence will not be emancipated because they still depend upon something other than

themselves. According to Pashupatas, soul possesses the attributes of the Supreme Deity when it

becomes liberated from the 'germ of every pain'.

Pashupatas divided the created world into the insentient and the sentient. The insentient was the

unconscious and thus dependent on the sentient or conscious. The insentient was further divided into

effects and causes. The effects were of ten kinds, the earth, four elements and their qualities, colour

etc. The causes were of thirteen kinds, the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, the three

internal organs, intellect, the ego principle and the cognising principle. These insentient causes were

held responsible for the illusive identification of Self with non-Self. Salvation in Pashupata Shaivism

involved the union of the soul with God through the intellect.

Shaiva Siddhanta

Considered normative Tantric Shaivism, Shaiva Siddhanta[ provides the normative rites, cosmology

and theological categories of Tantric Shaivism. Being a dualistic philosophy, the goal of Shaiva

Siddhanta is to become an ontologically distinct Shiva (through Shiva's grace).This tradition later

merged with the Tamil Saiva movement and expression of concepts of Shaiva Siddhanta can be seen

in the bhakti poetry of the Nayanars.

Kashmir Shaivism

Kashmir Shaivism arose during the eighth or ninth century CE in Kashmir and made significant strides,

both philosophical and theological, until the end of the twelfth century CE.[40] It is categorized by various

scholars as monistic idealism (absolute idealism, theistic monism, realistic idealism, transcendental

physicalism or concrete monism. It is a school of Śaivism consisting of Trikaand its philosophical

articulation Pratyabhijña.

Even though, both Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta are non-dual philosophies which give

primacy to Universal Consciousness (Chit or Brahman), in Kashmir Shavisim, as opposed to Advaita,

all things are a manifestation of this Consciousness. This implies that from the point of view of Kashmir

Shavisim, the phenomenal world (Śakti) is real, and it exists and has its being in Consciousness (Chit).

Whereas, Advaita holds that Brahman is inactive (niṣkriya) and the phenomenal world is an illusion

(māyā). The objective of human life, according to Kashmir Shaivism, is to merge in Shiva or Universal

Consciousness, or to realize one's already existing identity with Shiva, by means of wisdom, yoga and

grace.

Buddhist philosophy

Buddhist philosophy is the elaboration and explanation of the delivered teachings of theBuddha as

found in the Tripitaka and Agama. Its main concern is with explicating thedharmas constituting reality. A

recurrent theme is the reification of concepts, and the subsequent return to the Buddhist middle way.

Early Buddhism avoided speculative thought on metaphysics, phenomenology, ethics,

andepistemology, but was based instead on empirical evidence gained by the sense organs (ayatana).

Nevertheless, Buddhist scholars have addressed ontological and metaphysical issues subsequently.

Particular points of Buddhist philosophy have often been the subject of disputes between

different schools of Buddhism. These elaborations and disputes gave rise to various schools in early

Buddhism of Abhidhamma, and to the Mahayana traditions and schools of

the prajnaparamita, Madhyamaka, buddha-nature and Yogacara.

Indian background

The historical Buddha lived during a time of spiritual and philosophical revival in Northern India when

the established mythologies and cosmological explanations of the vedas came under rational scrutiny.

As well as the Buddha's own teachings, new ethical and spiritual philosophies such as those

of Mahavira became established during this period when alternatives to the mainstream religion arose

in an atmosphere of freethought and renewed vitality in spiritual endeavour. This general cultural

movement is today known as the Sramanic tradition and the epoch of new thought as the axial era.

These heterodox groups held widely divergent opinions but were united by a critical attitude towards

the established religion whose explanations they found unsatisfactory and whose animal

sacrifices increasingly distasteful and irrelevant. In Greece, China and India there was a return to

fundamental questions and a new interest in the question of how humans should live.

Life and teachings of the Buddha

Biography

According to the traditional accounts, Gautama, the future Buddha, was a prince who grew up in an

environment of luxury and opulence. He became convinced that sense-pleasures and wealth did not

provide the satisfaction that human beings longed for deep within. He abandoned worldly life to live as

a mendicant. He studied under a number of teachers, developing his insight into the problem of

suffering.

After his awakening he regarded himself as a physician rather than a philosopher. Whereas

philosophers merely had views about things, he taught the Noble Eightfold Path which liberates from

suffering.

Philosophy

The Buddha discouraged his followers from indulging in intellectual disputation for its own sake, which

is fruitless, and distracting from true awakening. Nevertheless, the delivered sayings of the Buddha

contain a philosophical component, in its teachings on the working of the mind, and its criticisms of the

philosophies of his contemporaries.

According to the scriptures, during his lifetime the Buddha remained silent when asked

several metaphysical questions. These regarded issues such as whether the universe is eternal or non-

eternal (or whether it is finite or infinite), the unity or separation of the body and the self, the complete

inexistence of a person after Nirvana and death, and others.

Emphasis on awakening

One explanation for this silence is that such questions distract from activity that is practical to

realizing enlightenment and bring about the danger of substituting the experience of liberation by

conceptual understanding of the doctrine or by religious faith.

Experience is [...] the path most elaborated in early Buddhism. The doctrine on the other hand was kept

low. The Buddha avoided doctrinal formulations concerning the final reality as much as possible in

order to prevent his followers from resting content with minor achievements on the path in which the

absence of the final experience could be substituted by conceptual understanding of the doctrine or by

religious faith, a situation which sometimes occurs, in both varieties, in the context of Hindu systems of

doctrine.

Attachments to the skandhas

Another explanation is that both affirmative and negative positions regarding these questions are based

on attachment to and misunderstanding of the aggregates and senses. That is, when one sees these

things for what they are, the idea of forming positions on such metaphysical questions simply does not

occur.

Emptiness

Another closely related explanation is that reality is devoid of sensory mediation and conception, or

empty, and therefore language itself is a priori inadequate without direct experience.

Thus, the Buddha's silence does not indicate misology or disdain for philosophy. Rather, it indicates

that he viewed the answers to these questions as not understandable by the unenlightened. Dependent

arising provides a framework for analysis of reality that is not based on metaphysical assumptions

regarding existence or non-existence, but instead on imagining direct cognition of phenomena as they

are presented to the mind. This informs and supports the Buddhist approach to liberation from

adventitious distortion and engaging in the Noble Eightfold Path.

The Buddha of the earliest Buddhists texts describes Dharma (in the sense of "truth") as "beyond

reasoning" or "transcending logic", in the sense that reasoning is a subjectively introduced aspect of the

way unenlightened humans perceive things, and the conceptual framework which underpins their

cognitive process, rather than a feature of things as they really are. Going "beyond reasoning" means in

this context penetrating the nature of reasoning from the inside, and removing the causes for

experiencing any future stress as a result of it, rather than functioning outside of the system as a whole.

Some Buddhist scholars assert words are inadequate to describe the goal of the Buddhist path, but

concerning the usefulness of words in the path itself, schools differ radically.

Early Buddhism

Basic teachings

Certain basic teachings appear in many places throughout the early texts, so most scholars conclude

that the Buddha must at least have taught these teachings:[10]

Three marks of existence

Five aggregates

Dependent arising

Karma and rebirth

The four noble truths

The Noble Eightfold Path

Nirvana

According to these scholars, there was something they variously call "earliest Buddhism", "original

Buddhism" or "pre-canonical Buddhism".

Some scholars disagree, and have proposed other theories.[11] According to some scholars, the

philosophical outlook of earliest Buddhism was primarily negative, in the sense that it focused on what

doctrines to reject more than on what doctrines to accept.[a]Only knowledge that is useful in

achieving enlightenment is valued. According to this theory, the cycle of philosophical upheavals that in

part drove the diversification of Buddhism into its many schools and sects only began once Buddhists

began attempting to make explicit the implicit philosophy of the Buddha and the early suttas.

Other scholars reject this theory. After the death of the Buddha, attempts were made to gather his

teachings and transmit them in a commonly agreed form, first orally, then also in writing (the Tripiṭaka).

Dukkha

Dukkha, often translated as suffering, is the inherent unsatifactoriness of life. This unsatifactoriness

drives our yearning for a better way of life, yet keeps us imprisoned in wordly existence and rebirth.

Dependent origination

 Dependent origination

The working of the rising and ceasing of suffering is explained by Pratitya-samutpada, dependent

origination. It states that events are not predetermined, nor are they random. It rejects notions of direct

causation, which are necessarily undergirded by a substantialist metaphysics. Instead, it posits the

arising of events under certain conditions which are inextricable, such that the processes in question at

no time, are considered to be entities.

Dependent origination posits that certain specific events, concepts, or realities are always dependent

on other specific things. Craving, for example, is always dependent on, and caused by, emotion.

Emotion is always dependent on contact with our surroundings. This chain of causation purports to

show that the cessation of decay, death, and sorrow is indirectly dependent on the cessation of craving.

This concept leaves no room for the existence of everlasting, absolute entities. The world must be

thought of in procedural terms, not in terms of things or substances. Likewise,

Anatta

The Buddha asserted the non inherently existent concept of the ego, in opposition to

the Upanishadic concept of an unchangingultimate self. The Buddha held that attachment to the

appearance of a permanent self in this world of change is the cause of suffering, and the main obstacle

to liberation. The apparent ego is merely the result of identification with the temporary aggregates, the

components of the individual human being's body and consciousness at any given moment in time.

Ethics

Buddhist ethics

Eightfold Path

Although there are many ethical tenets in Buddhism that differ depending on whether one is a monk or

a layman, and depending on individual schools, the Buddhist system of ethics can be summed up in

the eightfold path:

And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of suffering --

precisely this Noble Eightfold Path – right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood,

right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

The purpose of living an ethical life is to escape the suffering inherent in samsara. Skillful actions

condition the mind in a positive way and lead to future happiness, while the opposite is true for unskillful

actions. Ethical discipline also provides the mental stability and freedom to embark upon mental

cultivation via meditation.

The part of the Noble Eightfold path that covers morality/ethics is right speech, right action and right

livelihood. The other parts cover concentration and wisdom, with wisdom being covered by right view

and right intention and the remaining three belonging to concentration.

The three aggregates are not included under the noble eightfold path, friend Visakha, but the noble

eightfold path is included under the three aggregates. Right speech, right action, & right livelihood come

under the aggregate of virtue. Right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration come under the

aggregate of concentration. Right view & right resolve come under the aggregate of discernment.[14]

Precepts

While the precepts for monks and nuns differ somewhat depending on which tradition one has ordained

in (Tibetan, Thai Theravadan, etc.), the precepts for laymen and laywomen followers of the Buddha are

the same.

There are the five precepts that all followers of the Buddha must observe if they hope to be reborn as a

human being and there are the ten precepts which are an expansion of five precepts, with four of the

five being repeated in the list of ten. So excluding the redundancy of the two lists, there are eleven

precepts to follow. The five and ten precepts must be followed if one hopes to be reborn in one of the

various heavenly realms. The eleven precepts are: 1) Do not kill 2) Do not steal 3) Do not commit

sexual improprieties 4) Do not speak falsely (don't lie) 5) Do not speak harshly (yelling, insulting, etc.)

6) Do not speak divisively or slanderously 7) Do not speak thoughtlessly (no unnecessary speech, idle

chit-chat) 8) Do not covet 9) Do not have ill will toward others (don't maliciously wish harm on others)

10) Do not hold wrong views (believe in karma, understand the four noble truths, etc.) 11) Do not use

intoxicants (the one precept of the five precepts that is not repeated in the list of the ten precepts).

Textual authority

Decisive in distinguishing Buddhism from what is commonly called Hinduism is the issue

of epistemological justification.

All schools of Indian logic recognize various sets of valid justifications for knowledge, or pramāṇa.

Buddhism recognizes a set that is smaller than the others. For some schools of Hinduism and

Buddhism the received textual tradition is an epistemological category equal to perception and

inference (although this is not necessarily true for some other schools).

Thus, in the Hindu schools, if a claim was made that could not be substantiated by appeal to the textual

canon, it would be considered as ridiculous as a claim that the sky was green and, conversely, a claim

which could not be substantiated via conventional means might still be justified through textual

reference, differentiating this from the epistemology of modern science.

Early Buddhist schools

The main early Buddhist philosophical schools are the Abhidharma schools,

particularly Sarvāstivāda and Theravāda.

Sarvastivadin realism

Early Buddhist philosophers and exegetes of the Sarvāstivādins created a pluralist metaphysical and

phenomenological system, in which all experiences of people, things and events can be broken down

into smaller and smaller perceptual or perceptual-ontologicalunits called "dharmas".

Other schools incorporated some parts of this theory and criticized others. The Sautrāntikas, another

early school, and the Theravādins, now the only modern survivor of the early Buddhist schools,

criticized the realist standpoint of the Sarvāstivādins.

Theravada

Theravada promotes the concept of vibhajjavada (Pāli, literally "Teaching of Analysis") to non-

Buddhists. This doctrine says that insight must come from the aspirant's experience, critical

investigation, and reasoning instead of by blind faith. As the Buddha said according to the canonical

scriptures:

Do not accept anything by mere tradition ... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your

scriptures ... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions ... But

when you know for yourselves—these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are

praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and

happiness—then do you live acting accordingly.

Mahayana

Mahayana often adopts a pragmatic concept of truth: doctrines are regarded as conditionally "true" in

the sense of being spiritually beneficial. In modern (State controlled) Chinese Buddhism, all doctrinal

traditions are regarded as equally valid.

Main Mahayana philosophical schools and traditions include

the prajnaparamita, Madhyamaka, Tathagatagarbha, Yogācāra, Huayan, and Tiantai schools.

Indian Mahayana

Prajnaparamita

The Prajanaparamita-sutras emphasize the emptiness of the five skandhas. The Heart sutra, a text

from the prajnaparamita-sutras, articulates this in the following saying in which the five skandhas are

said to be "empty":

"Oh, Sariputra, Form Does not Differ From the Void,

And the Void Does Not Differ From Form.

Form is Void and Void is Form;

The Same is True For Feelings,

Perceptions, Volitions and Consciousness".

Madhyamaka

 Madhyamaka

The Mahāyānist Nāgārjuna, one of the most influential Buddhist thinkers, promoted classical Buddhist

emphasis on phenomena and attacked Sarvāstivāda realism and Sautrāntika nominalism in his

magnum opus, The Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way(Mūlamadhyamakakārikā).

Nagarjuna asserted a direct connection between, even identity of, dependent origination, selflessness

(anatta), and emptiness (śūnyatā). He pointed out that implicit in the early Buddhist concept of

dependent origination is the lack of any substantial being (anatta) underlying the participants in

origination, so that they have no independent existence, a state identified as emptiness (śūnyatā), or

emptiness of a nature or essence (svabhāva).

Tathagatagarbha

Tathagatagarbha

The tathāgathagarbha sutras, in a departure from mainstream Buddhist language, insist that the

potential for awakening is inherent to every sentient being. They marked a shift from a largely apophatic

(negative) philosophical trend within Buddhism to a decidedly morecataphatic (positive) modus.

Prior to the period of these scriptures, Mahāyāna metaphysics had been dominated by teachings

on emptiness in the form ofMadhyamaka philosophy. The language used by this approach is primarily

negative, and the tathāgatagarbha genre of sutras can be seen as an attempt to state orthodox

Buddhist teachings of dependent origination using positive language instead, to prevent people from

being turned away from Buddhism by a false impression of nihilism.

In these sutras the perfection of the wisdom of not-self is stated to be the true self; the ultimate goal of

the path is then characterized using a range of positive language that had been used previously in

Indian philosophy by essentialist philosophers, but which was now transmuted into a new Buddhist

vocabulary to describe a being who has successfully completed the Buddhist path. The word "self"

(atman) is used in a way idiosyncratic to these sutras; the "true self" is described as the perfection of

the wisdom ofnot-self in the Buddha-Nature Treatise, for example. Language that had previously been

used by essentialist non-Buddhist philosophers was now adopted, with new definitions, by Buddhists to

promote orthodox teachings.

The tathāgatagarbha does not, according to some scholars, represent a substantial self; rather, it is a

positive language expression ofemptiness and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood

through Buddhist practices. In this interpretation, the intention of the teaching

of tathāgatagarbha is soteriological rather than theoretical.

The tathāgathagarbha, the Theravāda doctrine of bhavaṅga, and the Yogācāra store

consciousness were all identified at some point with the luminous mind of the Nikāyas.

In the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Buddha insists that while pondering upon Dharma is vital,

one must then relinquish fixation on words and letters, as these are utterly divorced from liberation and

the Buddha-nature.

Yogacara

Yogacara

The Yogacara-school tries to explain the arising of suffering by explaining the workings of our mind. It

takes the concepts of the five skandhas and the six consciousnesses, to explain how manas creates

vijnapti, concepts to which we cling.

Chinese Buddhism

Huayan and Avatamsaka-sutra

 Huayan school

The Huayan developed the doctrine of "interpenetration" or "coalescence" (Wylie: zung-'jug;

Sanskrit: yuganaddha), based on theAvataṃsaka Sūtra, a Mahāyāna scripture. It holds that all

phenomena (Sanskrit: dharmas) are intimately connected (and mutually arising). Two images are used

to convey this idea. The first is known as Indra's net. The net is set with jewels which have the

extraordinary property that they reflect all of the other jewels. The second image is that of the world

text. This image portrays the world as consisting of an enormous text which is as large as the universe

itself. The words of the text are composed of the phenomena that make up the world. However, every

atom of the world contains the whole text within it. It is the work of a Buddha to let out the text so that

beings can be liberated from suffering. The doctrine of interpenetration influenced the Japanese

monk Kūkai, who founded theShingon school of Buddhism. It is iconographically represented by yab-

yum. Interpenetration and essence-function are mutually informing in the East Asian Buddhist

traditions, especially the Korean Buddhist tradition.

Tibetan Buddhism

The Tibetan tantra entitled the "All-Creating King" (Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra) also emphasizes how

Buddhist realization lies beyond the range of discursive/verbal thought and is ultimately mysterious.

Samantabhadra, states there:

The mind of perfect purity ... is beyond thinking and inexplicable..."

Also later, the famous Indian Buddhist practitioner and teacher, mahasiddha Tilopa discouraged any

intellectual activity in his six words of advice.

Comparison with other philosophies

Baruch Spinoza, though he argued for the existence of a permanent reality, asserts that all phenomenal

existence is transitory. In his opinion sorrow is conquered "by finding an object of knowledge which is

not transient, not ephemeral, but is immutable, permanent, everlasting." Buddhism teaches that such a

quest is bound to fail. David Hume, after a relentless analysis of the mind, concluded that

consciousness consists of fleeting mental states. Hume's Bundle theory is a very similar concept to the

Buddhist skandhas, though his denial of causation lead him to opposite conclusions in other

areas. Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophy had some parallels in Buddhism.

Ludwig Wittgenstein's "word games" closely parallel the warning that intellectual speculation is a red

herring to understanding, as found in the Buddhist Parable of the Poison Arrow. Friedrich Nietzsche,

although himself dismissive of Buddhism as yet another nihilism, developed his philosophy of accepting

life-as-it-exists and self-cultivation, which is extremely similar to Buddhism as better understood in the

West. Heidegger's ideas on being and nothingness have been held by some to be similar to Buddhism

today.

An alternative approach to the comparison of Buddhist thought with Western philosophy is to use the

concept of the Middle Way in Buddhism as a critical tool for the assessment of Western philosophies. In

this way Western philosophies can be classified in Buddhist terms as eternalist or nihilist. In a Buddhist

view all philosophies are to be considered non-essential.

Socrates

Socrates ( ̍ s ɒ k r ə t iː z / ; Greek: Σωκράτης, Ancient Greek pronunciation: [sɔːkrátɛːs],Sōkrátēs; c. 469 BC –

399 BC) was a classical Greek Athenian philosopher. Credited as one of the founders of Western

philosophy, he is an enigmatic figure known chiefly through the accounts of later classical writers,

especially the writings of his students Plato andXenophon, and the plays of his

contemporary Aristophanes. Many would claim that Plato's dialogues are the most comprehensive

accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity.

Through his portrayal in Plato's dialogues, Socrates has become renowned for his contribution to the

field of ethics, and it is this Platonic Socrates who also lends his name to the concepts of Socratic irony

and the Socratic method, or elenchus. The latter remains a commonly used tool in a wide range of

discussions, and is a type of pedagogy in which a series of questions are asked not only to draw

individual answers, but also to encourage fundamental insight into the issue at hand. It is Plato's

Socrates that also made important and lasting contributions to the fields of epistemology and logic, and

the influence of his ideas and approach remains strong in providing a foundation for much western

philosophy that followed.

Biography

The Socratic problem

An accurate picture of the historical Socrates and his philosophical viewpoints is problematic: an issue

known as the Socratic problem.

As Socrates did not write philosophical texts, the knowledge of the man, his life, and his philosophy is

entirely based on writings by his students and contemporaries. Foremost among them is Plato;

however, works by Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes also provide important insights.[3] The

difficulty of finding the “real” Socrates arises because these works are often philosophical or dramatic

texts rather than straightforward histories. Aside from Thucydides (who makes no mention of Socrates

or philosophers in general) and Xenophon, there are in fact no straightforward histories contemporary

with Socrates that dealt with his own time and place. A corollary of this is that sources that do mention

Socrates do not necessarily claim to be historically accurate, and are often partisan (those who

prosecuted and convicted Socrates have left no testament). Historians therefore face the challenge of

reconciling the various texts that come from these men to create an accurate and consistent account of

Socrates' life and work. The result of such an effort is not necessarily realistic, merely consistent.

Plato is frequently viewed as the most informative source about Socrates' life and philosophy. At the

same time, however, many scholars believe that in some works Plato, being a literary artist, pushed his

avowedly brightened-up version of "Socrates" far beyond anything the historical Socrates was likely to

have done or said; and that Xenophon, being an historian, is a more reliable witness to the historical

Socrates. It is a matter of much debate which Socrates Plato is describing at any given point—the

historical figure, or Plato's fictionalization. As Martin Cohen has put it, Plato, the idealist, offers "an idol,

a master figure, for philosophy. A Saint, a prophet of the 'Sun-God', a teacher condemned for his

teachings as a heretic."

It is also clear from other writings and historical artifacts, however, that Socrates was not simply a

character, or an invention, of Plato. The testimony of Xenophon and Aristotle, alongside some of

Aristophanes' work (especially The Clouds), is useful in fleshing out a perception of Socrates beyond

Plato's work.

Life

Carnelian gem imprint representing Socrates, Rome, 1st century BC-1st century

AD.

