Introduction to Philosophy

SENIOR CONTRIBUTING AUTHOR

NATHAN SMITH, HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE
OpenStax
Rice University
6100 Main Street MS-375
Houston, Texas 77005

To learn more about OpenStax, visit https://openstax.org.

Individual print copies and bulk orders can be purchased through our website.

©2022 Rice University. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Under this license, any user of this textbook or the textbook
contents herein must provide proper attribution as follows:

- If you redistribute this textbook in a digital format (including but not limited to PDF and HTML), then you
must retain on every page the following attribution:
“Access for free at openstax.org.”
- If you redistribute this textbook in a print format, then you must include on every physical page the
following attribution:
“Access for free at openstax.org.”
- If you redistribute part of this textbook, then you must retain in every digital format page view (including
but not limited to PDF and HTML) and on every physical printed page the following attribution:
“Access for free at openstax.org.”
- If you use this textbook as a bibliographic reference, please include
https://openstax.org/details/books/introduction-philosophy in your citation.

For questions regarding this licensing, please contact [email protected].

Trademarks
The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, OpenStax CNX logo,
OpenStax Tutor name, Openstax Tutor logo, Connexions name, Connexions logo, Rice University name, and
Rice University logo are not subject to the license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express
written consent of Rice University.

HARDCOVER BOOK ISBN-13 978-1-711470-79-5

B&W PAPERBACK BOOK ISBN-13 978-1-711470-78-8
DIGITAL VERSION ISBN-13 978-1-951693-59-6
ORIGINAL PUBLICATION YEAR 2022
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RS 22
OPENSTAX

OpenStax provides free, peer-reviewed, openly licensed textbooks for introductory college and Advanced
Placement® courses and low-cost, personalized courseware that helps students learn. A nonprofit ed tech
initiative based at Rice University, we’re committed to helping students access the tools they need to complete
their courses and meet their educational goals.

RICE UNIVERSITY

OpenStax, OpenStax CNX, and OpenStax Tutor are initiatives of Rice University. As a leading research
university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice University aspires to path-breaking
research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this
mission by cultivating a diverse community of learning and discovery that produces leaders across the
spectrum of human endeavor.

PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT

OpenStax is grateful for the generous philanthropic partners who advance our mission to improve educational

access and learning for everyone. To see the impact of our supporter community and our most updated list of

partners, please visit openstax.org/impact.

Arnold Ventures Burt and Deedee McMurtry

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Michelson 20MM Foundation

Chegg, Inc. National Science Foundation

Arthur and Carlyse Ciocca Charitable Foundation The Open Society Foundations

Digital Promise Jumee Yhu and David E. Park III

Ann and John Doerr Brian D. Patterson USA-International Foundation

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation The Bill and Stephanie Sick Fund

Girard Foundation Steven L. Smith & Diana T. Go

Google Inc. Stand Together

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Robin and Sandy Stuart Foundation

The Hewlett-Packard Company The Stuart Family Foundation

Intel Inc. Tammy and Guillermo Treviño

Rusty and John Jaggers Valhalla Charitable Foundation

The Calvin K. Kazanjian Economics Foundation White Star Education Foundation

Charles Koch Foundation Schmidt Futures

Leon Lowenstein Foundation, Inc. William Marsh Rice University

The Maxfield Foundation

 Study where you want, what
you want, when you want.
When you access your book in our web view, you can use our new online
highlighting and note-taking features to create your own study guides.

Our books are free and flexible, forever.

Get started at openstax.org/details/books/introduction-philosophy

Access. The future of education.

openstax.org
CONTENTS
Preface 1

CHAPTER 1
Introduction to Philosophy 7
Introduction 7
1.1 What Is Philosophy? 8
1.2 How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth? 15
1.3 Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher 25
1.4 An Overview of Contemporary Philosophy 32
Summary 36
Key Terms 37
References 38
Review Questions 39
Further Reading 40

CHAPTER 2
Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing 41
Introduction 41
2.1 The Brain Is an Inference Machine 42
2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection 49
2.3 Developing Good Habits of Mind 54
2.4 Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence 57
2.5 Reading Philosophy 60
2.6 Writing Philosophy Papers 65
Summary 70
Key Terms 71
References 72
Review Questions 73
Further Reading 73

CHAPTER 3
The Early History of Philosophy around the World 75
Introduction 75
3.1 Indigenous Philosophy 76
3.2 Classical Indian Philosophy 84
3.3 Classical Chinese Philosophy 90
Summary 101
Key Terms 102
References 102
Review Questions 105
Further Reading 105

CHAPTER 4
The Emergence of Classical Philosophy 107
Introduction 107
4.1 Historiography and the History of Philosophy 108
4.2 Classical Philosophy 110
4.3 Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy 121
Summary 133
Key Terms 133
References 134
Review Questions 136
Further Reading 137

CHAPTER 5
Logic and Reasoning 139
Introduction 139
5.1 Philosophical Methods for Discovering Truth 140
5.2 Logical Statements 146
5.3 Arguments 148
5.4 Types of Inferences 150
5.5 Informal Fallacies 158
Summary 166
Key Terms 167
References 168
Review Questions 169
Further Reading 169

CHAPTER 6
Metaphysics 171
Introduction 171
6.1 Substance 173
6.2 Self and Identity 179
6.3 Cosmology and the Existence of God 187
6.4 Free Will 193
Summary 197
Key Terms 198
References 198
Review Questions 200
Further Reading 201

CHAPTER 7
Epistemology 203
Introduction 203
7.1 What Epistemology Studies 204
7.2 Knowledge 210
7.3 Justification 214
7.4 Skepticism 220
7.5 Applied Epistemology 225
Summary 231
Key Terms 231
References 232
Review Questions 234
Further Reading 235

Access for free at openstax.org

CHAPTER 8
Value Theory 237
Introduction 237
8.1 The Fact-Value Distinction 238
8.2 Basic Questions about Values 242
8.3 Metaethics 244
8.4 Well-Being 250
8.5 Aesthetics 256
Summary 262
Key Terms 263
References 265
Review Questions 266
Further Reading 267

CHAPTER 9
Normative Moral Theory 269
Introduction 269
9.1 Requirements of a Normative Moral Theory 270
9.2 Consequentialism 271
9.3 Deontology 277
9.4 Virtue Ethics 282
9.5 Daoism 289
9.6 Feminist Theories of Ethics 294
Summary 298
Key Terms 299
References 301
Review Questions 304
Further Reading 305

CHAPTER 10
Applied Ethics 307
Introduction 307
10.1 The Challenge of Bioethics 308
10.2 Environmental Ethics 321
10.3 Business Ethics and Emerging Technology 326
Summary 333
Key Terms 333
References 334
Review Questions 339
Further Reading 339

CHAPTER 11
Political Philosophy 341
Introduction 341
11.1 Historical Perspectives on Government 342
11.2 Forms of Government 347
11.3 Political Legitimacy and Duty 352
11.4 Political Ideologies 358
Summary 367
Key Terms 367
References 368
Review Questions 371
Further Reading 371

CHAPTER 12
Contemporary Philosophies and Social Theories 373
Introduction 373
12.1 Enlightenment Social Theory 374
12.2 The Marxist Solution 378
12.3 Continental Philosophy’s Challenge to Enlightenment Theories 382
12.4 The Frankfurt School 386
12.5 Postmodernism 390
Summary 397
Key Terms 398
References 399
Review Questions 401

Index 403

Access for free at openstax.org

 Preface 1

Preface
About OpenStax
OpenStax is part of Rice University, which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable corporation. As an educational
initiative, it’s our mission to transform learning so that education works for every student. Through our
partnerships with philanthropic foundations and our alliance with other educational resource companies,
we’re breaking down the most common barriers to learning. Because we believe that everyone should and can
have access to knowledge.

About OpenStax Resources

Customization

Introduction to Philosophy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY) license,
which means that you can distribute, remix, and build upon the content, as long as you provide attribution to
OpenStax and its content contributors.

Because our books are openly licensed, you are free to use the entire book or select only the sections that are
most relevant to the needs of your course. Feel free to remix the content by assigning your students certain
chapters and sections in your syllabus, in the order that you prefer. You can even provide a direct link in your
syllabus or learning management system to the sections in the web view of your book.