Details about Socrates can be derived from three contemporary sources:

the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon (both devotees of Socrates), and the plays

of Aristophanes. He has been depicted by some scholars, including Eric Havelock and Walter Ong, as a

champion of oral modes of communication, standing up at the dawn of writing against its haphazard

diffusion.[6]

Aristophanes' play The Clouds portrays Socrates as a clown who teaches his students how to

bamboozle their way out of debt. Most of Aristophanes' works, however, function as parodies. Thus, it

is presumed this characterization was also not literal.

According to Plato, Socrates' father was Sophroniscus and his mother Phaenarete, a midwife. Though

she was characterized as undesirable in temperament, Socrates married Xanthippe, who was much

younger than he. She bore for him three sons, Lamprocles, Sophroniscus andMenexenus. His

friend Crito of Alopece criticized him for abandoning his sons when he refused to try to escape before

his execution.[11]

It is unclear how Socrates earned a living. Ancient texts seem to indicate that Socrates did not work. In

Xenophon's Symposium, Socrates is reported as saying he devotes himself only to what he regards as

the most important art or occupation: discussing philosophy. In The Clouds Aristophanes portrays

Socrates as accepting payment for teaching and running a sophist school with Chaerephon, while in

Plato's Apology and Symposium and in Xenophon's accounts, Socrates explicitly denies accepting

payment for teaching. More specifically, in the Apology Socrates cites his poverty as proof he is not a

teacher. According to Timon of Phlius and later sources, Socrates took over the profession

of stonemasonry from his father. There was a tradition in antiquity, not credited by modern scholarship,

that Socrates crafted the statues of the Three Graces, which stood near the Acropolis until the 2nd

century AD.

Several of Plato's dialogues refer to Socrates' military service. Socrates says he served in the Athenian

army during three campaigns: atPotidaea, Amphipolis, and Delium. In

the Symposium Alcibiades describes Socrates' valour in the battles of Potidaea and Delium, recounting

how Socrates saved his life in the former battle (219e-221b). Socrates' exceptional service at Delium is

also mentioned in theLaches by the General after whom the dialogue is named (181b). In

the Apology, Socrates compares his military service to his courtroom troubles, and says anyone on the

jury who thinks he ought to retreat from philosophy must also think soldiers should retreat when it

seems likely that they will be killed in battle.

In 406 he was a member of the Boule, and his tribe the Antiochis held the Prytany on the day the

Generals of the Battle of Arginusae, who abandoned the slain and the survivors of foundered ships to

pursue the defeated Spartan navy, were discussed. Socrates was theEpistates and resisted the

unconstitutional demand for a collective trial to establish the guilt of all eight Generals, proposed

byCallixeinus. Eventually, Socrates refused to be cowed by threats of impeachment and imprisonment

and blocked the vote until his Prytany ended the next day, whereupon the six

Generals who had returned to Athens were condemned to death.

In 404 the Thirty Tyrants sought to ensure the loyalty of those opposed to them by

making them complicit in their activities. Socrates and four others were ordered to

bring a certain Leon of Salamis from his home for unjust execution. Socrates quietly refused, his death

averted only by the overthrow of the Tyrants soon afterwards.

Trial and death

Trial of Socrates

The Death of Socrates, by Jacques-Louis David (1787)

Socrates lived during the time of the transition from the height of the Athenian hegemony to

its decline with the defeat by Sparta and its allies in the Peloponnesian War. At a time

whenAthens sought to stabilize and recover from its humiliating defeat, the Athenian public

may have been entertaining doubts about democracy as an efficient form of government.

Socrates appears to have been a critic of democracy, and some scholars interpret his trial as

an expression of political infighting.

Claiming loyalty to his city, Socrates clashed with the current course of Athenian politics and society.

He praises Sparta, archrival to Athens, directly and indirectly in various dialogues. One of Socrates'

purported offenses to the city was his position as a social and moral critic. Rather than upholding a

status quo and accepting the development of what he perceived as immorality within his region,

Socrates questioned the collective notion of "might makes right" that he felt was common in Greece

during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the "gadfly" of the state (as the gadfly stings the horse

into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians), insofar as he irritated some people with

considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness. His attempts to improve the

Athenians' sense of justice may have been the source of his execution.

According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his

friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone was wiser than Socrates;

the Oracle responded that no-one was wiser. Socrates believed that what the Oracle

had said was a paradox, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to

test the riddle by approaching men considered wise by the people of Athens—statesmen, poets,

Bust of Socrates in theVatican Museum

and artisans—in order to refute the Oracle's pronouncement. Questioning them, however, Socrates

concluded that, while each man thought he knew a great deal and was wise, in fact they knew very little

and were not wise at all. Socrates realized that the Oracle was correct, in that while so-called wise men

thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all, which,

paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance.

Socrates' paradoxical wisdom made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish,

turning them

against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing. Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the

end: at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggested a wage paid

by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spent as

Athens' benefactor. He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of

Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"),and subsequently sentenced to death by

drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock.

According to Xenophon's story, Socrates purposefully gave a defiant defense to the jury because "he

believed he would be better off dead". Xenophon goes on to describe a defense by Socrates that

explains the rigors of old age, and how Socrates would be glad to circumvent them by being sentenced

to death. It is also understood that Socrates also wished to die because he "actually believed the right

time had come for him to die."

Xenophon and Plato agree that Socrates had an opportunity to escape, as his followers were able to

bribe the prison guards. He chose to stay for several reasons:

1. He believed such a flight would indicate a fear of death, which he believed no true philosopher

has.

2. If he fled Athens his teaching would fare no better in another country as he would continue

questioning all he met and undoubtedly incur their displeasure.

3. Having knowingly agreed to live under the city's laws, he implicitly subjected himself to the

possibility of being accused of crimes by its citizens and judged guilty by its jury. To do

otherwise would have caused him to break his "social contract" with the state, and so harm the

state, an act contrary to Socratic principle.

The full reasoning behind his refusal to flee is the main subject of the Crito.

Socrates' death is described at the end of Plato's Phaedo. Socrates turned down the pleas of Crito to

attempt an escape from prison. After drinking the poison, he was instructed to walk around until his legs

felt numb. After he lay down, the man who administered the poison pinched his foot. Socrates could no

longer feel his legs. The numbness slowly crept up his body until it reached his heart. Shortly before his

death, Socrates speaks his last words to Crito: "Crito, we owe a rooster to Asclepius. Please, don't

forget to pay the debt." Asclepius was the Greek god for curing illness, and it is likely Socrates' last

words meant that death is the cure—and freedom, of the soul from the body. Additionally, in  Why

Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths, Robin Waterfield adds another interpretation of Socrates' last

words. He suggests that Socrates was a voluntary scapegoat; his death was the purifying remedy for

Athens’ misfortunes. In this view, the token of appreciation for Asclepius would represent a cure for the

ailments of Athens.

Philosophy Socratic method

SOCRATIC METHOD

Perhaps his most important contribution to Western thought is his dialectic method

of inquiry, known as the Socratic method or method of "elenchus", which he largely

applied to the examination of key moral concepts such as the Good and Justice. It

was first described by Plato in the Socratic Dialogues. To solve a problem, it would

be broken down into a series of questions, the answers to which gradually distill the answer a person

would seek. The influence of this approach is most strongly felt today in the use of the scientific

method, in which hypothesis is the first stage. The development and practice of this method is one of

Socrates' most enduring contributions, and is a key factor in earning his mantle as the father of political

philosophy, ethicsor moral philosophy, and as a figurehead of all the central themes in Western

philosophy.

To illustrate the use of the Socratic method; a series of questions are posed to help a person or group

to determine their underlying beliefs and the extent of their knowledge. The Socratic method is

a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying

and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. It was designed to force one to examine one's own

beliefs and the validity of such beliefs. In fact, Socrates once said, "I know you won't believe me, but

the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others."

An alternative interpretation of the dialectic is that it is a method for direct perception of the Form of the

Good. Philosopher Karl Popper describes the dialectic as "the art of intellectual intuition, of visualising

the divine originals, the Forms or Ideas, of unveiling the Great Mystery behind the common man's

everyday world of appearances." In a similar vein French philosopher Pierre Hadot suggests that the

dialogues are a type of spiritual exercise. "Furthermore," writes Hadot, "in Plato's view, every dialectical

exercise, precisely because it is an exercise of pure thought, subject to the demands of the Logos,

turns the soul away from the sensible world, and allows it to convert itself towards the Good."

Philosophical beliefsThe beliefs of Socrates, as distinct from those of Plato, are difficult to discern. Little in the way of

concrete evidence exists to demarcate the two. The lengthy presentation of ideas given in most of the

dialogues may be deformed by Plato, and some scholars think Plato so adapted the Socratic style as to

make the literary character and the philosopher himself impossible to distinguish. Others argue that he

did have his own theories and beliefs, but there is much controversy over what these might have been,

owing to the difficulty of separating Socrates from Plato and the difficulty of interpreting even the

dramatic writings concerning Socrates. Consequently, distinguishing the philosophical beliefs of

Socrates from those of Plato and Xenophon is not easy and it must be remembered that what is

attributed to Socrates might more closely reflect the specific concerns of these thinkers.

The matter is complicated because the historical Socrates seems to have been notorious for asking

questions but not answering, claiming to lack wisdom concerning the subjects about which he

questioned others.[20]

If anything in general can be said about the philosophical beliefs of Socrates, it is that he was morally,

intellectually, and politically at odds with his many of his fellow Athenians. When he is on trial for heresy

and corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens, he uses his method of elenchos to demonstrate to the

jurors that their moral values are wrong-headed. He tells them they are concerned with their families,

careers, and political responsibilities when they ought to be worried about the "welfare of their souls".

Socrates' assertion that the gods had singled him out as a divine emissary seemed to provoke irritation,

if not outright ridicule. Socrates also questioned the Sophistic doctrine that arete (virtue) can be taught.

He liked to observe that successful fathers (such as the prominent military generalPericles) did not

produce sons of their own quality. Socrates argued that moral excellence was more a matter of divine

bequest than parental nurture. This belief may have contributed to his lack of anxiety about the future of

his own sons.

Socrates frequently says his ideas are not his own, but his teachers'. He mentions several

influences: Prodicus the rhetor andAnaxagoras the philosopher. Perhaps surprisingly, Socrates claims

to have been deeply influenced by two women besides his mother: he says that Diotima, a witch and

priestess from Mantinea, taught him all he knows about eros, or love; and that Aspasia, the mistress

of Pericles, taught him the art of rhetoric. John Burnet argued that his principal teacher was the

Anaxagorean Archelaus but his ideas were as Plato described them; Eric A. Havelock, on the other

hand, considered Socrates' association with the Anaxagoreans to be evidence of Plato's philosophical

separation from Socrates.

Socratic paradoxes

Many of the beliefs traditionally attributed to the historical Socrates have been characterized as

"paradoxical" because they seem to conflict with common sense. The following are among the so-

called Socratic Paradoxes:

No one desires evil.

No one errs or does wrong willingly or knowingly.

Virtue—all virtue—is knowledge.

Virtue is sufficient for happiness.

The phrase Socratic paradox can also refer to a self-referential paradox, originating in Socrates' phrase,

"I know that I know nothingnoble and good".

Knowledge

One of the best known sayings of Socrates is "I only know that I know nothing". The conventional

interpretation of this remark is that Socrates' wisdom was limited to an awareness of his own ignorance.

Socrates believed wrongdoing was a consequence of ignorance and those who did wrong knew no

better. The one thing Socrates consistently claimed to have knowledge of was "the art of love", which

he connected with the concept of "the love of wisdom", i.e., philosophy. He never actually claimed to be

wise, only to understand the path a lover of wisdom must take in pursuing it. It is debatable whether

Socrates believed humans (as opposed to gods like Apollo) could actually become wise. On the one

hand, he drew a clear line between human ignorance and ideal knowledge; on the other,

Plato's Symposium (Diotima's Speech) and Republic (Allegory of the Cave) describe a method for

ascending to wisdom.

In Plato's Theaetetus (150a), Socrates compares himself to a true matchmaker

(προμνηστικός promnestikós), as distinguished from a panderer (προᾰγωγός proagogos). This

distinction is echoed in Xenophon's Symposium (3.20), when Socrates jokes about his certainty of

being able to make a fortune, if he chose to practice the art of pandering. For his part as a philosophical

interlocutor, he leads his respondent to a clearer conception of wisdom, although he claims he is not

himself a teacher (Apology). His role, he claims, is more properly to be understood as analogous to

a midwife (μαῖα maia). Socrates explains that he is himself barren of theories, but knows how to bring

the theories of others to birth and determine whether they are worthy or mere "wind eggs"

(ἀνεμιαῖον anemiaion). Perhaps significantly, he points out that midwives are barren due to age, and

women who have never given birth are unable to become midwives; they would have no experience or

knowledge of birth and would be unable to separate the worthy infants from those that should be left on

the hillside to be exposed. To judge this, the midwife must have experience and knowledge of what she

is judging.

Virtue

Bust of Socrates in the Palermo Archaeological Museum.

Socrates believed the best way for people to live was to focus on self-

development rather than the pursuit of material wealth.[ He always invited others

to try to concentrate more on friendships and a sense of true community, for

Socrates felt this was the best way for people to grow together as a populace His

actions lived up to this: in the end, Socrates accepted his death sentence when

most thought he would simply leave Athens, as he felt he could not run away from or go against the will

of his community; as mentioned above, his reputation for valor on the battlefield was without reproach.

The idea that there are certain virtues formed a common thread in Socrates' teachings. These virtues

represented the most important qualities for a person to have, foremost of which were the philosophical

or intellectual virtues. Socrates stressed that "virtue was the most valuable of all possessions; the ideal

life was spent in search of the Good. Truth lies beneath the shadows of existence, and it is the job of

the philosopher to show the rest how little they really know."

Politics

It is often argued that Socrates believed "ideals belong in a world only the wise man can understand",

making the philosopher the only type of person suitable to govern others. In Plato's dialogue

the Republic, Socrates openly objected to the democracy that ran Athens during his adult life. It was not

only Athenian democracy: Socrates found short of ideal any government that did not conform to his

presentation of a perfect regime led by philosophers, and Athenian government was far from that. It is,

however, possible that the Socrates of Plato'sRepublic is colored by Plato's own views. During the last

years of Socrates' life, Athens was in continual flux due to political upheaval. Democracy was at last

overthrown by a junta known as the Thirty Tyrants, led by Plato's relative, Critias, who had been a

friend of Socrates. The Tyrants ruled for about a year before the Athenian democracy was reinstated, at

which point it declared an amnesty for all recent events.

Socrates' opposition to democracy is often denied, and the question is one of the biggest philosophical

debates when trying to determine exactly what Socrates believed. The strongest argument of those

who claim Socrates did not actually believe in the idea of philosopher kings is that the view is

expressed no earlier than Plato's Republic, which is widely considered one of Plato's "Middle" dialogues

and not representative of the historical Socrates' views. Furthermore, according to Plato's Apology of

Socrates, an "early" dialogue, Socrates refused to pursue conventional politics; he often stated he

could not look into other's matters or tell people how to live their lives when he did not yet understand

how to live his own. He believed he was a philosopher engaged in the pursuit of Truth, and did not

claim to know it fully. Socrates' acceptance of his death sentence, after his conviction by

the Boule (Council), can also be seen to support this view. It is often claimed much of the anti-

democratic leanings are from Plato, who was never able to overcome his disgust at what was done to

his teacher. In any case, it is clear Socrates thought the rule of the Thirty Tyrants was also

objectionable; when called before them to assist in the arrest of a fellow Athenian, Socrates refused

and narrowly escaped death before the Tyrants were overthrown. He did however fulfill his duty to

serve as Prytanis when a trial of a group of Generals who presided over a disastrous naval campaign

were judged; even then he maintained an uncompromising attitude, being one of those who refused to

proceed in a manner not supported by the laws, despite intense pressure. Judging by his actions, he

considered the rule of the Thirty Tyrants less legitimate than the Democratic Senate that sentenced him

to death.

Covertness

In the Dialogues of Plato, Socrates sometimes seems to support a mystical side,

discussing reincarnation and the mystery religions; however, this is generally attributed to Plato.

Regardless, this cannot be dismissed out of hand, as we cannot be sure of the differences between the

views of Plato and Socrates; in addition, there seem to be some corollaries in the works of Xenophon.

In the culmination of the philosophic path as discussed in Plato's Symposium, one comes to the Sea of

Beauty or to the sight of "the beautiful itself" (211C); only then can one become wise. (In

the Symposium, Socrates credits his speech on the philosophic path to his teacher, the

priestess Diotima, who is not even sure if Socrates is capable of reaching the highest mysteries.) In

the Meno, he refers to theEleusinian Mysteries, telling Meno he would understand Socrates' answers

better if only he could stay for the initiations next week. Further confusions result from the nature of

these sources, insofar as the Platonic Dialogues are arguably the work of an artist-philosopher, whose

meaning does not volunteer itself to the passive reader nor again the lifelong scholar. Plato himself was

a playwright before taking up the study of philosophy. His works are, indeed, dialogues; Plato's choice

of this, the medium of Sophocles, Euripides, and the fictions of theatre, may reflect the ever-

interpretable nature of his writings, as he has been called a "dramatist of reason". What is more, the

first word of nearly all Plato's works is a significant term for that respective dialogue, and is used with

its' many connotations in mind. Finally, the Phaedrus and the Symposium each allude to Socrates' coy

delivery of philosophic truths in conversation; the Socrates of the Phaedrus goes so far as to demand

such dissembling and mystery in all writing. The covertness we often find in Plato, appearing here and

there couched in some enigmatic use of symbol and/or irony, may be at odds with the mysticism Plato's

Socrates expounds in some other dialogues. These indirect methods may fail to satisfy some readers.

Perhaps the most interesting facet of this is Socrates' reliance on what the Greeks called his

"daemonic sign", an averting (ἀποτρεπτικός apotreptikos) inner voice Socrates heard only when he

was about to make a mistake. It was this sign that prevented Socrates from entering into politics. In

the Phaedrus, we are told Socrates considered this to be a form of "divine madness", the sort

ofinsanity that is a gift from the gods and gives us poetry, mysticism, love, and even philosophy itself.

Alternately, the sign is often taken to be what we would call "intuition"; however, Socrates'

characterization of the phenomenon as "daemonic" may suggest that its' origin is divine, mysterious,

and independent of his own thoughts.

Satirical playwrights

He was prominently lampooned in Aristophanes' comedy The Clouds, produced when Socrates was in

his mid-forties; he said at his trial (according to Plato) that the laughter of the theater was a harder task

to answer than the arguments of his accusers. Søren Kierkegaard believed this play was a more

accurate representation of Socrates than those of his students. In the play, Socrates is ridiculed for his

dirtiness, which is associated with the Laconizing fad; also in plays by Callias, Eupolis, and Telecleides.

Other comic poets who lampooned Socrates include Mnesimachus and Ameipsias. In all of these,

Socrates and the Sophists were criticised for "the moral dangers inherent in contemporary thought and

literature".

Prose sources

Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle are the main sources for the historical Socrates; however, Xenophon

and Plato were direct disciples of Socrates, and they may idealize him; however, they wrote the only

continuous descriptions of Socrates that have come down to us in their complete form. Aristotle refers

frequently, but in passing, to Socrates in his writings. Almost all of Plato's works center on Socrates.

However, Plato's later works appear to be more his own philosophy put into the mouth of his mentor.

The Socratic dialoguesSocratic dialogue

The Socratic Dialogues are a series of dialogues written by Plato and Xenophon in the form of

discussions between Socrates and other persons of his time, or as discussions between Socrates'

followers over his concepts. Plato's Phaedo is an example of this latter category. Although

his Apology is a monologue delivered by Socrates, it is usually grouped with the Dialogues.

The Apology professes to be a record of the actual speech Socrates delivered in his own defense at the

trial. In the Athenian jury system, an "apology" is composed of three parts: a speech, followed by a

counter-assessment, then some final words. "Apology" is atransliteration, not a translation, of the

Greek apologia, meaning "defense"; in this sense it is not apologetic according to our contemporary

use of the term.

Plato generally does not place his own ideas in the mouth of a specific speaker; he lets ideas emerge

via the Socratic Method, under the guidance of Socrates. Most of the dialogues present Socrates

applying this method to some extent, but nowhere as completely as in the Euthyphro. In this dialogue,

Socrates and Euthyphro go through several iterations of refining the answer to Socrates' question,

"...What is the pious, and what the impious?"

In Plato's Dialogues, learning appears as a process of remembering. The soul, before its incarnation in

the body, was in the realm ofIdeas (very similar to the Platonic "Forms"). There, it saw things the way

they truly are, rather than the pale shadows or copies we experience on earth. By a process of

questioning, the soul can be brought to remember the ideas in their pure form, thus bringingwisdom.

Especially for Plato's writings referring to Socrates, it is not always clear which ideas brought forward

by Socrates (or his friends) actually belonged to Socrates and which of these may have been new

additions or elaborations by Plato – this is known as the Socratic Problem. Generally, the early works of

Plato are considered to be close to the spirit of Socrates, whereas the later works –

includingPhaedo and Republic – are considered to be possibly products of Plato's elaborations.

Legacy

Immediate influence

Immediately, the students of Socrates set to work both on exercising their perceptions of his teachings

in politics and also on developing many new philosophical schools of thought. Some of Athens'

controversial and anti-democratic tyrants were contemporary or posthumous students of Socrates

including Alcibiades and Critias. Critias' cousin, Plato would go on to found the Academy in 385 BC,

which gained so much notoriety that 'Academy' became the base word for educational institutions in

later European languages such asEnglish, French, and Italian. Plato's protege, another important figure

of the Classical era, Aristotle went on to tutor Alexander the Greatand also to found his own school in

335 BC- the Lyceum, whose name also now means an educational institution.

While Socrates was shown to demote the importance of institutional knowledge

like mathematics or science in relation to the human condition in his Dialogues, Plato would emphasize

it with metaphysical overtones mirroring that of Pythagoras – the former who would dominate Western

thought well into the Renaissance. Aristotle himself was as much of a philosopher as he was a scientist

with rudimentary work in the fields of biology and physics.

Socratic thought which challenged conventions, especially in stressing a simplistic way of living,

became divorced from Plato's more detached and philosophical pursuits. This idea was inherited by

one of Socrates' older students, Antisthenes, who became the originator of another philosophy in the

years after Socrates' death: Cynicism. Antisthenes attacked Plato and Alcibiades over what he deemed

as their betrayal of Socrates' tenets in his writings.

The idea of asceticism being hand in hand with an ethical life or one with piety, ignored by Plato and

Aristotle and somewhat dealt with by the Cynics, formed the core of another philosophy in 281

BC – Stoicism when Zeno of Citium would discover Socrates' works and then learn from Crates, a

Cynic philosopher. None of the schools however, would inherit his tendency to openly associate with

and respect women or the regular citizen.