Instructors also have the option of creating a customized version of their OpenStax book. The custom version
can be made available to students in low-cost print or digital form through their campus bookstore. Visit the
Instructor Resources section of your book page on OpenStax.org for more information.

Art Attribution

In Introduction to Philosophy, most art contains attribution to its title, creator or rights holder, host platform,
and license within the caption. Because the art is openly licensed, anyone may reuse the art as long as they
provide the same attribution to its original source. If you reuse illustrations, graphs, or charts from this text
that do not have attribution provided, use the following attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under
CC BY 4.0 license.

Errata

All OpenStax textbooks undergo a rigorous review process. However, like any professional-grade textbook,
errors sometimes occur. Writing style guides and other contextual frameworks also change frequently. Since
our books are web-based, we can make updates periodically when deemed pedagogically necessary. If you
have a correction to suggest, submit it through the link on your book page on OpenStax.org. Subject matter
experts review all errata suggestions. OpenStax is committed to remaining transparent about all updates, so
you will also find a list of past errata changes on your book page on OpenStax.org.

Format

You can access this textbook for free in web view or PDF through OpenStax.org, and for a low cost in print.

About Introduction to Philosophy

Introduction to Philosophy provides an overview of a common range of philosophical topics for a first- or
second-year general education philosophy course. It is organized thematically, following the principal
categories of academic philosophy (logic, metaphysics, epistemology, theories of value, and history of
philosophy). A recurring theme of Introduction to Philosophy is its incorporation of multicultural and global
perspectives. Texts, thinkers, and concepts from Middle Eastern, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Latin American,
Indigenous, and African philosophy are fully integrated into discussions of concepts and topics, broadening
the study of philosophy beyond the Western tradition. Another goal of the text is to help students develop
critical thinking, reading, and writing skills.
2 Preface

Reflecting the Full Diversity of Human Understanding

A multicultural and global perspective is a central organizing principle of Introduction to Philosophy. This text
explores Eastern, African, and Indigenous perspectives in concert with and, in some cases, in juxtaposition to
classical Western thinkers. Additionally, the authors have made a special effort to highlight the philosophical
work of women, who have made important contributions to the history of philosophy in numerous traditions.
This broader emphasis introduces students to approaches that open up traditional philosophical questions in
provocative ways, offering fresh possibilities for social and individual understanding. As just one example,
alongside discussion of the individualistic ways that Hume and Locke attempted to answer the question “what
is the self” appears discussion of the African concept of ubuntu, sometimes translated as “a person is a person
through other persons.” Discussions of the four noble truths of Buddhism as a path to achieve liberation from
suffering, the four interrelated concepts at the heart of Mohist ethical theory, and Carol Gilligan’s care ethics
are other examples of well-established answers to deep philosophical questions that provide fresh additions to
classical Western ways of thinking.

Providing Students with Transferable Skills

Introduction to Philosophy is intentionally organized to develop critical thinking, research, reading, and
writing skills. There is an entire chapter devoted to these transferrable skills associated with philosophy.
Another chapter addresses logic and reasoning. Additionally, interspersed throughout the text are features
providing guidance on how to read philosophy effectively, how to conduct research and evaluate sources, and
how to write philosophy papers. These features aim to be very explicit about the habits and practices that
enable one to be a good student of philosophy and, by extension, a good critical thinker.

Reminding Readers that Philosophy Is a Living Discipline

Calling attention to the fact that philosophy is not just a feature of our human past, Introduction to Philosophy
discusses the ways contemporary academic philosophers address some of our most pressing ethical and
moral issues. Examples include discussions of bioethics, emerging issues surrounding genetic engineering
and communication technologies, what brain science can and cannot tell us about human consciousness, and
morality pertaining to human treatment of the natural world. Through discussion of these topics and others,
readers will gain awareness of the range of answers that contemporary philosophers offer to current issues
and learn to appreciate the type of reasoning that philosophers use. Throughout the text, students are also
encouraged to critically reflect on philosophical points of view and develop their own philosophical positions.

Enriching and Engaging Features

“Doing” Philosophy

While there is certainly not one method of “doing” philosophy, there are practices and habits that make
someone a better reader, writer, researcher, and thinker in philosophy. A set of recurring features makes these
skills explicit and concrete, with guidance geared toward the introductory student.

• Think Like a Philosopher. These features adopt one of two approaches. Some instances prompt students
to engage with concepts key to philosophical argument, and thus to critical thinking, either in the form of
interactive online exercises or as written guidance. Others guide students in formulating their own
approaches to philosophical questions.
• Write Like a Philosopher. These features challenge the reader to articulate their own written responses to
philosophical prompts or to craft their own philosophical arguments. Clear guidance is given on both the
considerations that should appear in the response and the most effective structure for written
philosophical discourse.
• Read Like a Philosopher. These features prompt students to engage with portions of key primary texts,
such as Plato’s Apology or the Daodejing. Clear structure is provided, guiding the reader on what elements
of the text to pay close attention to and what questions they should hold in their minds while reading.

Access for free at openstax.org

 Preface 3

“How It All Hangs Together”

Philosophy is an inherently interconnected undertaking that speaks to universal human concerns. The broad
questions philosophers ask (e.g., what makes a good life, how does one define morality, how should people
treat one another, what rights should be accorded individuals within society) touch many aspects of our social
and individual existences. A number of features address the interconnectedness of philosophical inquiry and
philosophical thought, as well as its relevance to all lives.

• Connections features. Throughout the text, callouts direct students to additional coverage of both
important theories and key thinkers in other chapters.
• Videos. Video features provide supplemental information from trusted contemporary sources, such as the
BBC Radio 4 series A History of Ideas and the e-series Wi-Phi Philosophy.
• Podcasts. Podcast links are provided from engaging series, such as The History of Philosophy without Any
Gaps and Philosophy Bites.

Pedagogical Framework

An effective pedagogical framework helps students structure their learning and retain information.

• Chapter Outlines. Each chapter opens with an outline and introduction, familiarizing students with the
material that will follow. Throughout the chapter, material is chunked into manageable sections of content
within each of the larger main heads.
• Learning Objectives. Every main section begins with two to five clear, concise, and measurable learning
objectives, tagged to Bloom’s levels. These objectives are designed to help the instructor decide what
content to include or assign and to guide student expectations. After completing the textual sections and
end-of-chapter exercises, students should be able to demonstrate mastery of the learning objectives.
• Chapter Summaries. Organized by section heads, chapter summaries distill the information presented in
each chapter to key, concise points.
• Key Terms. Key terms are bolded and followed by in-text definitions. A glossary of key terms also appears
at the end of each chapter.
• Critical Thinking Questions. Each chapter ends with 10 to 20 critical thinking questions, also organized
by section head. Some of these questions assess recall of key concepts, while others ask students to think,
read, and write like a philosopher. These more complex questions might prompt students to formulate
thoughtful critiques of existing philosophical positions or to begin to articulate their own thoughts on
philosophical questions. Any of these components can be used by instructors to build assessments and
assignments for their courses.
• “Further Reading” Suggestions. Each chapter ends with suggested resources for students who wish to
dive deeper into the thinkers and thoughts discussed in the chapters.
4 Preface

About the Authors

Senior Contributing Author

Nathan Smith, Houston Community College

Nathan Smith has a PhD in philosophy from Boston College and the University of Paris, Sorbonne. His
dissertation was on René Descartes’s early scientific and mathematical work. He has been a full-time
instructor of philosophy at Houston Community College (HCC) since 2008. He has published on Descartes,
phenomenology, and topics in Open Educational Resources (OER), including chapter contributions to an OER
textbook through the Rebus Foundation. At HCC, he served as Chair of the Philosophy, Humanities, and Library
Sciences Department from 2015 to 2017 and has served as the Open Educational Resources Coordinator since
2017. In this capacity he has secured and managed over $500,000 in grants for the institution and leads a
cross-disciplinary, district-wide effort to provide “zero cost books” courses and degree plans for students.