Later historical effects

While some of the later contributions of Socrates to Hellenistic Era culture and philosophy as well as

the Roman Era have been lost to time, his teachings began a resurgence in both medieval Europe and

the Islamic Middle East alongside those of Aristotle and Stoicism. Socrates is mentioned in the

dialogue Kuzari by Jewish philosopher and rabbi Yehuda Halevi in which a Jew instructs

the Khazar king about Judaism. al-Kindi, a well-known Arabic philosopher, introduced and tried to

reconcile Socrates and Hellenistic philosophy to an Islamic audience, referring to him by the name

'Suqrat'.

Socrates' stature in Western philosophy returned in full force with the Renaissance and the Age of

Reason in Europe when political theory began to resurface under those

like Locke and Hobbes. Voltaire even went so far as to write a satirical play about the Trial of Socrates.

There were a number of paintings about his life including Socrates Tears Alcibiades from the Embrace

of Sensual Pleasureby Jean-Baptiste Regnault and The Death of Socrates by Jacques-Louis David in

the later 18th century.

To this day, the Socratic Method is still used in classroom and law school discourse to expose

underlying issues in both subject and the speaker. He has been rewarded with accolades ranging from

numerous mentions in pop culture such as the movie Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and a Greek

rock band to numerous busts in academic institutions in recognition of his contribution to education.

Criticism

Evaluation and reaction to Socrates has been undertaken with both historical and philosophical inquiry

from the time of his death to the present day with a multitude of conclusions and perspectives. One of

the initial criticisms levied against the philosopher was presented at his trial – that he was not the

proponent of a philosophy but an individual with a method of undermining the fabric of Athenian society,

a charge carried by the 500-man jury of Athenians that sentenced him to death. Although he was not

directly prosecuted for his connection to Critias, leader of the Spartan-backed Thirty Tyrants, he was

seen as a controversial figure, who mentored oligarchs who became abusive tyrants, and undermined

Athenian democracy. The Sophist establishment he railed at in life survived him, but by the 3rd century

BC, was rapidly overtaken by the many philosophical schools of thought that Socrates influenced.

Socrates' death is considered iconic and his status as a martyr of philosophy overshadowed most

contemporary and posthumous criticism at the time. However, Xenophon attempts to explain that

Socrates purposely welcomed the hemlock due to his old age using the arguably self-destructive

testimony to the jury as evidence. Direct criticism of Socrates almost disappears at this point, but there

is a noticeable preference for Plato or Aristotle over the elements of Socratic philosophy distinct from

those of his students, even into the Middle Ages.

Modern scholarship holds that, with so much of the philosopher obscured and possibly altered by Plato,

it is impossible to gain a clear picture of Socrates amidst all the seeming contradictions. That

both Cynicism and Stoicism, which carried heavy influence from Socratic thought, were unlike or even

contrary to Platonism further illustrates this. The ambiguity and lack of reliability serves as the modern

basis of criticism – that it is near impossible to know the real Socrates. Some controversy also exists

about claims of Socrates exempting himself from the homosexual customs of ancient Greece and not

believing in the Olympian gods to the point of being monotheistic or if this was an attempt by later

Medieval scholars to reconcile him with the morals of the era. However, it is still commonly taught and

held with little exception that Socrates is the founder of modern Western philosophy, to the point that

philosophers before him are referred to as pre-Socratic.

Ahmadiyya viewpointMirza Tahir Ahmad (the fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community) argued in his

book Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth that Socrates was a prophet of the ancient Greeks.

The apparent prophetic qualities of Socrates are indeed a subject for debate. His constant reference to

the oracle and how it performs the active function of a moral compass by preventing him from unseemly

acts could easily be taken as a reference to – or substitute for revelation. Similarly, Socrates often

refers to God in the singular as opposed to the plural and actively rejected the Greek pantheon of Gods

and Goddesses unless citing them as examples of their falseness.

Paulo Freile’s

Problem approach to childhood education. Embracing cultural conflicts as opportunities for learning,

she met with eight early childhood teachers in a diverse urban community who were trying to affirm

diversity and enhance students’ agency. Those in-service preschool teachers problematized everyday

issues and engage in dialogic, collective, critical learning process. She engaged in ethnographic

observations of participating teachers' classroom and of our own culture circle to learn from the process

through filed note, video and audio recordings, interviews, and artifacts. A cultural circle, a group of

individuals involved in learning who see their reality with a political analysis, comes as an important

theme in the paper. In employing cultural circle, she claims that educators should investigate the

context, practice, lives and experience of participants. Therefore, cultural circle curriculum is based on

students’ lives, practices and beliefs. She believes that education is a means for change and

transformation. The author also wants to see how theory and practice meet in a real classroom and

took part in teachers’ meeting. She found out from the co-reflection and analysis of a teacher cultural

circle that the cultural circle can be safe communities of learners to engage in collective problem-

solving and honoring multiple voices and perspectives.

Plato and Philosophy of Education

IdealismPlato

Inscribed herma of Plato. (Berlin, Altes Museum).

Plato

Date: 424/423 BC - 348/347 BC

Plato's educational philosophy was grounded in his vision of the

ideal Republic, wherein theindividual was best served by being

subordinated to a just society. He advocated removing children from

their mothers' care and raising them as wards of the state, with

great care being taken to differentiate children suitable to the

various castes, the highest receiving the most education, so that

they could act as guardians of the city and care for the less able. Education would be holistic, including

facts, skills, physical discipline, and music and art, which he considered the highest form of endeavor.

Plato believed that talent was distributed non-genetically and thus must be found in children born in

any social class. He builds on this by insisting that those suitably gifted are to be trained by the state so

that they may be qualified to assume the role of a ruling class. What this establishes is essentially a

system of selective public education premised on the assumption that an educated minority of the

population are, by virtue of their education (and inborn educability), sufficient for healthy governance.

Plato's writings contain some of the following ideas: Elementary education would be confined to the

guardian class till the age of 18, followed by two years of compulsory military trainingand then by higher

education for those who qualified. While elementary education made the soul responsive to the

environment, higher education helped the soul to search for truth which illuminated it. Both boys and

girls receive the same kind of education. Elementary education consisted of music and gymnastics,

designed to train and blend gentle and fierce qualities in the individual and create a harmonious person.

At the age of 20, a selection was made. The best one would take an advanced course in mathematics,

geometry, astronomy and harmonics. The first course in the scheme of higher education would last for

ten years. It would be for those who had a flair for science. At the age of 30 there would be another

selection; those who qualified would study dialectics and metaphysics, logic and philosophy for the next

five years. They would study the idea of good and first principles of being. After accepting junior

positions in the army for 15 years, a man would have completed his theoretical and practical education

by the age of 50.

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant

Date: 1724–1804

Immanuel Kant believed that education differs from training in that the latter involves thinking whereas

the former does not. In addition to educating reason, of central importance to him was the development

of character and teaching of moral maxims. Kant was a proponent of public education and of learning

by doing.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

  Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Date: 1770–1831

RealismAristotle

Bust of Aristotle. Roman copy after a Greek bronze original by Lysippos from 330

B.C.

Main article: Aristotle

Date: 384 BC - 322 BC

Only fragments of Aristotle's treatise On Education are still in

existence. We thus know of his philosophy of education primarily through brief passages in other works.

Aristotle considered human nature, habit and reason to be equally important forces to be cultivated in

education.[1] Thus, for example, he considered repetition to be a key tool to develop good habits. The

teacher was to lead the student systematically; this differs, for example, from Socrates' emphasis on

questioning his listeners to bring out their own ideas (though the comparison is perhaps incongruous

since Socrates was dealing with adults).

Aristotle placed great emphasis on balancing the theoretical and practical aspects of subjects taught.

Subjects he explicitly mentions as being important included reading, writing and mathematics; music;

physical education; literature and history; and a wide range of sciences. He also mentioned the

importance of play.

One of education's primary missions for Aristotle, perhaps its most important, was to produce good

and virtuous citizens for the polis.All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been

convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth. [2]

Avicenna

  Avicenna

Date: 980 AD - 1037 AD

In the medieval Islamic world, an elementary school was known as a maktab, which dates back to at least

the 10th century. Likemadrasahs (which referred to higher education), a maktab was often attached to

a mosque. In the 11th century, Ibn Sina (known asAvicenna in the West), wrote a chapter dealing with

the maktab entitled "The Role of the Teacher in the Training and Upbringing of Children", as a guide to

teachers working at maktab schools. He wrote that children can learn better if taught in classes instead

of individual tuition from private tutors, and he gave a number of reasons for why this is the case, citing

the value of competition andemulation among pupils as well as the usefulness of

group discussions and debates. Ibn Sina described the curriculum of a maktabschool in some detail,

describing the curricula for two stages of education in a maktab school.[5]

Ibn Sina wrote that children should be sent to a maktab school from the age of 6 and be taught primary

education until they reach the age of 14. During which time, he wrote that they should be taught

the Qur'an, Islamic metaphysics, language, literature, Islamic ethics, and manual skills (which could refer to a

variety of practical skills).

Ibn Sina refers to the secondary education stage of maktab schooling as the period of specialization,

when pupils should begin to acquire manual skills, regardless of their social status. He writes that

children after the age of 14 should be given a choice to choose and specialize in subjects they have an

interest in, whether it was reading, manual skills, literature, preaching, medicine, geometry,trade and

commerce, craftsmanship, or any other subject or profession they would be interested in pursuing for a

future career. He wrote that this was a transitional stage and that there needs to be flexibility regarding

the age in which pupils graduate, as the student's emotional development and chosen subjects need to

be taken into account.

The empiricist theory of 'tabula rasa' was also developed by Ibn Sina. He argued that the

"human intellect at birth is rather like a tabula rasa, a pure potentiality that is actualized through

education and comes to know" and that knowledge is attained through "empiricalfamiliarity with objects

in this world from which one abstracts universal concepts" which is developed through a

"syllogistic method ofreasoning; observations lead to prepositional statements, which when compounded

lead to further abstract concepts." He further argued that the intellect itself "possesses levels of

development from the material intellect (al-‘aql al-hayulani), that potentiality that can acquire knowledge

to the active intellect (al-‘aql al-fa‘il), the state of the human intellect in conjunction with the perfect

source of knowledge."

Ibn Tufail

 Ibn Tufail

Date: c. 1105 - 1185

In the 12th century, the Andalusian-Arabian philosopher and novelist Ibn Tufail (known as "Abubacer" or

"Ebn Tophail" in the West) demonstrated the empiricist theory of 'tabula rasa' as a thought

experiment through his Arabic philosophical novel, Hayy ibn Yaqzan, in which he depicted the development

of the mind of a feral child "from a tabula rasa to that of an adult, in complete isolation from society" on

a desert island, through experience alone. The Latin translation of his philosophical novel, Philosophus

Autodidactus, published byEdward Pococke the Younger in 1671, had an influence on John Locke's

formulation of tabula rasa in "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding".

John Locke

 John Locke

Some Thoughts Concerning Education, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, and Essay concerning Human Understanding

Date: 1632-1704

Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning Education is an outline on how to educate this mind: he expresses

the belief that education maketh the man, or, more fundamentally, that the mind is an "empty cabinet",

with the statement, "I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they

are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education."[9]

Locke also wrote that "the little and almost insensible impressions on our tender infancies have very

important and lasting consequences." He argued that the "associations of ideas" that one makes when

young are more important than those made later because they are the foundation of the self: they are,

put differently, what first mark the tabula rasa. In his Essay, in which is introduced both of these

concepts, Locke warns against, for example, letting "a foolish maid" convince a child that "goblins and

sprites" are associated with the night for "darkness shall ever afterwards bring with it those frightful

ideas, and they shall be so joined, that he can no more bear the one than the other."

"Associationism", as this theory would come to be called, exerted a powerful influence over eighteenth-

century thought, particularlyeducational theory, as nearly every educational writer warned parents not

to allow their children to develop negative associations. It also led to

the development of psychology and other new disciplines

with David Hartley's attempt to discover a biological mechanism for

associationism in his Observations on Man (1749).

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Jean-Jacques Rousseau by Maurice Quentin de La Tour

Main article: Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Date: 1712-1778

Rousseau, though he paid his respects to Plato's philosophy,

rejected it as impractical due to the decayed state of society. Rousseau also had a different theory of

human development; where Plato held that people are born with skills appropriate to different castes

(though he did not regard these skills as being inherited), Rousseau held that there was one

developmental process common to all humans. This was an intrinsic, natural process, of which the

primary behavioral manifestation was curiosity. This differed from Locke's 'tabula rasa' in that it was an

active process deriving from the child's nature, which drove the child to learn and adapt to its

surroundings.

Rousseau wrote in his book Emile that all children are perfectly designed organisms, ready to learn

from their surroundings so as to grow into virtuous adults, but due to the malign influence of corrupt

society, they often fail to do so. Rousseau advocated an educational method which consisted of

removing the child from society—for example, to a country home—and alternately conditioning him

through changes to his environment and setting traps and puzzles for him to solve or overcome.

Rousseau was unusual in that he recognized and addressed the potential of a problem of legitimation

for teaching. He advocated that adults always be truthful with children, and in particular that they never

hide the fact that the basis for their authority in teaching was purely one of physical coercion: "I'm

bigger than you." Once children reached the age of reason, at about 12, they would be engaged as free

individuals in the ongoing process of their own.

He once said that a child should grow up without adult interference and that the child must be guided to

suffer from the experience of the natural consequences of his own acts or behaviour. When he

experiences the consequences of his own acts, he advises himself.

"Rousseau divides development into five stages (a book is devoted to each). Education in the first two

stages seeks to the senses: only when Émile is about 12 does the tutor begin to work to develop his

mind. Later, in Book 5, Rousseau examines the education of Sophie (whom Émile is to marry). Here he

sets out what he sees as the essential differences that flow from sex. 'The man should be strong and

active; the woman should be weak and passive' (Everyman edn: 322). From this difference comes a

contrasting education. They are not to be brought up in ignorance and kept to housework: Nature

means them to think, to will, to love to cultivate their minds as well as their persons; she puts these

weapons in their hands to make up for their lack of strength and to enable them to direct the strength of

men. They should learn many things, but only such things as suitable' (Everyman edn.: 327)." Émile

Mortimer Jerome Adler

Mortimer Jerome Adler

Date: 1902-2001

Mortimer Jerome Adler was an American philosopher, educator, and popular author. As a philosopher he

worked within the Aristotelianand Thomistic traditions. He lived for the longest stretches in New York

City, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo, California. He worked for Columbia University, the University

of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and Adler's own Institute for Philosophical Research. Adler was

married twice and had four children. Adler was a proponent of educational perennialism.

Harry S. Broudy

Harry Broudy

Date: 1905-1998

Broudy's philosophical views were based on the tradition of classical realism, dealing with truth,

goodness, and beauty. However he was also influenced by the modern philosophy existentialism and

instrumentalism. In his textbook Building a Philosophy of Education he has two major ideas that are the

main points to his philosophical outlook: The first is truth and the second is universal structures to be

found in humanity's struggle for education and the good life. Broudy also studied issues on society's

demands on school. He thought education would be a link to unify the diverse society and urged the

society to put more trust and a commitment to the schools and a good education.

ScholasticismThomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, 1476)

Main article: Thomas Aquinas

Date: c. 1225 - 1274

See Religious perennialism

John Milton

John Milton Of Education

Date: 1608-1674

The objective of medieval education was an overtly religious one, primarily concerned with uncovering

transcendental truths that would lead a person back to God through a life of moral and religious choice

(Kreeft 15). The vehicle by which these truths were uncovered was dialectic:

To the medieval mind, debate was a fine art, a serious science, and a fascinating entertainment, much

more than it is to the modern mind, because the medievals believed, like Socrates, that dialectic could

uncover truth. Thus a ‘scholastic disputation’ was not a personal contest in cleverness, nor was it

‘sharing opinions’; it was a shared journey of discovery (Kreeft 14-15).

Pragmatism

John Dewey

John Dewey

Date: 1859-1952

In Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, Dewey stated that

education, in its broadest sense, is the means of the "social continuity of life" given the "primary

ineluctable facts of the birth and death of each one of the constituent members in a social group".

Education is therefore a necessity, for "the life of the group goes on." [13] Dewey was a proponent

ofEducational Progressivism and was a relentless campaigner for reform of education, pointing out that

the authoritarian, strict, pre-ordained knowledge approach of modern traditional education was too

concerned with delivering knowledge, and not enough with understanding students' actual experiences.

William James

William James

Date: 1842–1910

William Heard Kilpatrick

Main article: William Heard Kilpatrick

Date: 1871-1965

William Heard Kilpatrick was a US American philosopher of education and a colleague and a successor

of John Dewey. He was a major figure in the progressive education movement of the early 20th

century. Kilpatrick developed the Project Method for early childhood education, which was a form

of Progressive Education organized curriculum and classroom activities around a subject's central

theme. He believed that the role of a teacher should be that of a "guide" as opposed to an authoritarian

figure. Kilpatrick believed that children should direct their own learning according to their interests and

should be allowed to explore their environment, experiencing their learning through the natural senses.

[15] Proponents of Progressive Education and the Project Method reject traditional schooling that

focuses on memorization, rote learning, strictly organized classrooms (desks in rows; students always

seated), and typical forms of assessment.

Nel Noddings

Nel Noddings

Date: 1929–

Noddings' first sole-authored book Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (1984)

followed close on the 1982 publication of Carol Gilligan’s ground-breaking work in the ethics of care In a

Different Voice. While her work on ethics continued, with the publication of Women and Evil (1989) and

later works on moral education, most of her later publications have been on the philosophy of education

and educational theory. Her most significant works in these areas have been Educating for Intelligent

Belief or Unbelief (1993) and Philosophy of Education (1995).

Richard Rorty

Richard Rorty

Date: 1931–2007

Analytic PhilosophyRichard Stanley Peters

Richard Stanley Peters

Date: 1919-

Paul H. Hirst

ExistentialismKarl Jaspers

Karl Jaspers

Date: 1883-1969

Martin Buber

Martin Buber

Date:1878-1965

Maxine Greene

Maxine Greene

Date: ? –

Critical Theory

Paulo Freire

Paulo Freire

Paulo Freire

Date: 1921-1997

A Brazilian committed to the cause of educating the impoverished peasants of his nation

andcollaborating with them in the pursuit of their liberation from what he regarded as "oppression,"

Freire is best known for his attack on what he called the "banking concept of education," in which the

student was viewed as an empty account to be filled by the teacher. Freire also suggests that a deep

reciprocity be inserted into our notions of teacher and student; he comes close to suggesting that the

teacher-student dichotomy be completely abolished, instead promoting the roles of the participants in

the classroom as the teacher-student (a teacher who learns) and the student-teacher (a learner who

teaches). In its early, strong form this kind of classroom has sometimes been criticized on the grounds

that it can mask rather than overcome the teacher's authority.

Aspects of the Freirian philosophy have been highly influential in academic debates over "participatory

development" and development more generally. Freire's emphasis on what he describes as

"emancipation" through interactive participation has been used as a rationale for the participatory focus

of development, as it is held that 'participation' in any form can lead to empowerment of poor or

marginalised groups. Freire was a proponent of critical pedagogy. "He participated in the import of

European doctrines and ideas into Brazil, assimilated them to the needs of a specific socio-economic

situation, and thus expanded and refocused them in a thought-provoking way"

PostmodernismMartin Heidegger

Martin Heidegger

Date:1889-1976

Heidegger's philosophizing about education was primarily related to higher education. He believed that

teaching and research in the university should be unified and aim towards testing and interrogating the

"ontological assumptions presuppositions which implicitly guide research in each domain of

knowledge."

Hans-Georg Gadamer

Hans-Georg Gadamer

Date:1900-2002

Jean-François Lyotard

Main article: Jean-François Lyotard

Date:1924-1998

Michel Foucault

Michel Foucault

Date: 1926-1984

Normative Educational Philosophies

"Normative philosophies or theories of education may make use of the results of [philosophical thought]

and of factual inquiries about human beings and the psychology of learning, but in any case they

propound views about what education should be, what dispositions it should cultivate, why it ought to

cultivate them, how and in whom it should do so, and what forms it should take. In a full-fledged

philosophical normative theory of education, besides analysis of the sorts described, there will normally

be propositions of the following kinds: 1. Basic normative premises about what is good or right; 2. Basic

factual premises about humanity and the world; 3. Conclusions, based on these two kinds of premises,

about the dispositions education should foster; 4. Further factual premises about such things as the

psychology of learning and methods of teaching; and 5. Further conclusions about such things as the

methods that education should use."

PerennialismEducational perennialism

Perennialists believe that one should teach the things that one deems to be of everlasting importance

to all people everywhere. They believe that the most important topics develop a person. Since details of

fact change constantly, these cannot be the most important. Therefore, one should teach principles, not

facts. Since people are human, one should teach first about humans, not machines or techniques.

Since people are people first, and workers second if at all, one should teach liberal topics first, not

vocational topics. The focus is primarily on teaching reasoning and wisdom rather than facts, the liberal

arts rather than vocational training.

Allan Bloom

Alexander Sutherland Neill

Main article: Allan Bloom

Date: 1930-1992

Bloom, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago,

argued for a traditionalGreat Books-based liberal education in his

lengthy essay The Closing of the American Mind.

Progressivism

Educational Progressivism

Educational progressivism is the belief that education must be based on the principle that humans

are social animals who learn best in real-life activities with other people.Progressivists, like proponents of

most educational theories, claim to rely on the best available scientific theories of learning. Most

progressive educators believe that children learn as if they were scientists, following a process similar

to John Dewey's model of learning: 1) Become aware of the problem. 2) Define the problem. 3)

Propose hypotheses to solve it. 4) Evaluate the consequences of the hypotheses from one's past

experience. 5) Test the likeliest solution.[4]

Jean Piaget

Jean Piaget

Date: 1896-1980

Jean Piaget was a Swiss developmental psychologist known for his epistemological studies with

children. His theory of cognitive development and epistemological view are together called "genetic

epistemology". Piaget placed great importance on the education of children. As the Director of the

International Bureau of Education, he declared in 1934 that "only education is capable of saving our

societies from possible collapse, whether violent, or gradual." Piaget created the International Centre

for Genetic Epistemology inGeneva in 1955 and directed it until 1980. According to Ernst von

Glasersfeld, Jean Piaget is "the great pioneer of the constructivist theory of knowing."

Jean Piaget described himself as an epistemologist, interested in the process of the qualitative

development of knowledge. As he says in the introduction of his book "Genetic Epistemology" (ISBN

978-0-393-00596-7): "What the genetic epistemology proposes is discovering the roots of the different

varieties of knowledge, since its elementary forms, following to the next levels, including also the

scientific knowledge."

Jerome Bruner

Jerome Bruner

Date: 1915-

Another important contributor to the inquiry method in education is Bruner. His books The Process of

Education and Toward a Theory of Instruction are landmarks in conceptualizing learning and curriculum

development. He argued that any subject can be taught in some intellectually honest form to any child

at any stage of development. This notion was an underpinning for his concept of the spiral curriculum

which posited the idea that a curriculum should revisit basic ideas, building on them until the student

had grasped the full formal concept. He emphasized intuition as a neglected but essential feature of

productive thinking. He felt that interest in the material being learned was the best stimulus for learning

rather than external motivation such as grades. Bruner developed the concept ofdiscovery

learning which promoted learning as a process of constructing new ideas based on current or past

knowledge. Students are encouraged to discover facts and relationships and continually build on what

they already know.

EssentialismEducational essentialism

Educational essentialism is an educational philosophy whose adherents believe that children should

learn the traditional basic subjects and that these should be learned thoroughly and rigorously. An

essentialist program normally teaches children progressively, from less complex skills to more complex.

William Chandler Bagley

William Chandler Bagley

Date: 1874-1946

William Chandler Bagley taught in elementary schools before becoming a professor of education at the

University of Illinois, where he served as the Director of the School of Education from 1908 until 1917.

He was a professor of education at Teachers College, Columbia, from 1917 to 1940. An opponent of

pragmatism and progressive education, Bagley insisted on the value of knowledge for its own sake, not

merely as an instrument, and he criticized his colleagues for their failure to emphasize systematic study

of academic subjects. Bagley was a proponent of educational essentialism.

Social Reconstructionism and Critical Pedagogy

Social Reconstructionism and Critical pedagogy

Critical pedagogy is an "educational movement, guided by passion and principle, to help students

develop consciousness of freedom, recognize authoritarian tendencies, and connect knowledge to power

and the ability to take constructive action." Based in Marxist theory, critical pedagogy draws on radical

democracy, anarchism, feminism, and other movements for social justice.

George Counts

George Counts

Date: 1889–1974

Maria Montessori

Maria Montessori and Samuel Sidney McClure

Main article: Maria Montessori

Date: 1870-1952

The Montessori method arose from Dr. Maria Montessori's discovery of what she referred to as "the

child's true normal nature" in 1907, which happened in the process of her experimental observation of

young children given freedom in an environment prepared with materials designed for their self-directed

learning activity.The method itself aims to duplicate this experimental observation of children to bring

about, sustain and support their true natural way of being.

WaldorfWaldorf education

Waldorf education (also known as Steiner or Steiner-Waldorf education) is a humanistic approach to

pedagogy based upon the educational philosophy of the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner, the

founder of anthroposophy. Learning is interdisciplinary, integrating practical, artistic, and conceptual

elements. The approach emphasizes the role of the imagination in learning, developing thinking that

includes a creative as well as an analytic component. The educational philosophy's overarching goals

are to provide young people the basis on which to develop into free, morally responsible and integrated

individuals, and to help every child fulfill his or her unique destiny, the existence of which

anthroposophy posits. Schools and teachers are given considerable freedom to define curricula within

collegial structures.

Rudolf Steiner

Rudolf Steiner

Date: 1861-1925

Steiner founded a holistic educational impulse on the basis of his spiritual philosophy (anthroposophy).

Now known as Steiner or Waldorf education, his pedagogy emphasizes a balanced development

of cognitive, affective/artistic, and practical skills (head, heart, and hands). Schools are normally self-

administered by faculty; emphasis is placed upon giving individual teachers the freedom to develop

creative methods.

Steiner's theory of child development divides education into three discrete developmental stages

predating but with close similarities to the stages of development described by Piaget. Early childhood

education occurs through imitation; teachers provide practical activities and a healthy environment.

Steiner believed that young children should meet only goodness. Elementary education is strongly arts-

based, centered on the teacher's creative authority; the elementary school-age child should meet

beauty. Secondary education seeks to develop the judgment, intellect, and practical idealism; the

adolescent should meet truth.

Democratic Education

Democratic school

Democratic education is a theory of learning and school governance in which students and staff

participate freely and equally in a school democracy. In a democratic school, there is typically shared

decision-making among students and staff on matters concerning living, working, and learning together.

A. S. Neill

A. S. Neill

Date: 1883-1973

Neill founded Summerhill School, the oldest existing democratic school in Suffolk, England in 1921. He

wrote a number of books that now define much of contemporary democratic education philosophy. Neill

believed that the happiness of the child should be the paramount consideration in decisions about the

child's upbringing, and that this happiness grew from a sense of personal freedom. He felt that

deprivation of this sense of freedom during childhood, and the consequent unhappiness experienced by

the repressed child, was responsible for many of the psychological disorders of adulthood.

Classical EducationClassical education movement

The Classical education movement advocates a form of education based in the traditions of Western

culture, with a particular focus on education as understood and taught in the Middle Ages. The term

"classical education" has been used in English for several centuries, with each era modifying the

definition and adding its own selection of topics. By the end of the 18th century, in addition to the

trivium and quadrivium of the Middle Ages, the definition of a classical education embraced study of

literature, poetry, drama, philosophy, history, art, and languages. In the 20th and 21st centuries it is

used to refer to a broad-based study of the liberal arts and sciences, as opposed to a practical or pre-

professional program. Classical Education can be described as rigorous and systematic, separating

children and their learning into three rigid categories, Grammar, Dialectic, and Rhetoric.

Jean-Jacques RousseauJean-Jacques Rousseau (French: [ʒɑ ̃ʒak ʁuso]; 28 June 1712 – 2 July 1778) was

aGenevan philosopher, writer, and composer of 18th-century Romanticism of French expression.

His political philosophy influenced the French Revolution as well as the overall development of modern

political, sociological and educational thought.

His novel Émile: or, On Education is a treatise on the education of the whole person for citizenship.

His sentimental novel Julie, or the New Heloise was of importance to the development of pre-

romanticism[1] and romanticism in fiction.[2] Rousseau's autobiographical writings—his Confessions,

which initiated the modern autobiography, and his Reveries of a Solitary Walker—exemplified the late

18th-century movement known as the Age of Sensibility, featuring an increasing focus on subjectivity

and introspection that has characterized the modern age. His Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and

his On the Social Contract are cornerstones in modern political and social thought.

Rousseau was a successful composer of music. He wrote seven operas as well as music in other

forms, and he made contributions to music as a theorist.

During the period of the French Revolution, Rousseau was the most popular of thephilosophes among

members of the Jacobin Club. Rousseau, a Freemason,[3] was interred as a national hero in

the Panthéon in Paris, in 1794, 16 years after his death.

Biography

YouthRousseau was born in Geneva, which was at the time a city-state and a Protestant associate of

the Swiss Confederacy. Since 1536, Geneva had been a Huguenot republic and the seat of Calvinism.

Rousseau was proud that his family, of the moyen order (or middle-class), had voting rights in the city.

Throughout his life, he generally signed his books "Jean Jacques Rousseau, Citizen of Geneva".[4]

Geneva, in theory, was governed democratically by its male voting

citizens, a minority of the population. In fact, the city was ruled by

a secretive executive committee, called the "Little Council", which

was made up of 25 members of its wealthiest families. In 1707, a

patriot called Pierre Fatio protested at this situation, and the Little

Council had him shot. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's father Isaac was

not in the city at this time, but Jean-Jacques's grandfather

supported Fatio and was penalized for it.[5]

The house where Rousseau was born at number 40, place du

Bourg-de-Four.

Rousseau's father, Isaac Rousseau, was a watchmaker who, notwithstanding his artisan status, was

well educated and a lover of music. "A Genevan watchmaker," Rousseau wrote, "is a man who can be

introduced anywhere; a Parisian watchmaker is only fit to talk about watches."[6]

Rousseau's mother, Suzanne Bernard Rousseau, the daughter of a Calvinist preacher, died

of puerperal fever nine days after his birth. He and his older brother François were brought up by their

father and a paternal aunt, also named Suzanne.

Rousseau had no recollection of learning to read, but he remembered how when he was 5 or 6 his

father encouraged his love of reading:

“ Every night, after supper, we read some part of a small collection of romances [i.e., adventure

stories], which had been my mother's. My father's design was only to improve me in reading,

and he thought these entertaining works were calculated to give me a fondness for it; but we

soon found ourselves so interested in the adventures they contained, that we alternately read

whole nights together and could not bear to give over until at the conclusion of a volume.

Sometimes, in the morning, on hearing the swallows at our window, my father, quite ashamed

of this weakness, would cry, "Come, come, let us go to bed; I am more a child than thou art." ”

  — Confessions, Book 1

Not long afterward, Rousseau abandoned his taste for escapist stories in favor of the antiquity

of Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans, which he would read to his father while he made

watches.

When Rousseau was 10, his father, an avid hunter, got into a legal quarrel with a wealthy landowner on

whose lands he had been caught trespassing. To avoid certain defeat in the courts, he moved away to

Nyon in the territory of Bern, taking Rousseau's aunt Suzanne with him. He remarried, and from that

point Jean-Jacques saw little of him.[7] Jean-Jacques was left with his maternal uncle, who packed him,

along with his own son, Abraham Bernard, away to board for two years with a Calvinist minister in a

hamlet outside Geneva. Here the boys picked up the elements of mathematics and drawing. Rousseau,

who was always deeply moved by religious services, for a time even dreamed of becoming a Protestant

minister.

Les Charmettes: where Rousseau lived withMme de Warens in 1735-6, now a museum dedicated to

Rousseau.

Virtually, all our information about Rousseau's youth has come from his posthumously

published Confessions, in which the chronology is somewhat

confused, though recent scholars have combed the archives

for confirming evidence to fill in the blanks. At age 13,

Rousseau was apprenticed first to a notary and then to an

engraver who beat him. At 15, he ran away from Geneva (on

14 March 1728) after returning to the city and finding the city gates locked due to the curfew.

In adjoining Savoy he took shelter with a Roman Catholic priest, who introduced him toFrançoise-

Louise de Warens, age 29. She was a noblewoman of Protestant background who was separated from

her husband. As professional lay proselytizer, she was paid by the King of Piedmont to help bring

Protestants to Catholicism. They sent the boy to Turin, the capital of Savoy (which included Piedmont,

in what is now Italy), to complete his conversion. This resulted in his having to give up his Genevan

citizenship, although he would later revert to Calvinism in order to regain it.

In converting to Catholicism, both De Warens and Rousseau were likely reacting to Calvinism's

insistence on the total depravity of man. Leo Damrosch writes, "an eighteenth-century Genevan liturgy

still required believers to declare ‘that we are miserable sinners, born in corruption, inclined to evil,

incapable by ourselves of doing good'."[8] De Warens, a deist by inclination, was attracted to

Catholicism's doctrine of forgiveness of sins.

Adulthood

Finding himself on his own, since his father and uncle had more or less disowned him, the teenage

Rousseau supported himself for a time as a servant, secretary, and tutor, wandering in Italy (Piedmont

and Savoy) and France. During this time, he lived on and off with De Warens, whom he idolized and

called his "maman". Flattered by his devotion, De Warens tried to get him started in a profession, and

arranged formal music lessons for him. At one point, he briefly attended a seminary with the idea of

becoming a priest.

When Rousseau reached 20, De Warens took him as her lover, while intimate also with the steward of

her house. The sexual aspect of their relationship (in fact a ménage à trois) confused Rousseau and

made him uncomfortable, but he always considered De Warens the greatest love of his life. A rather

profligate spender, she had a large library and loved to entertain and listen to music. She and her circle,

comprising educated members of the Catholic clergy, introduced Rousseau to the world of letters and

ideas.

Rousseau had been an indifferent student, but during his 20s, which were marked by long bouts

of hypochondria, he applied himself in earnest to the study of philosophy, mathematics, and music. At

25, he came into a small inheritance from his mother and used a portion of it to repay De Warens for

her financial support of him. At 27, he took a job as a tutor in Lyon.

In 1742, Rousseau moved to Paris in order to present the Académie des Sciences with a new system

of numbered musical notation he believed would make his fortune. His system, intended to be

compatible with typography, is based on a single line, displaying numbers

representing intervals between notes and dots and commas indicating rhythmic values. Believing the

system was impractical, the Academy rejected it, though they praised his mastery of the subject, and

urged him to try again.

Palazzo belonging to Tommaso Querini at 968 Cannaregio Venice that served as the French Embassy

during Rousseau's period as Secretary to the Ambassador

From 1743 to 1744, Rousseau had an honorable but ill-paying post as a secretary to the Comte de

Montaigue, the French ambassador to Venice. This awoke in him a lifelong love for Italian music,

particularly opera:

I had brought with me from Paris the prejudice of that city

against Italian music; but I had also received from nature a

sensibility and niceness of distinction which prejudice cannot

withstand. I soon contracted that passion for Italian music with

which it inspires all those who are capable of feeling its

excellence. In listening to barcaroles, I found I had not yet

known what singing was... —Confessions

Rousseau's employer routinely received his stipend as much as

a year late and paid his staff irregularly.[9] After 11 months,

Rousseau quit, taking from the experience a profound distrust of

government bureaucracy.

Return to Paris

Returning to Paris, the penniless Rousseau befriended and became the lover of Thérèse Levasseur, a

seamstress who was the sole support of her mother and numerous ne'er-do-well siblings. At first, they

did not live together, though later Rousseau took Thérèse and her mother in to live with him as his

servants, and himself assumed the burden of supporting her large family. According to his Confessions,

before she moved in with him, Thérèse bore him a son and as many as four other children (there is no

independent verification for this number[10]).

Rousseau wrote that he persuaded Thérèse to give each of the newborns up to a foundling hospital, for

the sake of her "honor". "Her mother, who feared the inconvenience of a brat, came to my aid, and she

[Thérèse] allowed herself to be overcome" (Confessions). In his letter to Madame de Francueil in 1751,

he first pretended that he wasn't rich enough to raise his children but in book IX of the confessions, he

gave the true reasons of his choice : " I trembled at the thought of intrusting them to a family ill brought

up, to be still worse educated. The risk of the education of the foundling hospital was much less."

Ten years later, Rousseau made inquiries about the fate of his son, but no record could be found.

When Rousseau subsequently became celebrated as a theorist of education and child-rearing, his

abandonment of his children was used by his critics, includingVoltaire and Edmund Burke, as the basis

for ad hominem attacks. In an irony of fate, Rousseau's later injunction to women to breastfeed their

own babies (as had previously been recommended by the French natural scientist Buffon), probably

saved the lives of thousands of infants.[citation needed]

While in Paris, Rousseau became a close friend of French philosopher Diderot and, beginning with

some articles on music in 1749,[11]contributed numerous articles to Diderot and D'Alembert's

great Encyclopédie, the most famous of which was an article on political economy written in 1755.

Rousseau's ideas were the result of an almost obsessive dialogue with writers of the past, filtered in

many cases through conversations with Diderot. His genius lay in his strikingly original way of putting

things rather than in the originality, per se, of his thinking. In 1749, Rousseau was paying daily visits to

Diderot, who had been thrown into the fortress of Vincennes under a lettre de cachet for opinions in his

"Lettre sur les aveugles," that hinted at materialism, a belief in atoms, and natural selection.

Rousseau had read about an essay competition sponsored by the Académie de Dijon to be published

in the Mercure de France on the theme of whether the development of the arts and sciences had been

morally beneficial. He wrote that while walking to Vincennes (about three miles from Paris), he had a

revelation that the arts and sciences were responsible for the moral degeneration of mankind, who

were basically good by nature. According to Diderot, writing much later, Rousseau had originally

intended to answer this in the conventional way, but his discussions with Diderot convinced him to

propose the paradoxical negative answer that catapulted him into the public eye. Rousseau's 1750

"Discourse on the Arts and Sciences" was awarded the first prize and gained him significant fame.

Rousseau continued his interest in music. He wrote both the words and music of his opera Le Devin du

Village (The Village Soothsayer), which was performed for King Louis XV in 1752. The king was so

pleased by the work that he offered Rousseau a lifelong pension. To the exasperation of his friends,

Rousseau turned down the great honor, bringing him notoriety as "the man who had refused a king's

pension." He also turned down several other advantageous offers, sometimes with a brusqueness

bordering on truculence that gave offense and caused him problems. The same year, the visit of a

troupe of Italian musicians to Paris, and their performance ofGiovanni Battista Pergolesi's La Serva

Padrona, prompted the Querelle des Bouffons, which pitted protagonists of French music against

supporters of the Italian style. Rousseau as noted above, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Italians

against Jean-Philippe Rameauand others, making an important contribution with his Letter on French

Music.

Return to Geneva (1754)

On returning to Geneva in 1754, Rousseau reconverted to Calvinism and regained his official Genevan

citizenship. In 1755, Rousseau completed his second major work, the Discourse on the Origin and

Basis of Inequality Among Men (the Discourse on Inequality), which

elaborated on the arguments of the Discourse on the Arts and Sciences.

He also pursued an unconsummated romantic attachment with the 25-year-

old Sophie d'Houdetot, which partly inspired his epistolary novel, Julie, ou la

nouvelle Héloïse (also based on memories of his idyllic youthful relationship

with Mme de Warens). Sophie was the cousin and houseguest of Rousseau's patroness and

landlady Madame d'Epinay, whom he treated rather highhandedly. He resented being at Mme

d'Epinay's beck and call and detested the insincere conversation and shallow atheism of

the Encyclopedistes whom he met at her table. Wounded feelings gave rise to a bitter three-way

quarrel between Rousseau and Madame d'Epinay; her lover, the philologist Grimm; and their mutual

friend, Diderot, who took their side against Rousseau. Diderot later described Rousseau as being,

"false, vain as Satan, ungrateful, cruel, hypocritical, and wicked ... He sucked ideas from me, used

them himself, and then affected to despise me".

The mestizo Pierre Alexandre du Peyrou, rich inhabitant of Neufchâtel, plantation owner, writer, friend

and publisher of some of Rousseau's oeuvre. His mansion was Le Palais du Peyrou.

Rousseau's break with the Encyclopedistes coincided with the composition of his three major works, in

all of which he emphasized his fervent belief in a spiritual origin of man's soul and the universe, in

contradistinction to the materialism of Diderot, La Mettrie, andd'Holbach. During this period Rousseau

enjoyed the support and patronage of the Duc de Luxembourg, and the Prince de Conti, two of the

richest and most powerful nobles in France. These men truly liked Rousseau and enjoyed his ability to

converse on any subject, but they also used him as a way of getting back at Louis XV and the political

faction surrounding his mistress, Mme de Pompadour. Even with them, however, Rousseau went too

far, courting rejection when he criticized the practice of tax farming, in which some of them engaged.

Rousseau's 800-page novel of sentiment, Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse, was published in 1761 to

immense success. The book's rhapsodic descriptions of the natural beauty of the Swiss countryside

struck a chord in the public and may have helped spark the subsequent nineteenth century craze for

Alpine scenery. In 1762, Rousseau published Du Contrat Social, Principes du droit politique (in English,

literally Of the Social Contract, Principles of Political Right) in April. Even his friend Antoine-Jacques

Roustan felt impelled to write a polite rebuttal of the chapter on Civil Religion in the Social Contract,

which implied that the concept of a Christian Republic was paradoxical since Christianity taught

submission rather than participation in public affairs. Rousseau even helped Roustan find a publisher

for the rebuttal.

Rousseau published Emile: or, On Education in May. The final section of Émile, "The Profession of

Faith of a Savoyard Vicar," was intended to be a defense of religious belief. Rousseau's choice of a

Catholic vicar of humble peasant background (plausibly based on a kindly prelate he had met as a

teenager) as a spokesman for the defense of religion was in itself a daring innovation for the time. The

vicar's creed was that of Socinianism (or Unitarianism as it is called

today). Because it rejected original sin and divine Revelation, both

Protestant and Catholic authorities took offense.

A 1766 portrait of Rousseau by Allan Ramsay.

Moreover, Rousseau advocated the opinion that, insofar as they lead

people to virtue, all religions are equally worthy, and that people should

therefore conform to the religion in which they have been brought up. This

religious indifferentism caused Rousseau and his books to be banned from France and Geneva. He

was condemned from the pulpit by the Archbishop of Paris, his books were burned, and warrants were

issued for his arrest.[16] Former friends such as Jacob Vernes of Geneva could not accept his views,

and wrote violent rebuttals.

Rousseau is forced to flee

A sympathetic observer, British philosopher David Hume, "professed no surprise when he learned that

Rousseau's books were banned in Geneva and elsewhere." Rousseau, he wrote, "has not had the

precaution to throw any veil over his sentiments; and, as he scorns to dissemble his contempt for

established opinions, he could not wonder that all the zealots were in arms against him. The liberty of

the press is not so secured in any country ... as not to render such an open attack on popular prejudice

somewhat dangerous.'"

Rousseau, who thought he had been defending religion, was crushed. Forced to flee arrest, he made

his way, with the help of the Duc of Luxembourg and Prince de Conti, to Neuchâtel, a Canton of the

Swiss Confederation that was a protectorate of thePrussian crown. His powerful protectors discreetly

assisted him in his flight, and they helped to get his banned books (published in Holland by Marc-Michel

Rey) distributed in France disguised as other works, using false covers and title pages. In the town

of Môtiers, he sought and found protection under Lord Keith, who was the local representative of the

free-thinking Frederick the Great of Prussia. While in Môtiers, Rousseau wrote the Constitutional

Project for Corsica (Projet de Constitution pour la Corse, 1765).

In Britain (1765)

After his house in Môtiers was stoned on the night of 6 September 1765, Rousseau took refuge in

Great Britain with Hume, who found lodgings for him at a friend's country estate in Wootton in

Staffordshire. Neither Thérèse nor Rousseau was able to learn English or make friends. Isolated,

Rousseau, never very emotionally stable, suffered a serious decline in his mental health and began to

experience paranoid fantasies about plots against him involving Hume and others. “He is plainly mad,

after having long been maddish”, Hume wrote to a friend. [19] Rousseau's letter to Hume, in which he

articulates the perceived misconduct, sparked an exchange which was published in Paris and received

with great interest at the time.

The tomb of Rousseau in the crypt of the Panthéon, Paris

France (1767)

Although officially barred from entering France before 1770, Rousseau

returned in 1767 under a false name. In 1768 he went through a marriage

of sorts to Thérèse (marriages between Catholics and Protestants were

illegal), whom he had always hitherto referred to as his "housekeeper".

Though she was illiterate, she had become a remarkably good cook, a

hobby her husband shared.