Contributing Authors
Gregory Browne, Eastern Michigan University
Parish Conkling, Houston Community College
Naomi Friedman, University of North Carolina, Asheville
Allison Fritz, Chadron State College
Daniel Garro, Rider University
Jeremy Gallegos, Friends University
Jon Gill, Gustavus Adolphus College
Gayle Horton, Santa Fe College
Maryellen Lo Bosco, Suffolk Community College
Rebecca A. Longtin, State University of New York, New Paltz
Corey McCall, The Cornell Prison Education Program
Kurt Stuke, New England College

Reviewers
Gregory Browne, Eastern Michigan University
Jason Castonzo, Indian River State College
Amy Cedrone, Harford Community College
Parish Conkling, Houston Community College
Caitlin Dolan, San Francisco State University
Katrina Elliott, University of California, Los Angeles
Shane Gronholz, Gonzaga University
Kyle Hirsch, Community College of Aurora

Access for free at openstax.org

 Preface 5

Catherine Homan, Mount Mary University

Jason Jenson, Houston Community College
Andrew Law, University of Southern California
Jeremy Proulx, Eastern Michigan University
Valérie Racine, Western New England University
Ellyn Ritterskamp, University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Jessica Roisen, Saint Ambrose University
Kris Sealey, Fairfield University
Gregory Stoutenburg, York College of Pennsylvania
Adam Thompson, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Drew Thompson, Loyola University
Antione Tomlin, Anne Arundel Community College
Mike VanQuickenborne, Everett Community College
Steve Wyre, American Public University
Jongbok Yi, Stockton University

Additional Resources
Student and Instructor Resources

We’ve compiled additional resources for both students and instructors, including an instructor’s manual, test
bank, and lecture slides. Instructor resources require a verified instructor account, which you can apply for
when you log in or create your account on OpenStax.org. Take advantage of these resources to supplement
Introduction to Philosophy.

• Comprehensive Instructor’s Manual. Designed to provide maximum guidance for delivering content in
an interesting and dynamic manner, each chapter of the instructor’s manual includes an in-depth lecture
outline, a key terms list, a set of “questions for further thought,” and a list of recommended resources for
further reading and exploration. Authored by Kyle Hirsh, Community College of Aurora.
• Test Bank. With 500 true/false and multiple-choice questions in our test bank, instructors can customize
tests to support a variety of course objectives. The test bank is available in Word format. Authored by Steve
Wyre, American Public University.
• PowerPoint Lecture Slides. The PowerPoint slides provide outlines, images, and an overview of chapter
topics as a starting place for instructors to build their lectures. Authored by Gregory Browne, Eastern
Michigan University.

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity builds trust, understanding, equity, and genuine learning. While students may encounter
significant challenges in their courses and their lives, doing their own work and maintaining a high degree of
authenticity will result in meaningful outcomes that will extend far beyond their college career. Faculty,
administrators, resource providers, and students should work together to maintain a fair and positive
experience.

We realize that students benefit when academic integrity ground rules are established early in the course. To
that end, OpenStax has created an interactive to aid with academic integrity discussions in your course.
6 Preface

Visit our academic integrity slider (https://view.genial.ly/61e08a7af6db870d591078c1/interactive-image-

defining-academic-integrity-interactive-slider). Click and drag icons along the continuum to align these
practices with your institution and course policies.You may then include the graphic on your syllabus, present
it in your first course meeting, or create a handout for students.

At OpenStax we are also developing resources supporting authentic learning experiences and assessment.
Please visit this book’s page for updates. For an in-depth review of academic integrity strategies, we highly
recommend visiting the International Center of Academic Integrity (ICAI) website at
https://academicintegrity.org/.

Community Hubs

OpenStax partners with the Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education (ISKME) to offer
Community Hubs on OER Commons—a platform for instructors to share community-created resources that
support OpenStax books, free of charge. Through our Community Hubs, instructors can upload their own
materials or download resources to use in their own courses, including additional ancillaries, teaching
material, multimedia, and relevant course content. We encourage instructors to join the hubs for the subjects
most relevant to your teaching and research as an opportunity both to enrich your courses and to engage with
other faculty. To reach the Community Hubs, visit www.oercommons.org/hubs/openstax.

Technology Partners

As allies in making high-quality learning materials accessible, our technology partners offer optional low-cost
tools that are integrated with OpenStax books. To access the technology options for your text, visit your book
page on OpenStax.org.

Access for free at openstax.org

Introduction to Philosophy 1

FIGURE 1.1 Philosophy begins with dialogue—with friends, with yourself, with other philosophers, and with the
past. (credit: “Conversations Time moves slowly when talking with old friends” by Sagar/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

CHAPTER OUTLINE
1.1 What Is Philosophy?
1.2 How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth?
1.3 Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher
1.4 An Overview of Contemporary Philosophy

INTRODUCTION For most college students, an Introduction to Philosophy course is their first encounter with
the study of philosophy. Unlike most of your other courses, philosophy is not something usually covered in
high school. Yet you are probably familiar with the term philosophy and may have some preconceived notion
about what philosophy is and what philosophers do. Perhaps you have stayed up late at night talking with
friends or family about topics like free will or the existence of God. Maybe you have a friend who always talks
about big ideas or asks tough questions that sound like riddles. Perhaps you think of them as “philosophical”;
you might be right.

In this chapter, we will provide a brief introduction to the field of philosophy as a historical and academic
discipline. This first chapter should prepare you for your philosophy course and give you a better idea of what
it means to be a philosopher. As with all introductions, this one is just a start. Your job is to explore more, think
more, read more, and write more like a philosopher. Soon you may even find that you are doing philosophy.
8 1 • Introduction to Philosophy

1.1 What Is Philosophy?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Identify sages (early philosophers) across historical traditions.
• Explain the connection between ancient philosophy and the origin of the sciences.
• Describe philosophy as a discipline that makes coherent sense of a whole.
• Summarize the broad and diverse origins of philosophy.

It is difficult to define philosophy. In fact, to do so is itself a philosophical activity, since philosophers are
attempting to gain the broadest and most fundamental conception of the world as it exists. The world includes
nature, consciousness, morality, beauty, and social organizations. So the content available for philosophy is
both broad and deep. Because of its very nature, philosophy considers a range of subjects, and philosophers
cannot automatically rule anything out. Whereas other disciplines allow for basic assumptions, philosophers
cannot be bound by such assumptions. This open-endedness makes philosophy a somewhat awkward and
confusing subject for students. There are no easy answers to the questions of what philosophy studies or how
one does philosophy. Nevertheless, in this chapter, we can make some progress on these questions by (1)
looking at past examples of philosophers, (2) considering one compelling definition of philosophy, and (3)
looking at the way academic philosophers today actually practice philosophy.

Historical Origins of Philosophy

One way to begin to understand philosophy is to look at its history. The historical origins of philosophical
thinking and exploration vary around the globe. The word philosophy derives from ancient Greek, in which the
philosopher is a lover or pursuer (philia) of wisdom (sophia). But the earliest Greek philosophers were not
known as philosophers; they were simply known as sages. The sage tradition provides an early glimpse of
philosophical thought in action. Sages are sometimes associated with mathematical and scientific discoveries
and at other times with their political impact. What unites these figures is that they demonstrate a willingness
to be skeptical of traditions, a curiosity about the natural world and our place in it, and a commitment to
applying reason to understand nature, human nature, and society better. The overview of the sage tradition
that follows will give you a taste of philosophy’s broad ambitions as well as its focus on complex relations
between different areas of human knowledge. There are some examples of women who made contributions to
philosophy and the sage tradition in Greece, India, and China, but these were patriarchal societies that did not
provide many opportunities for women to participate in philosophical and political discussions.

The Sages of India, China, Africa, and Greece

In classical Indian philosophy and religion, sages play a central role in both religious mythology and in the
practice of passing down teaching and instruction through generations. The Seven Sages, or Saptarishi (seven
rishis in the Sanskrit language), play an important role in sanatana dharma, the eternal duties that have come
to be identified with Hinduism but that predate the establishment of the religion. The Seven Sages are partially
considered wise men and are said to be the authors of the ancient Indian texts known as the Vedas. But they
are partly mythic figures as well, who are said to have descended from the gods and whose reincarnation
marks the passing of each age of Manu (age of man or epoch of humanity). The rishis tended to live monastic
lives, and together they are thought of as the spiritual and practical forerunners of Indian gurus or teachers,
even up to today. They derive their wisdom, in part, from spiritual forces, but also from tapas, or the
meditative, ascetic, and spiritual practices they perform to gain control over their bodies and minds. The
stories of the rishis are part of the teachings that constitute spiritual and philosophical practice in
contemporary Hinduism.