In 1770 they were allowed to return to Paris. As a condition of his return he was not allowed to publish

any books, but after completing his Confessions, Rousseau began private readings in 1771. At the

request of Madame d'Epinay, who was anxious to protect her privacy, however, the police ordered him

to stop, and the Confessions was only partially published in 1782, four years after his death. All his

subsequent works were to appear posthumously.

In 1772, Rousseau was invited to present recommendations for a new constitution for the Polish-

Lithuanian Commonwealth, resulting in the Considerations on the Government of Poland, which was to

be his last major political work. In 1776, he completed Dialogues: Rousseau Judge of Jean-

Jacques and began work on the Reveries of the Solitary Walker. In order to support himself, he

returned to copying music, spending his leisure time in the study of botany.

Final years

Although a celebrity, Rousseau's mental health did not permit him to enjoy his fame. His final years

were largely spent in deliberate withdrawal. However, he did respond favorably to an approach from the

composer Gluck, whom he met in 1774. Gluck admired Rousseau as "a pioneer of the expressive

natural style" in music.[20] One of Rousseau's last pieces of writing was a critical yet enthusiastic

analysis of Gluck's opera Alceste. While taking a morning walk on the estate of the marquis René Louis

de Girardin atErmenonville (28 miles northeast of Paris), Rousseau suffered a hemorrhage and died,

aged 66.

Rousseau was initially buried at Ermenonville on the Ile des Peupliers, which became a place of

pilgrimage for his many admirers. Sixteen years after his death, his

remains were moved to the Panthéon in Paris in 1794, where they are

located directly across from those of his contemporary, Voltaire. His

tomb, in the shape of a rustic temple, on which, in bas relief an arm

reaches out, bearing the torch of liberty, evokes Rousseau's deep

love of nature and of classical antiquity.

In 1834, the Genevan government somewhat reluctantly erected a

statue in his honor on the tiny Île Rousseau in Lake Geneva. Today

he is proudly claimed as their most celebrated native son. In 2002, the Espace Rousseau was

established at 40 Grand-Rue, Geneva, Rousseau's birthplace.

Philosophy

Theory of Natural Human

The statue of Rousseau on the Île Rousseau, Geneva.

“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people

naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how

many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any

one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his

fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the

fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. ”  — Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754

In common with other philosophers of the day, Rousseau looked to a hypothetical State of Nature as a

normative guide.

Rousseau criticized Hobbes for asserting that since man in the "state of nature . . . has no idea of

goodness he must be naturally wicked; that he is vicious because he does not know virtue". On the

contrary, Rousseau holds that "uncorrupted morals" prevail in the "state of nature" and he especially

praised the admirable moderation of the Caribbeans in expressing the sexual urge despite the fact that

they live in a hot climate, which "always seems to inflame the passions".

Rousseau asserted that the stage of human development associated with what he called "savages"

was the best and most optimal in human development, between the less-than optimal extreme of brute

animals on the one hand and the extreme of decadent civilization on the other. "...nothing is so gentle

as man in his primitive state, when placed by nature at an equal distance from the stupidity of brutes

and the fatal enlightenment of civil man." Referring to the stage of human development which

Rousseau associates with savages, Rousseau writes:

"Hence although men had become less forebearing, and although natural pity had already undergone

some alteration, this period of the development of human faculties, maintaining a middle position

between the indolence of our primitive state and the petulant activity of our egocentrism, must have

been the happiest and most durable epoch. The more one reflects on it, the more one finds that this

state was the least subject to upheavals and the best for man, and that he must have left it only by

virtue of some fatal chance happening that, for the common good, ought never to have happened. The

example of savages, almost all of whom have been found in this state, seems to confirm that the

human race had been made to remain in it always; that this state is the veritable youth of the world; and

that all the subsequent progress has been in appearance so many steps toward the perfection of the

individual, and in fact toward the decay of the species."

Stages of human development

Rousseau believed that the savage stage was not the first stage of human development, but the third

stage. Rousseau held that this third savage stage of human societal development was an optimum,

between the extreme of the state of brute animals and animal-like "ape-men" on the one hand, and the

extreme of decadent civilized life on the other. This has led some critics to attribute to Rousseau the

invention of the idea of the noble savage,[25] which Arthur Lovejoy' conclusively showed misrepresents

Rousseau's thought.

The expression, "the noble savage" was first used in 1672 by British poet John Dryden in his play The

Conquest of Granada.[27]Rousseau wrote that morality was not a societal construct, but rather "natural"

in the sense of "innate," an outgrowth from man's instinctive disinclination to witness suffering, from

which arise the emotions of compassion or empathy. These were sentiments shared with animals, and

whose existence even Hobbes acknowledged.[28]

Frontispiece and title page of an edition of

Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality (1754),

published in 1755 in Holland.

Contrary to what his many detractors have

claimed, Rousseau never suggests that

humans in the state of nature act morally; in

fact, terms such as "justice" or "wickedness" are inapplicable to prepolitical society as Rousseau

understands it. Morality proper, i.e., self-restraint, can only develop through careful education in a civil

state. Humans "in a state of Nature" may act with all of the ferocity of an animal. They are good only in

a negative sense, insofar as they are self-sufficient and thus not subject to the vices of political society.

In fact, Rousseau's natural man is virtually identical to a solitarychimpanzee or other ape, such as

the orangutan as described byBuffon; and the "natural" goodness of humanity is thus the goodness of

an animal, which is neither good nor bad. Rousseau, a deteriorationist, proposed that, except perhaps

for brief moments of balance, at or near its inception, when a relative equality among men prevailed,

human civilization has always been artificial, creating inequality, envy, and unnatural desires.

In Rousseau's philosophy, society's negative influence on men centers on its transformation of amour

de soi, a positive self-love, intoamour-propre, or pride. Amour de soi represents the instinctive human

desire for self-preservation, combined with the human power ofreason. In contrast, amour-propre is

artificial and encourages man to compare himself to others, thus creating unwarranted fear and

allowing men to take pleasure in the pain or weakness of others. Rousseau was not the first to make

this distinction. It had been invoked by Vauvenargues, among others.

In Discourse on the Arts and Sciences Rousseau argues that the arts and sciences have not been

beneficial to humankind, because they arose not from authentic human needs but rather as a result of

pride and vanity. Moreover, the opportunities they create for idleness and luxury have contributed to the

corruption of man. He proposed that the progress of knowledge had made governments

more powerful and had crushed individual liberty; and he concluded that material progress had actually

undermined the possibility of true friendship by replacing it with jealousy, fear, and suspicion.

In contrast to the optimistic view of other Enlightenment figures, for Rousseau, progress has been

inimical to the well-being of humanity, that is, unless it can be counteracted by the cultivation of civic

morality and duty.

Only in civil society, can man be ennobled—through the use of reason:

The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in man, by

substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly

lacked. Then only, when the voice of duty takes the place of physical impulses and right of appetite,

does man, who so far had considered only himself, find that he is forced to act on different principles,

and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations. Although, in this state, he deprives himself

of some advantages which he got from nature, he gains in return others so great, his faculties are so

stimulated and developed, his ideas so extended, his feelings so ennobled, and his whole soul so

uplifted, that, did not the abuses of this new condition often degrade him below that which he left, he

would be bound to bless continually the happy moment which took him from it for ever, and, instead of

a stupid and unimaginative animal, made him an intelligent being and a man.

Society corrupts men only insofar as the Social Contract has not de facto succeeded, as we see in

contemporary society as described in the Discourse on Inequality (1754).

In this essay, which elaborates on the ideas introduced in the Discourse on the Arts and Sciences,

Rousseau traces man's social evolution from a primitive state of nature to modern society. The earliest

solitary humans possessed a basic drive for self-preservation and a natural disposition

to compassion or pity. They differed from animals, however, in their capacity for free will and their

potential perfectibility. As they began to live in groups and form clans they also began to experience

family love, which Rousseau saw as the source of the greatest happiness known to humanity.

As long as differences in wealth and status among families were minimal, the first coming together in

groups was accompanied by a fleeting golden age of human flourishing. The development of

agriculture, metallurgy, private property, and the division of labour and resulting dependency on one

another, however, led to economic inequality and conflict. As population pressures forced them to

associate more and more closely, they underwent a psychological transformation: They began to see

themselves through the eyes of others and came to value the good opinion of others as essential to

their self esteem.

Rousseau posits that the original, deeply flawed Social Contract (i.e., that of Hobbes), which led to the

modern state, was made at the suggestion of the rich and powerful, who tricked the general population

into surrendering their liberties to them and instituted inequality as a fundamental feature of human

society. Rousseau's own conception of the Social Contract can be understood as an alternative to this

fraudulent form of association.

At the end of the Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau explains how the desire to have value in the eyes

of others comes to undermine personal integrity and authenticity in a society marked by

interdependence, and hierarchy. In the last chapter of the Social Contract, Rousseau would ask "What

is to be done?" He answers that now all men can do is to cultivate virtue in themselves and submit to

their lawful rulers. To his readers, however, the inescapable conclusion was that a new and more

equitable Social Contract was needed.

Like other Enlightenment philosophers, Rousseau was critical of the Atlantic slave trade.

Political theory

Île Rousseau, Geneva.

Perhaps Rousseau's most important work is The Social

Contract, which outlines the basis for a legitimate political order

within a framework of classical republicanism. Published in

1762, it became one of the most influential works of political

philosophy in the Western tradition. It developed some of the ideas mentioned in an earlier work, the

article Economie Politique (Discourse on Political Economy), featured in Diderot'sEncyclopédie. The

treatise begins with the dramatic opening lines, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.

Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they."

Rousseau claimed that the state of nature was a primitive condition without law or morality, which

human beings left for the benefits and necessity of cooperation. As society developed, division of labor

and private property required the human race to adopt institutions of law. In the degenerate phase of

society, man is prone to be in frequent competition with his fellow men while also becoming

increasingly dependent on them. This double pressure threatens both his survival and his freedom.

According to Rousseau, by joining together into civil society through the social contract and abandoning

their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. This is because

submission to the authority of the general will of the people as a whole guarantees individuals against

being subordinated to the wills of others and also ensures that they obey themselves because they are,

collectively, the authors of the law.

Although Rousseau argues that sovereignty (or the power to make the laws) should be in the hands of

the people, he also makes a sharp distinction between the sovereign and the government. The

government is composed of magistrates, charged with implementing and enforcing the general will. The

"sovereign" is the rule of law, ideally decided on by direct democracy in an assembly. Rousseau was

opposed to the idea that the people should exercise sovereignty via a representative assembly (Book

III, Chapter XV). The kind of republican government of which Rousseau approved was that of the city

state, of which Geneva was a model, or would have been, if renewed on Rousseau's principles. France

could not meet Rousseau's criterion of an ideal state because it was too big. Much subsequent

controversy about Rousseau's work has hinged on disagreements concerning his claims that citizens

constrained to obey the general will are thereby rendered free:

The notion of the general will is wholly central to Rousseau's theory of political legitimacy. ... It is,

however, an unfortunately obscure and controversial notion. Some commentators see it as no more

than the dictatorship of the proletariat or the tyranny of the urban poor (such as may perhaps be seen in

the French Revolution). Such was not Rousseau's meaning. This is clear from the Discourse on

Political Economy, where Rousseau emphasizes that the general will exists to protect individuals

against the mass, not to require them to be sacrificed to it. He is, of course, sharply aware that men

have selfish and sectional interests which will lead them to try to oppress others. It is for this reason

that loyalty to the good of all alike must be a supreme (although not exclusive) commitment by

everyone, not only if a truly general will is to be heeded but also if it is to be formulated successfully in

the first place".

Education and child rearingEmile: or, On Education

“ ‘The noblest work in education is to make a reasoning man, and we expect to train a young

child by making him reason! This is beginning at the end; this is making an instrument of a

result. If children understood how to reason they would not need to be educated.” –

Rousseau, Emile. ”

Rousseau’s philosophy of education is not concerned with particular techniques of imparting

information and concepts, but rather with developing the pupil’s character and moral sense, so that he

may learn to practice self-mastery and remain virtuous even in the unnatural and imperfect society in

which he will have to live. The hypothetical boy, Émile, is to be raised in the countryside, which,

Rousseau believes, is a more natural and healthy environment than the city, under the guardianship of

a tutor who will guide him through various learning experiences arranged by the tutor. Today we would

call this the disciplinary method of "natural consequences" since, like modern psychologists [, Rousseau

felt that children learn right and wrong through experiencing the consequences of their acts rather than

through physical punishment. The tutor will make sure that no harm results to Émile through his

learning experiences.

Rousseau was one of the first to advocate developmentally appropriate education; and his description

of the stages of child developmentmirrors his conception of the evolution of culture. He divides

childhood into stages: the first is to the age of about 12, when children are guided by their emotions and

impulses. During the second stage, from 12 to about 16, reason starts to develop; and finally the third

stage, from the age of 16 onwards, when the child develops into an adult. Rousseau recommends that

the young adult learn a manual skill such as carpentry, which requires creativity and thought, will keep

him out of trouble, and will supply a fallback means of making a living in the event of a change of

fortune. (The most illustrious aristocratic youth to have been educated this way may have been Louis

XVI, whose parents had him learn the skill of locksmithing.) The sixteen-year-old is also ready to have a

companion of the opposite sex.

Although his ideas foreshadowed modern ones in many ways, in one way they do not: Rousseau was a

believer in the moral superiority of the patriarchal family on the antique Roman model. Sophie, the

young woman Émile is destined to marry, as a representative of ideal womanhood, is educated to be

governed by her husband while Émile, as representative of the ideal man, is educated to be self-

governing. This is not an accidental feature of Rousseau's educational and political philosophy; it is

essential to his account of the distinction between private, personal relations and the public world of

political relations. The private sphere as Rousseau imagines it depends on the subordination of women,

in order for both it and the public political sphere (upon which it depends) to function as Rousseau

imagines it could and should. Rousseau anticipated the modern idea of the bourgeois nuclear family,

with the mother at home taking responsibility for the household and for childcare and early education.

Feminists, beginning in the late 18th century with Mary Wollstonecraft in 1792 have criticized Rousseau

for his confinement of women to the domestic sphere—unless women were domesticated and

constrained by modesty and shame, he feared[34] "men would be tyrannized by women... For, given the

ease with which women arouse men's senses... men would finally be their victims...." ] His

contemporaries saw it differently because Rousseau thought that mothers should breastfeed their

children. Marmontel wrote that his wife thought, "One must forgive something," she said, "in one who

has taught us to be mothers."

Rousseau's detractors have blamed him for everything they do not like in what they call modern "child-

centered" education. John Darling's 1994 book Child-Centered Education and its Critics argues that the

history of modern educational theory is a series of footnotes to Rousseau, a development he regards

as bad. Good or bad, the theories of educators such as Rousseau's near

contemporaries Pestalozzi, Mme de Genlis, and later, Maria Montessori, and John Dewey, which have

directly influenced modern educational practices do have significant points in common with those of

Rousseau.

Religion

Having converted to Roman Catholicism early in life and returned to the austere Calvinism of his native

Geneva as part of his period of moral reform, Rousseau maintained a profession of that religious

philosophy and of John Calvin as a modern lawgiver throughout the remainder of his life. [38] His views

on religion presented in his works of philosophy, however, may strike some as discordant with the

doctrines of both Catholicism and Calvinism.

At the time, however, Rousseau's strong endorsement of religious toleration, as expounded by the

Savoyard vicar in Émile, was interpreted as advocating indifferentism, a heresy, and led to the

condemnation of the book in both Calvinist Geneva and Catholic Paris. His assertion in the Social

Contract that true followers of Jesus would not make good citizens may have been another reason for

Rousseau's condemnation in Geneva.

Unlike many of the more radical Enlightenment philosophers, Rousseau affirmed the necessity of

religion. But he repudiated the doctrine of original sin, which plays so large a part in Calvinism

(in Émile, Rousseau writes "there is no original perversity in the human heart").

In the 18th century, many deists viewed God merely as an abstract and impersonal creator of the

universe, which they likened to a giant machine. Rousseau's deism differed from the usual kind in its

intense emotionality. He saw the presence of God in his creation, including mankind, which, apart from

the harmful influence of society, is good, because God is good. Rousseau's attribution of a spiritual

value to the beauty of nature anticipates the attitudes of 19th-century Romanticism towards nature and

religion.

Rousseau was upset that his deistic views were so forcefully condemned, while those of the more

atheistic philosophes were ignored. He defended himself against critics of his religious views in his

"Letter to Christophe de Beaumont, the Archbishop of Paris in which he insists that freedom of

discussion in religious matters is essentially more religious than

Legacy

A plaque commemorating the bicentenary of Rousseau's birth.

Issued by the city of Geneva on 28 June 1912. The legend at

the bottom says "Jean-Jacques, aime ton pays" ("love your

country"), and shows Rousseau's father gesturing towards the

window. The scene is drawn from a footnote to the Letter to

d'Alembert where Rousseau recalls witnessing the popular

celebrations following the exercises of the St Gervais regiment.

Rousseau's idea of the volonté générale ("general will") was not original with him but rather belonged to

a well-established technical vocabulary of juridical and theological writings in use at the time. The

phrase was used by Diderot and also by Montesquieu(and by his teacher, the Oratorian friar Nicolas

Malebranche). It served to designate the common interest embodied in legal tradition, as distinct from

and transcending people's private and particular interests at any particular time.

The concept was also an important aspect of the more radical 17th-century republican tradition

of Spinoza, from whom Rousseau differed in important respects, but not in his insistence on the

importance of equality. This emphasis on equality is Rousseau's most important and consequential

legacy, causing him to be both reviled and applauded:

While Rousseau's notion of the progressive moral degeneration of mankind from the moment civil

society established itself diverges markedly from Spinoza's claim that human nature is always and

everywhere the same ... for both philosophers the pristine equality of the state of nature is our ultimate

goal and criterion ... in shaping the "common good", volonté générale, or Spinoza's mens una, which

alone can ensure stability and political salvation. Without the supreme criterion of equality, the general

will would indeed be meaningless. ... When in the depths of the French Revolution the Jacobin clubs all

over France regularly deployed Rousseau when demanding radical reforms. and especially anything—

such as land redistribution—designed to enhance equality, they were at the same time, albeit

unconsciously, invoking a radical tradition which reached back to the late seventeenth century.

StoicismStoicism (Greek Στωικισμός) is a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded in Athens byZeno of

Citium in the early 3rd century BC. The Stoics taught that destructive emotions resulted from errors in

judgment, and that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection", would not suffer such

emotions.

Stoics were concerned with the active relationship between cosmic determinism and humanfreedom,

and the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in accord with nature.

Because of this, the Stoics presented their philosophy as a way of life, and they thought that the best

indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how he behaved.

Later Stoics, such as Seneca and Epictetus, emphasized that because "virtue is sufficient for

happiness", a sage was immune to misfortune. This belief is similar to the meaning of the phrase "stoic

calm", though the phrase does not include the "radical ethical" Stoic views that only a sage can be

considered truly free, and that all moral corruptions are equally vicious.

From its founding, Stoic doctrine was popular with a following throughout Greece and theRoman

Empire, including the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, until the closing of all philosophy schools in 529 AD by

order of the Emperor Justinian I, who perceived their pagan character as being at odds with the

Christian faith.

Basic tenets

“ Philosophy does not promise to

secure anything external for man,

otherwise it would be admitting

something that lies beyond its proper

subject-matter. For as the material of

the carpenter is wood, and that of

statuary bronze, so the subject-

matter of the art of living is each

person's own life. ”

—Epictetus[5]

The Stoics provided a unified account of the world, consisting of formal logic, non-

dualistic physics and naturalistic ethics. Of these, they emphasized ethics as the main focus of human

knowledge, though their logical theories were of more interest for later philosophers.

Stoicism teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming

destructive emotions; the philosophy holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to

understand the universal reason (logos). A primary aspect of Stoicism involves improving the

individual's ethical and moral well-being: "Virtue consists in a will that is in agreement with Nature." This

principle also applies to the realm of interpersonal relationships; "to be free from anger, envy, and

jealousy," and to accept even slaves as "equals of other men, because all men alike are products of

nature."

The Stoic ethic espouses a deterministic perspective; in regard to those who lack Stoic

virtue, Cleanthes once opined that the wicked man is "like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go

wherever it goes." A Stoic of virtue, by contrast, would amend his will to suit the world and remain, in

the words of Epictetus, "sick and yet happy, in peril and yet happy, dying and yet happy, in exile and

happy, in disgrace and happy,"[7] thus positing a "completely autonomous" individual will, and at the

same time a universe that is "a rigidly deterministic single whole." This viewpoint was later described as

"Classical Pantheism" (and was adopted by Dutch philosopherBaruch Spinoza).

Stoicism became the foremost popular philosophy among the educated elite in the Hellenistic world and

the Roman Empire, to the point where, in the words of Gilbert Murray "nearly all the successors of

Alexander [...] professed themselves Stoics."

History

Antisthenes, founder of the Cynic school of philosophy

Beginning at around 301 BC, Zeno taught philosophy at the Stoa

Poikile (i.e., "the painted porch"), from which his philosophy got its

name.[12] Unlike the other schools of philosophy, such as

the Epicureans, Zeno chose to teach his philosophy in a public

space, which was acolonnade overlooking the central gathering

place of Athens, the Agora.

Zeno's ideas developed from those of the Cynics, whose founding

father, Antisthenes, had been a disciple of Socrates. Zeno's most influential follower was Chrysippus,

who was responsible for the molding of what is now called Stoicism. Later Roman Stoics focused on

promoting a life in harmony within the universe, over which one has no direct control.

Scholars usually divide the history of Stoicism into three phases:

Early Stoa, from the founding of the school by Zeno to Antipater.

Middle Stoa, including Panaetius and Posidonius.

Late Stoa, including Musonius Rufus, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius.

As A. A. Long states, no complete work by any Stoic philosopher survives from the first two phases of

Stoicism. Only Roman texts from the Late Stoa survive.

Stoic logic

Propositional logic

Diodorus Cronus, who was one of Zeno's teachers, is considered the philosopher who first introduced

and developed an approach to logic now known as propositional logic. This is an approach to logic

based on statements or propositions, rather than terms, making it very different from Aristotle's term

logic. Later, Chrysippus developed this approach to logic into a system that became known as Stoic

logic and included a deductive system (Stoic Syllogistic) which was considered a rival to Aristotle's

Syllogistic. New interest in Stoic logic came in the 20th century, when important developments in logic

were based on propositional logic. Susanne Bobzien wrote, "The many close similarities between

Chrysippus' philosophical logic and that of Gottlob Frege are especially striking."

Bobzien also notes that "Chrysippus wrote over 300 books on logic, on virtually any topic logic today

concerns itself with, includingspeech act theory, sentence analysis, singular and plural expressions,

types of predicates, indexicals, existential propositions,sentential

connectives, negations, disjunctions, conditionals, logical consequence, valid argument forms, theory of

deduction,propositional logic, modal logic, tense logic, epistemic logic, logic of suppositions, logic of

imperatives, ambiguity and logicalparadoxes."[15]

Stoic Categories

The Stoics held that all being (ὄντα) -- though not all things (τινά) -- is corporeal. They accepted the

distinction between concrete bodies and abstract ones, but rejected Aristotle's belief that

purely incorporeal being exists. Thus, they accepted Anaxagoras' idea (as did Aristotle) that if an object

is hot, it is because some part of a universal heat body had entered the object. But, unlike Aristotle,

they extended the idea to cover all accidents. Thus if an object is red, it would be because some part of

a universal red body had entered the object.

They held that there were four Categories.

substance (ὑποκείμενον)

The primary matter, formless substance, (ousia) that things are made of

quality (ποιόν)

The way matter is organized to form an individual object; in Stoic physics, a physical ingredient

(pneuma: air or breath), which informs the matter

somehow disposed (πως ἔχον)

Particular characteristics, not present within the object, such as size, shape, action, and posture

Somehow disposed in relation to something (πρός τί πως ἔχον)

Characteristics related to other phenomena, such as the position of an object within time and

space relative to other objects

Epistemology

The Stoics believed that knowledge can be attained through the use

of reason. Truth can be distinguished from fallacy; even if, in practice, only an

approximation can be made. According to the Stoics, the senses constantly receive

sensations: pulsations that pass from objects through the senses to the mind, where

they leave an impression in the imagination (phantasia). (An impression arising from

the mind was called a phantasma.)]

The mind has the ability to judge (sunkatathesis)—approve or reject—an impression,

enabling it to distinguish a true representation ofreality from one that is false. Some

impressions can be assented to immediately, but others can only achieve varying

degrees of hesitant approval, which can be labeled belief or opinion (doxa). It is only

through reason that we achieve clear comprehension and conviction

(katalepsis). Certain and true knowledge (episteme), achievable by the Stoic sage, can

be attained only by verifying the conviction with the expertise of one's peers and the

collective judgment of humankind.

Make for yourself a definition or description of the thing which is presented to you, so as

to see distinctly what kind of a thing it is in its substance, in its nudity, in its complete

entirety, and tell yourself its proper name, and the names of the things of which it has

been compounded, and into which it will be resolved. For nothing is so productive of

elevation of mind as to be able to examine methodically and truly every object that is

presented to you in life, and always to look at things so as to see at the same time what

kind of universe this is, and what kind of use everything performs in it, and what value

everything has with reference to the whole.

—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, iii. 11.

Stoic physics and cosmology

Main article: Stoic physics

According to the Stoics, the universe is a material, reasoning substance, known

as God or Nature, which the Stoics divided into two classes, the active and the passive.

The passive substance is matter, which "lies sluggish, a substance ready for any use,

but sure to remain unemployed if no one sets it in motion." The active substance, which

can be called Fate, or Universal Reason (Logos), is an intelligent aether or primordial

fire, which acts on the passive matter:

The universe itself is god and the universal outpouring of its soul; it is this same world's

guiding principle, operating in mind and reason, together with the common nature of

things and the totality that embraces all existence; then the foreordained might and

necessity of the future; then fire and the principle of aether; then those elements whose

natural state is one of flux and transition, such as water, earth, and air; then the sun,

the moon, the stars; and the universal existence in which all things are contained.

—Chrysippus, in Cicero, de Natura Deorum, i.

Everything is subject to the laws of Fate, for the Universe acts only according to its own

nature, and the nature of the passive matter it governs.

The souls of people and animals are emanations from this primordial fire, and are,

likewise, subject to Fate:

Constantly regard the universe as one living being, having one substance and one soul;

and observe how all things have reference to one perception, the perception of this one

living being; and how all things act with one movement; and how all things are the

cooperating causes of all things that exist; observe too the continuous spinning of the

thread and the structure of the web.

—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, iv. 40.

Individual souls are perishable by nature, and can be "transmuted and diffused,

assuming a fiery nature by being received into the Seminal Reason (logos spermatikos)

of the Universe." Since right Reason is the foundation of both humanity and the

universe, it follows that the goal of life is to live according to Reason, that is, to live a life

according to Nature.

Stoic ethics and virtues

The ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to

different concepts in the past than they do today. The word 'stoic' has come to mean

'unemotional' or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from 'passion'

by following 'reason.' The Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions; rather, they

sought to transform them by a resolute 'askēsis' that enables a person to develop clear

judgment and inner calm. Logic, reflection, and concentration were the methods of such

self-discipline.

Borrowing from the Cynics, the foundation of Stoic ethics is that good lies in the state of

the soul itself; in wisdom and self-control. Stoic ethics stressed the rule: "Follow where

reason leads." One must therefore strive to be free of the passions, bearing in mind that

the ancient meaning of 'passion' was "anguish" or "suffering", that is, "passively"

reacting to external events—somewhat different from the modern use of the word. A

distinction was made between pathos (plural pathe) which is normally translated

as passion,propathos or instinctive reaction (e.g., turning pale and trembling when

confronted by physical danger) and eupathos, which is the mark of the Stoic sage

(sophos). The eupatheia are feelings that result from correct judgment in the same way

as passions result from incorrect judgment.

The idea was to be free of suffering through apatheia (Greek: ἀπάθεια) or peace of

mind (literally, 'without passion'), where peace of mind was understood in the ancient

sense—being objective or having "clear judgment" and the maintenance

of equanimity in the face of life's highs and lows.

For the Stoics, 'reason' meant not only using logic, but also understanding the

processes of nature—the logos, or universal reason, inherent in all things. Living

according to reason and virtue, they held, is to live in harmony with the divine order of

the universe, in recognition of the common reason and essential value of all people.

The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy

are wisdom(Sophia), courage (Andreia), justice (Dikaiosyne),

and temperance (Sophrosyne), a classification derived from the teachings of Plato.

Following Socrates, the Stoics held that unhappiness and evil are the results of human

ignorance of the reason in nature. If someone is unkind, it is because they are unaware

of their own universal reason, which leads to the conclusion of kindness. The solution to

evil and unhappiness then, is the practice of Stoic philosophy—to examine one's own

judgments and behavior and determine where they diverge from the universal reason of

nature.

The Stoics accepted that suicide was permissible for the wise person in circumstances

that might prevent them from living a virtuous life. Plutarch held that accepting life under

tyranny would have compromised Cato's self-consistency (constantia) as a Stoic and

impaired his freedom to make the honorable moral choices. Suicide could be justified if

one fell victim to severe pain or disease, but otherwise suicide would usually be seen

as a rejection of one's social duty.

The doctrine of "things indifferent"

In philosophical terms, things that are indifferent are outside the application of moral

law, that is without tendency to either promote or obstruct moral ends. Actions neither

required nor forbidden by the moral law, or that do not affect morality, are called morally

indifferent. The doctrine of things indifferent (ἀδιάφορα, adiaphora) arose in the Stoic

school as a corollary of its diametric opposition of virtue and vice

(καθήκοντα kathekon and ἁμαρτήματα hamartemata, respectively "convenient actions,"

or actions in accordance with nature, and mistakes). As a result of this dichotomy, a

large class of objects were left unassigned and thus regarded as indifferent.

Eventually three sub-classes of "things indifferent" developed: things to prefer because

they assist life according to nature; things to avoid because they hinder it; and things

indifferent in the narrower sense.

The principle of adiaphora was also common to the Cynics and Sceptics. The

conception of things indifferent is, according to Kant, extra-moral.The doctrine of things

indifferent was revived during the Renaissance by Philip Melanchthon.

Spiritual exercise

Marcus Aurelius, the Stoic emperor

Philosophy for a Stoic is not just a

set of beliefs or ethical claims, it is

a way of life involving constant

practice and training (or askesis,

see asceticism). Stoic philosophical

and spiritual practices included

logic, Socratic dialog and self-

dialog, contemplation of death, training attention to remain in the present moment

(similar to some forms of Eastern meditation), daily reflection on everyday problems

and possible solutions, hypomnemata, and so on. Philosophy for a Stoic is an active

process of constant practice and self-reminder.

In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius defines several such practices. For example, in

Book II, part 1:

Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous,

envious, uncharitable men. All of these things have come upon them through ignorance

of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me

in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him; for we have come into the

world to work together...

Prior to Aurelius, Epictetus in his Discourses distinguished between three topoi:

judgment, desire and inclination. According to French philosopher Pierre Hadot,

Epictetus identifies these three acts with logic, physics and ethics respectively. Hadot

writes that in the Meditations "Each maxim develops either one of these very

characteristic topoi, or two of them or three of them."

The practices of spiritual exercises have been described as influencing those

of reflective practice by Seamus Mac Suibhne . Parallels between Stoic spiritual

exercises and modern cognitive-behavioral therapy have been detailed at length in

Robertson's The Philosophy of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy.

Social philosophy

A distinctive feature of Stoicism is its cosmopolitanism: All people are manifestations of

the one universal spirit and should, according to the Stoics, live in brotherly love and

readily help one another. In the Discourses, Epictetus comments on man's relationship

with the world: "Each human being is primarily a citizen of his own commonwealth; but

he is also a member of the great city of gods and men, where of the city political is only

a copy." This sentiment echoes that of Diogenes of Sinope, who said "I am not

an Athenian or aCorinthian, but a citizen of the world."

They held that external differences such as rank and wealth are of no importance in

social relationships. Instead they advocated the brotherhood of humanity and the

natural equality of all human beings. Stoicism became the most influential school of the

Greco–Roman world, and produced a number of remarkable writers and personalities,

such as Cato the Younger and Epictetus.

In particular, they were noted for their urging of clemency toward slaves. Seneca

exhorted, "Kindly remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same

stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with yourself breathes,

lives, and dies."

Stoicism and Christianity

See also: Neostoicism

The major difference between the two philosophies is Stoicism's pantheism where God

is never fully transcendent but always immanent. God as the world-creating entity is

personalized in Christian thought, but Stoicism equates God with the totality of the

universe; the Stoic idea that all being is corporeal was deeply contrary to Christianity.

Also, Stoicism, unlike Christianity, does not posit a beginning or end to the universe,

nor does it assert that the individual continues to exist beyond death.

Stoicism was later regarded by the Fathers of the Church as a 'pagan

philosophy', nonetheless, some of the central philosophical concepts of Stoicism were

employed by the early Christian writers. Examples include the terms "logos", "virtue",

"Spirit", and "conscience". But the parallels go well beyond the sharing (or borrowing) of

terminology. Both Stoicism and Christianity assert an inner freedom in the face of the

external world, a belief in human kinship with Nature (or God), and a sense of the

innate depravity—or "persistent evil"—of humankind as well as the futility and

temporarity of worldly possessions and attachments. Both encourageAscesis with

respect to the passions and inferior emotions (viz. lust, envy and anger) so that the

higher possibilities of one's humanity can be awakened and developed.

Stoic writings such as the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius have been highly regarded by

many Christians throughout the centuries. The Stoic ideal of dispassion is accepted to

this day as the perfect moral state by the Eastern Orthodox. St. Ambrose of Milan was

known for applying Stoic philosophy to his theology.

Modern usage

The word "stoic" commonly refers to someone indifferent to pain, pleasure, grief, or joy.

The modern usage as "person who represses feelings or endures patiently" was first

cited in 1579 as a noun, and 1596 as an adjective.[34] In contrast to the term

"epicurean", theStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Stoicism notes, "the

sense of the English adjective 'stoical' is not utterly misleading with regard to its

philosophical origins."

Stoic quotations

Below are some quotations from major Stoic philosophers, selected to illustrate

common Stoic beliefs:

Epictetus:

"Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of men's desires, but by the removal of

desire." (iv.1.175)

"Where is the good? In the will. Where is the evil? In the will. Where is neither of

them? In those things that are independent of the will." (ii.16.1)

"Man is disturbed not by things, but by the views he takes of them." (Ench. 5)

"If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of

himself alone." (iii.24.2)

"I am formed by nature for my own good: I am not formed for my own evil."

(iii.24.83)

"Permit nothing to cleave to you that is not your own; nothing to grow to you that

may give you agony when it is torn away." (iv.1.112)

Marcus Aurelius:

"Get rid of the judgment, get rid of the 'I am hurt,' you are rid of the hurt itself."

(viii.40)

"Everything is right for me that is right for you, O Universe. Nothing for me is too

early or too late that comes in due time for you. Everything is fruit to me that your

seasons bring, O Nature. From you are all things, in you are all things, to you all

things return." (iv.23)

"If you work at that which is before you, following right reason seriously, vigorously,

calmly, without allowing anything else to distract you, but keeping your divine part

pure, as if you were bound to give it back immediately; if you hold to this, expecting

nothing, but satisfied to live now according to nature, speaking heroic truth in every

word that you utter, you will live happy. And there is no man able to prevent this."

(iii.12)

"How ridiculous and how strange to be surprised at anything that happens in life!"

(xii.13)

"Outward things cannot touch the soul, not in the least degree; nor have they

admission to the soul, nor can they turn or move the soul; but the soul turns and

moves itself alone." (v 19)

"Because your own strength is unequal to the task, do not assume that it is beyond

the powers of man; but if anything is within the powers and province of man, believe

that it is within your own compass also" (vi.19)

"Or is it your reputation that's bothering you? But look at how soon we're all

forgotten. The abyss of endless time that swallows it all. The emptiness of those

applauding hands." (iv.3)

Seneca the Younger:

"The point is, not how long you live, but how nobly you live." (Ep. 101.15)

"That which Fortune has not given, she cannot take away." (Ep. 59.18)

"Let Nature deal with matter, which is her own, as she pleases; let us be cheerful

and brave in the face of everything, reflecting that it is nothing of our own that

perishes." (De Provid. v.8)

"Virtue is nothing else than right reason." (Ep. 66.32)

Stoic philosophers

List of Stoic philosophers

Zeno of Citium  (332–262 BC), founder of Stoicism and the Stoic Academy (Stoa) in

Athens

Aristo of Chios , pupil of Zeno;

Herillus of Carthage

Cleanthes (of Assos)  (330–232 BC), second head of Stoic Academy

Chrysippus  (280–204 BC), third head of the academy

Diogenes of Babylon  (230–150 BC)

Antipater of Tarsus  (210–129 BC)

Panaetius of Rhodes  (185–109 BC)

Posidonius  of Apameia (c. 135 BC – 51 BC)

Diodotus  (c. 120 BC – 59 BC), teacher of Cicero

Cato the Younger  (94–46 BC)

Seneca  (4 BC – 65 AD)

Musonius Rufus

Rubellius Plautus

Thrasea Paetus

Epictetus  (55–135 AD)

Hierocles  (2nd century AD)

Marcus Aurelius  (121–180 AD)

Epicureanism"Epicurean" redirects here. For other uses, see Epicurean (disambiguation).

Epicurus

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings

of Epicurus, founded around 307 BCE. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps

of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention.

FollowingAristippus—about whom very little is known—Epicurus believed that pleasure is the greatest

good. But the way to attain pleasure was to live modestly and to gain knowledge of the workings of the

world and the limits of one's desires. This led one to attain a state of tranquility (ataraxia) and freedom

from fear, as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia). The combination of these two states is supposed

to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, insofar as it

declares pleasure to be the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest

pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life make it different from "hedonism" as it is commonly

understood.

Epicureanism was originally a challenge to Platonism, though later it became the main opponent

of Stoicism. Epicurus and his followers shunned politics. After the death of Epicurus, his school was

headed by Hermarchus; later many Epicurean societies flourished in the Late Hellenistic era and during

the Roman era (such as those in Antiochia, Alexandria,Rhodes, and Ercolano). The poet Lucretius is its

most well-known Roman proponent. By the end of the Roman Empire, having undergone Christian

attack and repression, Epicureanism had all but died out, and would be resurrected in the 17th century

by the atomist Pierre Gassendi, who adapted it to the Christian doctrine.

Some writings by Epicurus have survived. Some scholars consider the epic poem On the Nature of

Things by Lucretius to present in one unified work the core arguments and theories of Epicureanism.

Many of the papyrus scrolls unearthed at the Villa of the Papyri atHerculaneum are Epicurean texts. At

least some are thought to have belonged to the Epicurean Philodemus.

History

The school of Epicurus, called "The Garden," was based in Epicurus' home and garden. It had a small

but devoted following in his lifetime. Its members

included Hermarchus, Idomeneus, Colotes, Polyaenus, and Metrodorus. Epicurus emphasized

friendship as an important ingredient of happiness, and the school seems to have been a moderately

ascetic community which rejected the political limelight of Athenian philosophy. They were fairly

cosmopolitan by Athenian standards, including women and slaves, and were

probablyvegetarians (Stevenson 2005).

The school's popularity grew and it became, along with Stoicism and Skepticism, one of the three

dominant schools of Hellenistic Philosophy, lasting strongly through the later Roman Empire. Another

major source of information is the Roman politician and philosopher Cicero, although he was highly

critical, denouncing the Epicureans as unbridled hedonists, devoid of a sense of virtue and duty, and

guilty of withdrawing from public life. Another ancient source is Diogenes of Oenoanda, who composed

a large inscription atOenoanda in Lycia.

A library in the Villa of the Papyri, in Herculaneum, was presumably owned by Julius Caesar's father-in-

law, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus. The scrolls which the library consisted of were preserved

albeit in carbonized form by the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD. Several of these Herculaneum

papyri which are unrolled and deciphered were found to contain a large number of works

by Philodemus, a late Hellenistic Epicurean, and Epicurus himself, attesting to the school's enduring

popularity. The task of unrolling and deciphering the over 1800 charred papyrus scrolls continues

today.

After the official approval of Christianity by Constantine the Great, Epicureanism was repressed.

Epicurus' materialist theories that the gods were physical beings composed of atoms who were

unconcerned with human affairs and had not created the universe, and his general teaching that one's

own pleasure, rather than service to God, was the greatest good were essentially irreconcilable with

Christian teachings. The school endured a long period of obscurity and decline.

The early Christian writer Lactantius criticizes Epicurus at several points throughout his Divine

Institutes. In Dante's Divine Comedy, the Epicureans are depicted as heretics suffering in the sixth

circle of hell. In fact, Epicurus is the first heretic seen, and he appears to represent the ultimate heresy.

The word for a heretic in the Talmudic literature is "Apiqoros" ,(אפיקורוס) and Epicurus is titled in

Modern Greek idiom as the "Dark Philosopher".

By the 16th century, the works of Diogenes Laertius were being printed in Europe. In the 17th century

the French Franciscan priest, scientist and philosopher Pierre Gassendi wrote two books forcefully

reviving Epicureanism. Shortly thereafter, and clearly influenced by Gassendi, Walter

Charleton published several works on Epicureanism in English. Attacks by Christians continued, most

forcefully by the Cambridge Platonists.

In the Modern Age, scientists adopted atomist theories, while materialist philosophers embraced

Epicurus' hedonist ethics and restated his objections to natural teleology.

Religion

Epicureanism emphasizes the neutrality of the gods, that they do not interfere with human lives. It

states that gods, matter, and souls are all made up of atoms. Souls are made from atoms, and gods

possess souls, but their souls adhere to their bodies without escaping. Humans have the same kind of

souls, but the forces binding human atoms together do not hold the soul forever. The Epicureans also

used the atomist theories of Democritus and Leucippus to assert that man has free will. They held that

all thoughts are merely atoms swerving randomly. This explanation served to satisfy people who

wondered anxiously about their role in the universe.

The Riddle of Epicurus, or Problem of evil, is a famous argument against the existence of an all-

powerful and providential God or gods. As recorded by Lactantius:

God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to

nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak - and this does not apply

to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful - which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he

neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which

is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate

them?

—[1]

This type of trilemma argument (God is omnipotent, God is good, but Evil exists) was one favoured by

the ancient Greek skeptics, and this argument may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by

Lactantius, who, from his Christian perspective, regarded Epicurus as an atheist. According to Reinhold

F. Glei, it is settled that the argument of theodicy is from an academical source which is not only not

epicurean, but even anti-epicurean. The earliest extant version of this trilemma appears in the writings

of the skeptic Sextus Empiricus.

Epicurus' view was that there were gods, but that they were neither willing nor able to prevent evil. This

was not because they were malevolent, but because they lived in a perfect state of ataraxia, a state

everyone should strive to emulate; it is not the gods who are upset by evils, but people. Epicurus

conceived the gods as blissful and immortal yet material beings made of atoms inhabiting

themetakosmia: empty spaces between worlds in the vastness of infinite space. In spite of his

recognition of the gods, the practical effect of this materialistic explanation of the gods' existence and

their complete non-intervention in human affairs renders his philosophy akin in divine effects to the

attitude of Deism.

In Dante's Divine Comedy, the flaming tombs of the Epicureans are located within the sixth circle of hell

(Inferno, Canto X). They are the first heretics seen and appear to represent the ultimate, if not

quintessential, heresy. Similarly, according to Jewish Mishnah, Epicureans (apiqorsim, people who

share the beliefs of the movement) are among the people who do not have a share of the "World-to-

Come" (afterlife or the world of the Messianic era).

Parallels may be drawn to Buddhism, which similarly emphasizes a lack of divine interference and

aspects of its atomism. Buddhism also resembles Epicureanism in its temperateness, including the

belief that great excesses leads to great dissatisfaction.

Philosophy

The philosophy originated by Epicurus flourished for seven centuries. It propounded an ethic of

individual pleasure as the sole or chief good in life. Hence, Epicurus advocated living in such a way as

to derive the greatest amount of pleasure possible during one's lifetime, yet doing so moderately in

order to avoid the suffering incurred by overindulgence in such pleasure. The emphasis was placed on

pleasures of the mind rather than on physical pleasures. Therefore, according to Epicurus, with whom a

person eats is of greater importance than what is eaten. Unnecessary and, especially, artificially

produced desires were to be suppressed. Since learning,culture, and civilization as well as social and

political involvements could give rise to desires that are difficult to satisfy and thus result in disturbing

one's peace of mind, they were discouraged. Knowledge was sought only to rid oneself of religious

fears and superstitions, the two primary fears to be eliminated being fear of the gods and of death.

Viewing marriage and what attends it as a threat to one's peace of mind, Epicurus lived a celibate life

but did not impose this restriction on his followers.

The philosophy was characterized by an absence of divine principle. Lawbreaking was counseled

against because of both the shame associated with detection and the punishment it might bring. Living

in fear of being found out or punished would take away from pleasure, and this made even secret

wrongdoing inadvisable. To the Epicureans, virtue in itself had no value and was beneficial only when it

served as a means to gain happiness. Reciprocity was recommended, not because it was divinely

ordered or innately noble, but because it was personally beneficial. Friendships rested on the same

mutual basis, that is, the pleasure resulting to the possessors. Epicurus laid great emphasis on

developing friendships as the basis of a satisfying life.

of all the things which wisdom has contrived which contribute to a blessed life, none is more important,

more fruitful, than friendship

—quoted by Cicero, 

While the pursuit of pleasure formed the focal point of the philosophy, this was largely directed to the

"static pleasures" of minimizing pain, anxiety and suffering. In fact Epicurus referred to life as a "bitter

gift".

When we say...that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the

pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice or wilful

misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is

not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of

fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning,

searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which

the greatest tumults take possession of the soul.

—[7]

The Epicureans believed in the existence of the gods, but believed that the gods were made of atoms

just like everything else. It was thought that the gods were too far away from the earth to have any

interest in what man was doing; so it did not do any good to pray or to sacrifice to them. The gods, they

believed, did not create the universe, nor did they inflict punishment or bestow blessings on anyone, but

they were supremely happy; this was the goal to strive for during one's own human life.

"Live unknown was one of [key] maxims. This was completely at odds with all previous ideas of seeking

fame and glory, or even wanting something so apparently decent as honor."

Epicureanism rejects immortality and mysticism; it believes in the soul, but suggests that the soul is as

mortal as the body. Epicurus rejected any possibility of an afterlife, while still contending that one need

not fear death: "Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved, is without sensation, and that which

lacks sensation is nothing to us."

Ethics

Epicurus was an early thinker to develop the notion of justice as a social contract. He defined justice as

an agreement "neither to harm nor be harmed." The point of living in a society with laws and

punishments is to be protected from harm so that one is free to pursue happiness. Because of this,

laws that do not contribute to promoting human happiness are not just. He gave his own unique version

of the Ethic of Reciprocity, which differs from other formulations by emphasizing minimizing harm and

maximizing happiness for oneself and others:

It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing "neither to harm

nor be harmed",

and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life.[11]

Epicureanism incorporated a relatively full account of the social contract theory, following after a vague

description of such a society inPlato's Republic. The social contract theory established by Epicureanism

is based on mutual agreement, not divine decree.

Epicurean physics

Epicurus' philosophy of the physical world is found in his Letter to Herodotus: Diogenes Laertius 10.34-

83.

If a limited form lives within an unlimited void, the form could only wander aimlessly about, because

what is unlimited is ungraspable; meaning, the limited form would travel forever, for it does not have

any obstacles. The void would have to be limited in quality and the form of an unlimited quality, for an

unlimited form can oscillate and seemingly grasp—practically, but not literally—an unlimited number of

spots within the limited void. So therefore all living things on Earth are unlimited, and the Earth on

which they live and the universe around it, is limited.

Forms can change, but not their inherent qualities, for change can only affect their shape. Some things

can be changed and some things cannot be changed because forms that are unchangeable cannot be

destroyed if certain attributes can be removed; for attributes not only have the intention of altering an

unchangeable form, but also the inevitable possibility of becoming—in relation to the form's disposition

to its present environment—both an armor and a vulnerability to its stability.

Further proof that there are unchangeable forms and their inability to be destroyed, is the concept of the

"non-evident." A form cannot come into being from the void—which is nothing; it would be as if all forms

come into being spontaneously, needless of reproduction. The implied meaning of "destroying"

something is to undo its existence, to make it not there anymore, and this cannot be so: if the void is

that which does not exist, and if this void is the implied destination of the destroyed, then the thing in

reality cannot be destroyed, for the thing (and all things) could not have existed in the first place (as

Lucretius said, ex nihilo nihil fit: nothing comes from nothing). This totality of forms is eternal and

unchangeable.

Atoms move, in the appropriate way, constantly and for all time. Forms first come to us in images or

"projections"--outlines of their true selves. For an image to be perceived by the human eye, the "atoms"

of the image must cross a great distance at enormous speed and must not encounter any conflicting

atoms along the way. The presence of atomic resistance equal atomic slowness; whereas, if the path is

deficient of atomic resistance, the traversal rate is much faster (and clearer). Because of resistance,

forms must be unlimited (unchangeable and able to grasp any point within the void) because, if they

weren't, a form's image would not come from a single place, but fragmented and from several places.

This confirms that a single form cannot be at multiple places at the same time.

And the senses warrant us other means of perception: hearing and smelling. As in the same way an

image traverses through the air, the atoms of sound and smell traverse the same way. This perceptive

experience is itself the flow of the moving atoms; and like the changeable and unchangeable forms, the

form from which the flow traverses is shed and shattered into even smaller atoms, atoms of which still

represent the original form, but they are slightly disconnected and of diverse magnitudes. This flow, like

that of an echo, reverberates (off one's senses) and goes back to its start; meaning, one's sensory

perception happens in the coming, going, or arch, of the flow; and when the flow retreats back to its

starting position, the atomic image is back together again: thus when one smells something one has the

ability to see it too [because atoms reach the one who smells or sees from the object.]

And this leads to the question of how atomic speed and motion works. Epicurus says that there are two

kinds of motion: the straight motion and the curved motion, and its motion traverse as fast as the speed

of thought.

Epicurus proposed the idea of 'the space between worlds' (metakosmia) the relatively empty spaces in

the infinite void where worlds had not been formed by the joining together of the atoms through their

endless motion.

Epistemology

Epicurean epistemology has three criteria of truth: sensations (aisthêsis), preconceptions (prolepsis),

and feelings (pathê). Prolepsis is sometimes translated as "basic grasp" but could also be described as

"universal ideas": concepts that are understood by all. An example of prolepsis is the word "man"

because every person has a preconceived notion of what a man is. Sensations or sense perception is

knowledge that is received from the senses alone. Much like modern science, epicurean philosophy

posits thatempiricism can be used to sort truth from falsehood. Feelings are more related to ethics than

Epicurean physical theory. Feelings merely tell the individual what brings about pleasure and what

brings about pain. This is important for the Epicurean because these are the basis for the entire

Epicurean ethical doctrine.

According to Epicurus, the basic means for our understanding of things are the 'sensations'

(aestheses), 'concepts' (prolepsis), 'emotions' (pathe) and the 'focusing of thought into an impression'

(phantastikes epiboles tes dianoias).

Epicureans reject dialectic as confusing (parelkousa) because for the physical philosophers it is

sufficient to use the correct words which refer to the concepts of the world. Epicurus then, in his

work On the Canon, says that the criteria of truth are the senses, the preconceptions and the feelings.

Epicureans add to these the focusing of thought into an impression. He himself is referring to those in

his Epitome to Herodotus and in Principal Doctrines.

The senses are the first criterion of truth, since they create the first impressions and testify the

existence of the external world. Sensory input is neither subjective nor deceitful, but the

misunderstanding comes when the mind adds to or subtracts something from these impressions

through our preconceived notions. Therefore, our sensory input alone cannot lead us to inaccuracy,

only the concepts and opinions that come from our interpretations of our sensory input can. Therefore

our sensory data is the only truly accurate thing which we have to rely for our understanding of the

world around us.

And whatever image we receive by direct understanding by our mind or through our sensory organs of

the shape or the essential properties that are the true form of the solid object, since it is created by the

constant repetition of the image or the impression it has left behind. There is always inaccuracy and

error involved in bringing into a judgment an element that is additional to sensory impressions, either to

confirm [what we sensed] or deny it.

—[13]

Epicurus said that all the tangible things are real and each impression comes from existing objects and

is determined by the object that causes the sensations.

—[14]

Therefore all the impressions are real, while the preconceived notions are not real and can be modified.

If you battle with all your sensations, you will be unable to form a standard for judging which of them are

incorrect.

—[15]

The concepts are the categories which have formed mentally according to our sensory input, for

example the concepts "man", "warm", and "sweet", etc. These concepts are directly related to memory

and can be recalled at any time, only by the use of the respective word. (Compare

the anthropological Sapir–Whorf hypothesis). Epicurus also calls them "the meanings that underlie the

words" (hypotetagmena tois phthongois: semantic substance of the words) in his letter to Herodotus.

The feelings or emotions (pathe) are related to the senses and the concepts. They are the inner

impulses that make us feel like or dislike about certain external objects, which we perceive through the

senses, and are associated with the preconceptions that are recalled.

In this moment that the word "man" is spoken, immediately due to the concept [or category of the idea]

an image is projected in the mind which is related to the sensory input data.

—[16]

First of all Herodotus, we must understand the meanings that underlie the words, so that by referring to

them, we may be able to reach judgments about our opinions, matters of inquiry, or problems and leave

everything undecided as we can argue endlessly or use words that have no clearly defined meaning.

—[17]

Apart from these there is the assumption (hypolepsis), which is either the hypothesis or the opinion

about something (matter or action), and which can be correct or incorrect. The assumptions are created

by our sensations, concepts and emotions. Since they are produced automatically without any rational

analysis and verification (see the modern idea of the subconscious) of whether they are correct or not,

they need to be confirmed (epimarteresis: confirmation), a process which must follow each assumption.

For beliefs they [the Epicureans] use the word hypolepsis which they claim can be correct or incorrect.

—[18]

Referring to the "focusing of thought into an impression" or else "intuitive understandings of the mind",

they are the impressions made on the mind that come from our sensations, concepts and emotions and

form the basis of our assumptions and beliefs. All this unity (sensation – concept or category – emotion

– focusing of thought into an impression) leads to the formation of a certain assumption or belief

(hypolepsis). (Compare the modern anthropological concept of a "world view".) Following the lead

of Aristotle, Epicurus also refers to impressions in the form of mental images which are projected on the

mind. The "correct use of impressions" was something adopted later by the Stoics.

Our assumptions and beliefs have to be 'confirmed', which actually proves if our opinions are either

accurate or inaccurate. This verification and confirmation (epimarteresis) can only be done by means of

the "evident reason" (henargeia), which means what is self-evident and obvious through our sensory

input.

An example is when we see somebody approaching us, first through the sense of eyesight, we

perceive that an object is coming closer to us, then through our preconceptions we understand that it is

a human being, afterwards through that assumption we can recognize that he is someone we know, for

example Theaetetus. This assumption is associated with pleasant or unpleasant emotions

accompanied by the respective mental images and impressions (the focusing of our thoughts into an

impression), which are related to our feelings toward each other. When he gets close to us, we can

confirm (verify) that he is Socrates and not Theaetetus through the proof of our eyesight. Therefore, we

have to use the same method to understand everything, even things which are not observable and

obvious (adela, imperceptible), that is to say the confirmation through the evident reason (henargeia).

In the same way we have to reduce (reductionism) each assumption and belief to something that can

be proved through the self-evident reason (empirically verified).Verification

theory and reductionism have been adopted, as we know, by the modern philosophy of science. In this

way, one can get rid of the incorrect assumptions and beliefs (biases) and finally settle on the real

(confirmed) facts.

Consequently the confirmation and lack of disagreement is the criterion of accuracy of something, while

non-confirmation and disagreement is the criterion of its inaccuracy. The basis and foundation of

[understanding] everything are the obvious and self-evident [facts].

—[19]

All the above mentioned criteria of knowledge form the basic principles of the [scientific] method, that

Epicurus followed in order to find the truth. He described this method in his work On the Canon or On

the Criteria.

If you reject any sensation and you do not distinguish between the opinion based on what awaits

confirmation and evidence already available based on the senses, the feelings and every intuitive

faculty of the mind, you will send the remaining sensations into a turmoil with your foolish opinions, thus

getting rid of every standard for judging. And if among the perceptions based on beliefs are things that

are verified and things that are not, you are guaranteed to be in error since you have kept everything

that leads to uncertainty concerning the correct and incorrect.

—[20]

(Based on excerpt from Epicurus' Gnoseology 'Handbook of Greek Philosophy: From Thales to the

Stoics Analysis and Fragments', Nikolaos Bakalis, Trafford Publishing 2005, ISBN 1-4120-4843-5)

Tetrapharmakos

Tetrapharmakos

Tetrapharmakos, or "The four-part cure", is Epicurus' basic guideline as to how to live the happiest

possible life. This poetic doctrine was handed down by an anonymous Epicurean who summed up

Epicurus' philosophy on happiness in four simple lines:

Don't fear god,

Don't worry about death;

What is good is easy to get, and

What is terrible is easy to endure.

—Philodemus, Herculaneum Papyrus, 1005, 4.9-14

Philosophical analysisPhilosophical analysis (from Greek: Φιλοσοφική ανάλυση) is a general term for techniques typically

used by philosophers in theanalytic tradition that involve "breaking down" (i.e. analyzing) philosophical

issues. Arguably the most prominent of these techniques is the analysis of concepts (known

as conceptual analysis). This article will examine the major philosophical techniques associated with

the notion of analysis, as well as examine the controversies surrounding it.

Method of analysis

While analysis is characteristic of the analytic tradition in philosophy, what is to be analyzed

(the analysandum) often varies. Some philosophers focus on analyzing linguistic phenomena, such

as sentences, while others focus on psychological phenomena, such assense-data. However, arguably

the most prominent analyses are of concepts or propositions, which is known as conceptual

analysis(Foley 1996).

Conceptual analysis consists primarily in breaking down or analyzing concepts into their constituent

parts in order to gain knowledge or a better understanding of a particular philosophical issue in which

the concept is involved (Beaney 2003). For example, the problem of free will in philosophy involves

various key concepts, including the concepts of freedom, moral responsibility, determinism, ability, etc.

The method of conceptual analysis tends to approach such a problem by breaking down the key

concepts pertaining to the problem and seeing how they interact. Thus, in the long-standing debate on

whether free will is compatible with the doctrine of determinism, several philosophers have proposed

analyses of the relevant concepts to argue for either compatibilism or incompatibilism.

A famous example of conceptual analysis at its best is Bertrand Russell's theory of descriptions.

Russell attempted to analyze propositions that involved definite descriptions (such as "The tallest spy"),

which pick out a unique individual, and indefinite descriptions(such as "a spy"), which pick out a set of

individuals. Take Russell's analysis of definite descriptions as an example. [1] Superficially, definite

descriptions have the standard subject-predicate form of a proposition. For example, "The present king

of France is bald" appears to be predicating "baldness" of the subject "the present king of France".

However, Russell noted that this is problematic, because there is no present king of France (France

is no longer a monarchy). Normally, to decide whether a proposition of the standard subject-predicate

form is true or false, one checks whether the subject is in the extension of the predicate. The

proposition is then true if and only if the subject is in the extension of the predicate. The problem is that

there is no present king of France, so the present king of France cannot be found on the list of bald

things or non-bald things. So, it would appear that the proposition expressed by "The present king of

France is bald" is neither true nor false. However, analyzing the relevant concepts and propositions,

Russell proposed that what definite descriptions really express are not propositions of the subject-

predicate form, but rather they express existentially quantified propositions. Thus, "The present king of

France" is analyzed, according to Russell's theory of descriptions, as "There exists an individual who is

currently the king of France, there is only one such individual, and that individual is bald." Now one can

determine the truth-value of the proposition. Indeed, it is false, because it is not the case that there

exists a unique individual who is currently the king of France and is bald—since there is no present king

of France (Bertolet 1999).

Controversy

While the method of analysis is characteristic of contemporary analytic philosophy, its status continues

to be a source of great controversy even among analytic philosophers. Several current criticisms of the

analytic method derive from W.V. Quine's famous rejection of the analytic/synthetic distinction. While

Quine's critique is well-known, it is highly controversial.

Further, the analytic method seems to rely on some sort of definitional structure of concepts, so that

one can give necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of the concept. For example, the

concept "bachelor" is often analyzed as having the concepts "unmarried" and "male" as its

components. Thus, the definition or analysis of "bachelor" is thought to be an unmarried male. But one

might worry that these so-called necessary and sufficient conditions do not apply in every case.

Wittgenstein, for instance, argues that language (e.g., the word 'bachelor') is used for various purposes

and in an indefinite number of ways. Wittgenstein's famous thesis states that meaning is determined by

use. This means that, in each case, the meaning of 'bachelor' is determined by its use in a context. So

if it can be shown that the word means different things across different contexts of use, then cases

where its meaning cannot be essentially defined as 'married bachelor' seem to constitute

counterexamples to this method of analysis. This is just one example of a critique of the analytic

method derived from a critique of definitions. There are several other such critiques (Margolis &

Laurence 2006). This criticism is often said to have originated primarily with

Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.

A third critique of the method of analysis derives primarily from psychological critiques of intuition. A key

part of the analytic method involves analyzing concepts via "intuition tests". Philosophers tend to

motivate various conceptual analyses by appeal to their intuitions about thought experiments. (See

DePaul and Ramsey (1998) for a collection of current essays on the controversy over analysis as it

relates to intuition and reflective equilibrium.)

In short, some philosophers feel strongly that the analytic method (especially conceptual analysis) is

essential to and defines philosophy—e.g. Jackson (1998), Chalmers (1996), and Bealer (1998). Yet,

some philosophers argue that the method of analysis is problematic—e.g. Stich (1998) and Ramsey

(1998). Some, however, take the middle ground and argue that while analysis is largely a fruitful

method of inquiry, philosophers should not limit themselves to only using the method of analysis.

Phenomenology (philosophy)

Phenomenology (from Greek: phainómenon "that which appears"; and lógos "study") is

the philosophical study of the structures of subjective experience and consciousness. As

a philosophical movement it was founded in the early years of the 20th century byEdmund Husserl and

was later expanded upon by a circle of his followers at the universities

of Göttingen and Munich in Germany. It then spread to France, the United States, and elsewhere, often

in contexts far removed from Husserl's early work.

Phenomenology, in Husserl's conception, is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and

study of the structures ofconsciousness and the phenomena that appear in acts of consciousness. This

phenomenological ontology can be clearly differentiated from the Cartesian method of analysis which

sees the world as objects, sets of objects, and objects acting and reacting upon one another.

Husserl's conception of phenomenology has been criticized and developed not only by himself but also

by students such as Edith Stein, by existentialists, such as Max Scheler, Nicolai Hartmann, Maurice

Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, and by other philosophers, such as Paul Ricoeur, Emmanuel

Levinas, and sociologists Alfred Schütz and Eric Voegelin.

Overview

Stephen Hicks writes that to understand phenomenology, one must identify its roots in

the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant distinguished

between "phenomena" (objects as interpreted by human sensibility and understanding), and "noumena"

(objects as things-in-themselves, which humans cannot directly experience). According to Hicks, 19th-

century Kantianism operated in two broad camps: structural linguistics and phenomenology. Hicks

writes, "In effect, the Structuralists were seeking subjective noumenal categories, and the

Phenomenologists were content with describing the phenomena without asking what connection to an

external reality those experiences might have."

In its most basic form, phenomenology thus attempts to create conditions for the objective study of

topics usually regarded assubjective: consciousness and the content of conscious experiences such

as judgments, perceptions, and emotions. Although phenomenology seeks to be scientific, it does not

attempt to study consciousness from the perspective of clinical psychology or neurology. Instead, it

seeks through systematic reflection to determine the essential properties and structures of experience.[

Husserl derived many important concepts central to phenomenology from the works and lectures of his

teachers, the philosophers and psychologists Franz Brentano and Carl Stumpf. An important element of

phenomenology that Husserl borrowed from Brentano isintentionality (often described as "aboutness"),

the notion that consciousness is always consciousness of something. The object of consciousness is

called the intentional object, and this object is constituted for consciousness in many different ways,

through, for instance, perception, memory, retention and protention, signification, etc. Throughout these

different intentionalities, though they have different structures and different ways of being "about" the

object, an object is still constituted as the identical object; consciousness is directed at the same

intentional object in direct perception as it is in the immediately following retention of this object and the

eventual remembering of it.

Though many of the phenomenological methods involve various reductions, phenomenology is, in

essence, anti-reductionistic; the reductions are mere tools to better understand and describe the

workings of consciousness, not to reduce any phenomenon to these descriptions. In other words, when

a reference is made to a thing's essence or idea, or when one details the constitution of an identical

coherent thing by describing what one "really" sees as being only these sides and aspects, these

surfaces, it does not mean that the thing is only and exclusively what is described here: The ultimate

goal of these reductions is to understand how these different aspects are constituted into the actual

thing as experienced by the person experiencing it. Phenomenology is a direct reaction to

thepsychologism and physicalism of Husserl's time.

Although previously employed by Hegel in his Phenomenology of Spirit, it was Husserl’s adoption of

this term (circa 1900) that propelled it into becoming the designation of a philosophical school. As a

philosophical perspective, phenomenology is its method, though the specific meaning of the term varies

according to how it is conceived by a given philosopher. As envisioned by Husserl, phenomenology is a

method of philosophical inquiry that rejects the rationalist bias that has dominated Western thought

since Plato in favor of a method of reflective attentiveness that discloses the individual’s “lived

experience.”[5] Loosely rooted in an epistemological device, with Scepticroots, called epoché, Husserl’s

method entails the suspension of judgment while relying on the intuitive grasp of knowledge, free of

presuppositions and intellectualizing. Sometimes depicted as the “science of experience,” the

phenomenological method is rooted in intentionality, Husserl’s theory of consciousness (developed

from Brentano). Intentionality represents an alternative to the representational theory of consciousness,

which holds that reality cannot be grasped directly because it is available only through perceptions of

reality that are representations of it in the mind. Husserl countered that consciousness is not “in” the

mind but rather conscious of something other than itself (the intentional object), whether the object is a

substance or a figment of imagination (i.e., the real processes associated with and underlying the

figment). Hence the phenomenological method relies on the description of phenomena as they are

given to consciousness, in their immediacy.

According to Maurice Natanson (1973, p. 63), 

“The radicality of the phenomenological method is both continuous and discontinuous with philosophy’s

general effort to subject experience to fundamental, critical scrutiny: to take nothing for granted and to

show the warranty for what we claim to know.”

In practice, it entails an unusual combination of discipline and detachment to suspend, or bracket,

theoretical explanations and second-hand information while determining one's “naive” experience of the

matter. The phenomenological method serves to momentarily erase the world of speculation by

returning the subject to his or her primordial experience of the matter, whether the object of inquiry is a

feeling, an idea, or a perception. According to Husserl the suspension of belief in what we ordinarily

take for granted or infer by conjecture diminishes the power of what we customarily embrace as

objective reality. According to Rüdiger Safranski (1998, 72), “[Husserl and his followers’] great ambition

was to disregard anything that had until then been thought or said about consciousness or the world

[while] on the lookout for a new way of letting the things [they investigated] approach them, without

covering them up with what they already knew.”

Martin Heidegger modified Husserl’s conception of phenomenology because of (what Heidegger

perceived as) Husserl's subjectivist tendencies. Whereas Husserl conceived humans as having been

constituted by states of consciousness, Heidegger countered that consciousness is peripheral to the

primacy of one’s existence (i.e., the mode of being of Dasein), which cannot be reduced to one’s

consciousness of it. From this angle, one’s state of mind is an “effect” rather than a determinant of

existence, including those aspects of existence that one is not conscious of. By shifting the center of

gravity from consciousness (psychology) to existence (ontology), Heidegger altered the subsequent

direction of phenomenology, making it at once both personal and mysterious. As one consequence of

Heidegger’s modification of Husserl’s conception, phenomenology became increasingly relevant

to psychoanalysis. Whereas Husserl gave priority to a depiction of consciousness that was

fundamentally alien to the psychoanalytic conception of the unconscious, Heidegger offered a way to

conceptualize experience that could accommodate those aspects of one’s existence that lie on the

periphery of sentient awareness.

Phenomenological terminology

Intentionality

Intentionality refers to the notion that consciousness is always the consciousness of something. The

word itself should not be confused with the "ordinary" use of the word intentional, but should rather be

taken as playing on the etymological roots of the word. Originally, intention referred to a "stretching out"

("in tension," lat. intendere[3] [4] ), and in this context it refers to consciousness "stretching out" towards

its object (although one should be careful with this image, seeing as there is not some consciousness

first that, subsequently, stretches out to its object. Rather, consciousness occurs as the simultaneity of

a conscious act and its object.) Intentionality is often summed up as "aboutness."

Whether this something that consciousness is about is in direct perception or in fantasy is

inconsequential to the concept of intentionality itself; whatever consciousness is directed at, that is what

consciousness is conscious of. This means that the object of consciousness doesn't have to be

a physical object apprehended in perception: it can just as well be a fantasy or a memory.

Consequently, these "structures" of consciousness, i.e., perception, memory, fantasy, etc., are

called intentionalities.

The cardinal principle of phenomenology, the term intentionality originated with the Scholastics in the

medieval period and was resurrected by Brentano who in turn influenced Husserl’s conception of

phenomenology, who refined the term and made it the cornerstone of his theory of consciousness. The

meaning of the term is complex and depends entirely on how it is conceived by a given philosopher.

The term should not be confused with “intention” or the psychoanalytic conception of unconscious

“motive” or “gain.”

Intuition

Intuition in phenomenology refers to those cases where the intentional object is directly present to the

intentionality at play; if the intention is "filled" by the direct apprehension of the object, you have an

intuited object. Having a cup of coffee in front of you, for instance, seeing it, feeling it, or even imagining

it - these are all filled intentions, and the object is then intuited. The same goes for the apprehension of

mathematical formulae or a number. If you do not have the object as referred to directly, the object is

not intuited, but still intended, but then emptily. Examples of empty intentions can be signitive intentions

- intentions that only imply or refer to their objects.

Evidence

In everyday language, we use the word evidence to signify a special sort of relation between a state of

affairs and a proposition: State A is evidence for the proposition "A is true." In phenomenology,

however, the concept of evidence is meant to signify the "subjective achievement of truth."  This is not

an attempt to reduce the objective sort of evidence to subjective "opinion," but rather an attempt to

describe the structure of having something present in intuition with the addition of having it present

as intelligible: "Evidence is the successful presentation of an intelligible object, the successful

presentation of something whose truth becomes manifest in the evidencing itself."

Noesis and Noema

Noema

In Husserl's phenomenology, which is quite common, this pair of terms, derived from the

Greek nous (mind), designate respectively the real content, noesis, and the ideal content, noema, of an

intentional act (an act of consciousness). The Noesis is the part of the act that gives it a particular

sense or character (as in judging or perceiving something, loving or hating it, accepting or rejecting it,

and so on). This is real in the sense that it is actually part of what takes place in the consciousness (or

psyche) of the subject of the act. TheNoesis is always correlated with a Noema; for Husserl, the full

Noema is a complex ideal structure comprising at least a noematic sense and a noematic core. The

correct interpretation of what Husserl meant by the Noema has long been controversial, but the

noematic sense is generally understood as the ideal meaning of the act and the noematic core as the

act's referent or object as it is meant in the act. One element of controversy is whether this noematic

object is the same as the actual object of the act (assuming it exists) or is some kind of ideal object.

Empathy and Intersubjectivity

Empathy and Intersubjectivity

In phenomenology, empathy refers to the experience of one's own body as another. While we often

identify others with their physical bodies, this type of phenomenology requires that we focus on

the subjectivity of the other, as well as our intersubjective engagement with them. In Husserl's original

account, this was done by a sort of apperception built on the experiences of your own lived-body.

Thelived body is your own body as experienced by yourself, as yourself. Your own body manifests itself

to you mainly as your possibilities of acting in the world. It is what lets you reach out and grab

something, for instance, but it also, and more importantly, allows for the possibility of changing your

point of view. This helps you differentiate one thing from another by the experience of moving around it,

seeing new aspects of it (often referred to as making the absent present and the present absent), and

still retaining the notion that this is the same thing that you saw other aspects of just a moment ago (it is

identical). Your body is also experienced as a duality, both as object (you can touch your own hand)

and as your own subjectivity (you experience being touched).

The experience of your own body as your own subjectivity is then applied to the experience of another's

body, which, through apperception, is constituted as another subjectivity. You can thus recognise the

Other's intentions, emotions, etc. This experience of empathy is important in the phenomenological

account of intersubjectivity. In phenomenology, intersubjectivity constitutes objectivity (i.e., what you

experience as objective is experienced as being intersubjectively available - available to all other

subjects. This does not imply that objectivity is reduced to subjectivity nor does it imply a relativist

position, cf. for instance intersubjective verifiability).

In the experience of intersubjectivity, one also experiences oneself as being a subject among other

subjects, and one experiences oneself as existing objectively for these Others; one experiences oneself

as the noema of Others' noeses, or as a subject in another's empathic experience. As such, one

experiences oneself as objectively existing subjectivity. Intersubjectivity is also a part in the constitution

of one's lifeworld, especially as "homeworld."

Lifeworld

Main article: Lifeworld

The lifeworld (German: Lebenswelt) is the "world" each one of us lives in. One could call it the

"background" or "horizon" of all experience, and it is that on which each object stands out as itself (as

different) and with the meaning it can only hold for us. The lifeworld is both personal

and intersubjective (it is then called a "homeworld"), and, as such, it does not enclose each one of us in

asolus ipse.

Husserl's Logische Untersuchungen (1900/1901)

In the first edition of the Logical Investigations, still under the influence of Brentano, Husserl describes

his position as "descriptive psychology." Husserl analyzes the intentional structures of mental acts and

how they are directed at both real and ideal objects. The first volume of the Logical Investigations,

the Prolegomena to Pure Logic, begins with a devastating critique of psychologism, i.e., the attempt to

subsume the a priori validity of the laws of logic under psychology. Husserl establishes a separate field

for research in logic, philosophy, and phenomenology, independently from the empirical sciences.

Logical positivismLogical positivism (also known as logical empiricism, scientific philosophy, and neo-positivism)

is a philosophy that combinesempiricism—the idea that observational evidence is indispensable for

knowledge—with a version of rationalism incorporating mathematical and logico-linguistic constructs

and deductions of epistemology. It may be considered as a type of analytic philosophy.

Logical positivism, in the formal sense, began from discussions of a group known as the First  Vienna

Circle which gathered during the earliest years of the 20th century in Vienna at the Café Central. After

World War I, Hans Hahn, a member of that early group, helped bring Moritz Schlick to Vienna.

Schlick's Vienna Circle, along with Hans Reichenbach's Berlin Circle, propagated the new doctrines

more widely during the 1920s and early 1930s. It was Otto Neurath's advocacy that made the

movement self-conscious and more widely known. A 1929 pamphlet written by Neurath, Hahn,

and Rudolf Carnap summarized the doctrines of the Vienna Circle at that time. The doctrines included

the opposition to all metaphysics, especially ontology and synthetic a priori propositions; the rejection of

metaphysics not as wrong but as having no meaning; a criterion of meaning based on Ludwig

Wittgenstein's early work; the idea that all knowledge should be codifiable by a single standard

language of science; and above all the project of rational reconstruction, in which ordinary-language

concepts were gradually to be replaced by more precise equivalents in that standard language.

During the early 1930s, the Vienna Circle dispersed, mainly because of political upheaval and the

deaths of Hahn and Schlick. The most prominent proponents of logical positivism emigrated to the

United Kingdom and the United States, where they influenced American philosophy considerably. Until

the 1950s, logical positivism was the leading school in the philosophy of science. Ultimately, it failed to

solve many of the problems with which it was centrally concerned, and after the Second World War, its

doctrines increasingly came under attack by thinkers such as Nelson Goodman, Willard Van Orman

Quine, J. L. Austin, Peter Strawson, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Rorty.

Summary

During the late 1920s, '30s, and '40s, Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein's formalism was

developed by a group of philosophers in Vienna and Berlin, who formed the Vienna Circle and Berlin

Circle into a doctrine known as logical positivism (or logical empiricism). Logical positivism used formal

logic to underpin an empiricist account of our knowledge of the world. Philosophers such as Rudolf

Carnap and Hans Reichenbach, along with other members of the Vienna Circle, claimed that the truths

of logic and mathematics weretautologies, and those of science were verifiable empirical claims. These

two constituted the entire universe of meaningful judgements; anything else was nonsense. The claims

of ethics and aesthetics were subjective preferences. Theology and other metaphysics were pseudo-

statements, neither true nor false, simply meaningless nonsense.

Karl Popper's insistence upon the role of falsification in the philosophy of science was a reaction to the

logical positivists. With the rise of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism in Germany and Austria, some

members of the Vienna and Berlin Circles fled Germany, mainly to Britain and the USA, which helped

to reinforce the dominance of logical positivism and analytic philosophy in the Anglophone world.

Logical positivists typically considered philosophy as having a very limited function. For them,

philosophy is concerned with the organization of thoughts, rather than having distinct topics of its own.

The positivists adopted the principle of verificationism, according to which every meaningful statement

is either analytic or is capable of being verified by experience. This caused the logical positivists to

reject many traditional problems of philosophy, especially those of metaphysics or ontology, as

meaningless.

Themes

Logical positivism was a movement without a fixed set of doctrines. The logical positivists held a wide

range of views on many matters. Nonetheless, they were all interested in science and skeptical

of theology and metaphysics. Early, most logical positivists proposed that all knowledge is based on

logical inference from simple "protocol sentences" grounded in observable facts. Many logical

positivists endorsed forms of materialism, metaphysical naturalism, and empiricism. (See James

Ladyman, Understanding Philosophy of Science, p. 147)

Verifiability criterion of meaning

Perhaps the view for which the logical positivists are best known is the verifiability criterion of meaning,

or verificationism. In one of its earlier and stronger formulations, this is the doctrine that a proposition is

"cognitively meaningful" only if there is a finite procedure for conclusively determining its truth. An

intended consequence of this opinion, for most logical positivists, is that metaphysical, theological, and

ethical statements fail this criterion, and so are not cognitively meaningful. They distinguished cognitive

from other varieties of meaningfulness (e.g. emotive, expressive, figurative), and most authors concede

that the non-cognitive statements of the history of philosophy possess some other kind of

meaningfulness. The positive characterization of cognitive meaningfulness varies from author to author.

It has been described as the property of having a truth value, corresponding to a possible state of

affairs, naming a proposition, or being intelligible or understandable in the sense in which scientific

statements are intelligible or understandable.

Strong and weak verificationism

In response to criticism of verificationism, A. J. Ayer proposed a weak version. In Language, Truth and

Logic he defines the distinction between "strong" and "weak" verification: "A proposition is said to be

verifiable, in the strong sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth could be conclusively established by

experience." (Ayer 1946:50) It is this sense of verifiable that causes the problem of verification with

negative existential claims and positive universal claims. However, the weak sense of verification states

that a proposition is "verifiable... if it is possible for experience to render it probable" (ibid.). After

establishing this distinction, Ayer claims that "no proposition, other than a tautology, can possibly be

anything more than a probable hypothesis" (Ayer 1946:51), and therefore can only be subject to weak

verification. This defense was controversial among logical positivists, some of whom touted strong

verification, and claimed that general propositions were indeed nonsense.[

Analytic and synthetic knowledge

Logical positivists divided knowledge into analytic and synthetic categories. Analytic knowledge, such

as mathematical theorems, is tautological (it is entirely deducable from its presuppositions) and thus

can be validated a priori. Synthetic knowledge, such as assertions about the real world, must be

verified a posteriori by observation. Logical positivists rejected the existence of any synthetic a

priori knowledge. (For example, the scientific progress of general relativity demonstrates that

philosophers are wrong to pronounce a priori that space should have a Euclidean nature.) The analytic-

synthetic distinction was attacked by Quine's 1951 paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism". Logical

positivists also distinguished observational and theoretical terms. This distinction was criticised by

Popper, who emphasised even basic observations as being "theory-laden".

Unified science

Another characteristic feature of logical positivism is the commitment to "Unified Science"; that is, the

development of a common language or, in Neurath's phrase, a "universal slang" in which all scientific

propositions can be expressed. The adequacy of proposals or fragments of proposals for such a

language was often asserted on the basis of various "reductions" or "explications" of the terms of

one special science to the terms of another, putatively more fundamental one. Sometimes these

reductions consisted of set-theoretic manipulations of a few logically primitive concepts (as in Carnap's

(1928) Logical Structure of the World); sometimes these reductions consisted of allegedly analytic or a

priori deductive relationships (as in Carnap's Testability and Meaning). A number of publications over a

period of thirty years would attempt to elucidate this concept.

History

Origins

The main influences on the early logical positivists were the positivist Ernst Mach, Gottlob

Frege, Bertrand Russell and the youngLudwig Wittgenstein.

Mach's influence is most apparent in the logical positivists' persistent concern with metaphysics, the

unity of science, and the interpretation of the theoretical terms of science, as well as the doctrines

of reductionism and phenomenalism, later abandoned by many positivists.

Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was a text of great importance for the positivists.

The Tractatus introduced many doctrines which later influenced logical positivism, including the concept

of philosophy as a "critique of language," and the possibility of making a theoretically principled

distinction between intelligible and nonsensical discourse. The Tractatus also adhered to

acorrespondence theory of truth which the positivists adopted, although some, like Otto Neurath,

preferred a form of coherentism. Wittgenstein's influence is also evident in certain formulations of

the verification principle. Compare, for example, Proposition 4.024 of the Tractatus, where Wittgenstein

asserts that we understand a proposition when we know what happens if it is true, with Schlick's

assertion that "To state the circumstances under which a proposition is true is the same as stating its

meaning." The tractarian doctrine that the truths of logic are tautologies was widely believed among the

logical positivists. Wittgenstein also influenced the logical positivists' interpretation of probability.

According to Neurath, some logical positivists disliked the Tractatus, since they thought it included a

great deal of metaphysics.

Contemporary developments in logic and the foundations of mathematics, especially Bertrand

Russell and Alfred North Whitehead's monumental Principia Mathematica, impressed the more

mathematically minded logical positivists such as Hans Hahn and Rudolf Carnap. "Language-planning"

and syntactical techniques derived from these developments were used to defend logicism in the

philosophy of mathematics and various reductionist theses. Russell's theory of types was employed to

great effect in Carnap's early anti-metaphysical polemics.

Immanuel Kant also had an important influence on the positivists, both positive and negative.

Negatively, Kant was often scorned by the positivists in their early debates, and Kant's doctrine

of synthetic a priori truths was the doctrine they most wished to discredit. However, Kant's opinions

about the nature of physical objects pervaded the protocol sentence debate, and Kantian opinions of

the relationship between philosophy and science were shared by the positivists to some degree.

Logical positivism in Germany

Positivism in Germany is thought to have developed in response to Hegelian and neo-Hegelian

metaphysics, which was a famous philosophy in Germany.[18] Hegelian successors such as F.H.

Bradley attempted to explain reality by postulating metaphysical entities that did not have any empirical

basis. Logical positivists in response wanted to stop such metaphysical entities from being used as an

explanation.

Another, less well-known factor that encouraged logical positivism was the urgency of solving new

philosophical problems raised by new scientific developments. The Vienna Circle under the influence

of Moritz Schlick and the Berlin Circle under the influence of Hans Reichenbach consisted of scientists,

mathematicians, and scientists turned philosophers, who shared a common goal of solving new

problems in the philosophy of science.

Influence

Logical positivism spread throughout almost the entire western world. It was disseminated throughout

the European continent. It was spread to Britain by the influence of A. J. Ayer. And later, it was brought

to American universities by members of the Vienna Circle after they fled Europe and settled in the

United States during and after WWII. Logical positivism was essential to the development of

early analytic philosophy. The term subsequently came to be almost interchangeable with "analytic

philosophy" during the first half of the twentieth century. Logical positivism was immensely influential in

thephilosophy of language. It represented the dominant philosophy of science between World War

I and the Cold War.

Criticisms

Early critics of logical positivism said that its fundamental tenets could not themselves be formulated

consistently. The verifiability criterion of meaning did not seem verifiable; but neither was it simply a

logical tautology, since it had implications for the practice of science and the empirical truth of other

statements. This presented severe problems for the logical consistency of the theory.]

Another problem was that universal claims (e.g. "(all) philosophers are mortal") are problematic in terms

of verification.[20][21] The verifiability criterion was seen as being too strong. In its initial formulation, it

made universal statements meaningless, and this was seen as a problem for science. This led to the

weakening of the criterion. 

Witgenstein's principle of verifiability posed fairly obvious problems in any scientific context. No

universal generalization can ever be verified. Perhaps independently, Karl Popper perceived the same

problem… This led him to replace the requirement of verfiability with that of falsifiability, though only as

a criterion to demarcate science from metaphysics, and not as one to be also used to demarcate

meaningful from meaningless claims. It is also unclear what the status of the principle itself is, that is,

whether it is meaningful by its own criterion of meaningfulness. Carnap, as well as other members of

the Vienna Circle including Hahn and Neurath, realized that a weaker criterion of meaningfulness was

necessary. Thus began the program of the "liberalization of empiricism." There was no unanimity within

the Vienna Circle on this point. The differences between the members are sometimes described as

those between a conservative "right" wing, led by Schlick and Waismann, which rejected both the

liberalization of empiricism and the epistemological antifoundationalism of the move [from

phenomenalism] to physicalism, and a radical "left" wing, led by Neurath and Carnap, which endorsed

the opposite views. The "left" wing also emphasized fallibilism and pragmatics; Carnap went far enough

along this line to suggest that empiricism itself was a proposal to be accepted on pragmatic grounds.

This difference also reflected political attitudes insofar as Neurath and, to a lesser extent, Carnp viewed

science as a tool for social reform.

The precise formulation of what came to be called the criterion of cognitive significance took three

decades (see Hempel 1950; Carnap 1956 and 1961)… In an important pair of papers, "Testability and

Meaning," Carnap (1936-1937) replaced the requirement of verification with that of confirmation; at this

stage, he made no attempt to quantify the latter. Individual terms replace sentences as the unit of

meaning. Universal generalizations are no longer problematic; though they cannot be conclusively

verified, they can yet be confirmed. Moreover, in "Testability and Meaning," theoretical terms no longer

require explicit definition from observational ones in order to acquire meaning; the connection between

the two may be indirect through a system of implicit definitions. Carnap also provides an important

pioneering discussion of disposition predicates.

—Sahotra Sarkar, The Philosophy of Science: An Encyclopedia

Karl Popper's objection

A well-known critic of logical positivism was Karl Popper, who published the book Logik der

Forschung in 1934 (translated by himself asThe Logic of Scientific Discovery, published 1959). In it he

argued that the positivists' criterion of verifiability was too strong a criterion for science, and should be

replaced by a criterion of falsifiability. Popper thought that falsifiability was a better criterion because it

did not invite the philosophical problems inherent in verifying an inductive inference, and it allowed

statements from the physical sciences which seemed scientific but which did not satisfy the verification

criterion.

Popper's concern was not with distinguishing meaningful from meaningless statements, but

distinguishing scientific from metaphysical statements. Unlike the positivists, he did not claim that

metaphysical statements must be meaningless; he also claimed that a statement which was

"metaphysical" and unfalsifiable in one century (like the ancient Greek philosophy about atoms) could,

in another century, be developed into falsifiable theories that have the metaphysical views as a

consequence, and thus become scientific.

Popper denied that science need rely on inductive reasoning, or that inductive reasoning actually

exists, although most philosophers think it obvious that science does rely on it.

Hilary Putnam's objection

According to Hilary Putnam, a former student of Hans Reichenbach and Rudolf Carnap, making an

observational/theoretical distinction is meaningless. The "received view" operates on

the correspondence rule that states "The observational terms are taken as referring to specified

phenomena or phenomenal properties, and the only interpretation given to the theoretical terms is their

explicit definition provided by the correspondence rules." Putnam argues that introducing this

dichotomy of observational terms and theoretical terms is the problem from which to start. Putnam

demonstrates this with four objections:

1. Something is referred to as "observational" if it is observable directly with our senses. Then an

observation term cannot be applied to something unobservable. If this is the case, there are no

observation terms.

2. With Carnap's classification, some unobservable terms are not even theoretical and belong to

neither observation terms nor theoretical terms. Some theoretical terms refer primarily to

observation terms.

3. Reports of observation terms frequently contain theoretical terms.

4. A scientific theory may not contain any theoretical terms (an example of this is Darwin's original

theory of evolution).

Subsequent objections from Quine and Kuhn

Subsequent philosophy of science tends to use certain aspects of both of these approaches. Willard

Van Orman Quine criticized the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements and the reduction

of meaningful statements to immediate experience. Work byThomas Kuhn has claimed that it is not

possible to provide truth conditions for science independent of its historical paradigm. But even this

criticism was not unknown to the logical positivists: Otto Neurath compared science to a boat which we

must rebuild on the open sea.

Contemporary status within philosophy

Key tenets of logical positivism, including its atomistic philosophy of science, the verifiability principle,

and the fact–value distinction, came under attack after the Second World War by philosophers such

as Nelson Goodman, Quine, J. L. Austin, and Peter Strawson. Nicholas G. Fotion comments that "By

the late 1960s it became obvious that the movement had pretty much run its course." Most

philosophers consider logical positivism to be, as John Passmore expressed it, "dead, or as dead as a

philosophical movement ever becomes". By the late 1970s, its ideas were so generally recognized to

be seriously defective that one of its own main proponents,A. J. Ayer, could say in an interview: "I

suppose the most important [defect]...was that nearly all of it was false." It retains an important place in

the history of analytic philosophy as the antecedent of contemporary philosophies, such as constructive

empiricism,positivism, and postpositivism.