Figure 1.2 depicts a scene from the Matsya Purana, where Manu, the first man whose succession marks the
prehistorical ages of Earth, sits with the Seven Sages in a boat to protect them from a mythic flood that is said
to have submerged the world. The king of serpents guides the boat, which is said to have also contained seeds,

Access for free at openstax.org

 1.1 • What Is Philosophy? 9

plants, and animals saved by Manu from the flood.

FIGURE 1.2 This painting, from the late eighteenth century, depicts the first man, Manu, guiding seven sages
through floodwaters, with the aid of the king of serpents. (credit: “Manu and Saptarishi” by unknown author/
Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)

Despite the fact that classical Indian culture is patriarchal, women figures play an important role in the earliest
writings of the Vedic tradition (the classical Indian religious and philosophical tradition). These women figures
are partly connected to the Indian conception of the fundamental forces of nature—energy, ability, strength,
effort, and power—as feminine. This aspect of God was thought to be present at the creation of the world. The
Rig Veda, the oldest Vedic writings, contains hymns that tell the story of Ghosha, a daughter of Rishi Kakshivan,
who had a debilitating skin condition (probably leprosy) but devoted herself to spiritual practices to learn how
to heal herself and eventually marry. Another woman, Maitreyi, is said to have married the Rishi Yajnavalkya
(himself a god who was cast into mortality by a rival) for the purpose of continuing her spiritual training. She
was a devoted ascetic and is said to have composed 10 of the hymns in the Rig Veda. Additionally, there is a
famous dialogue between Maitreyi and Yajnavalkya in the Upanishads (another early, foundational collection
of texts in the Vedic tradition) about attachment to material possessions, which cannot give a person
happiness, and the achievement of ultimate bliss through knowledge of the Absolute (God).

Another woman sage named Gargi also participates in a celebrated dialogue with Yajnavalkya on natural
philosophy and the fundamental elements and forces of the universe. Gargi is characterized as one of the most
knowledgeable sages on the topic, though she ultimately concedes that Yajnavalkya has greater knowledge. In
these brief episodes, these ancient Indian texts record instances of key women who attained a level of
enlightenment and learning similar to their male counterparts. Unfortunately, this early equality between the
sexes did not last. Over time Indian culture became more patriarchal, confining women to a dependent and
subservient role. Perhaps the most dramatic and cruel example of the effects of Indian patriarchy was the
ritual practice of sati, in which a widow would sometimes immolate herself, partly in recognition of the “fact”
that following the death of her husband, her current life on Earth served no further purpose (Rout 2016).
Neither a widow’s in-laws nor society recognized her value.
10 1 • Introduction to Philosophy

In similar fashion to the Indian tradition, the sage (sheng) tradition is important for Chinese philosophy.
Confucius, one of the greatest Chinese writers, often refers to ancient sages, emphasizing their importance for
their discovery of technical skills essential to human civilization, for their role as rulers and wise leaders, and
for their wisdom. This emphasis is in alignment with the Confucian appeal to a well-ordered state under the
guidance of a “philosopher-king.” This point of view can be seen in early sage figures identified by one of the
greatest classical authors in the Chinese tradition, as the “Nest Builder” and “Fire Maker” or, in another case,
the “Flood Controller.” These names identify wise individuals with early technological discoveries. The Book of
Changes, a classical Chinese text, identifies the Five (mythic) Emperors as sages, including Yao and Shun, who
are said to have built canoes and oars, attached carts to oxen, built double gates for defense, and fashioned
bows and arrows (Cheng 1983). Emperor Shun is also said to have ruled during the time of a great flood, when
all of China was submerged. Yü is credited with having saved civilization by building canals and dams.

FIGURE 1.3 The Chinese philosopher and historian Han Feizi identified sages with technological discoveries.
(credit: “Portrait of Han Fei” by unknown author/Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)

These figures are praised not only for their political wisdom and long rule, but also for their filial piety and
devotion to work. For instance, Mencius, a Confucian philosopher, relates a story of Shun’s care for his blind
father and wicked stepmother, while Yü is praised for his selfless devotion to work. In these ways, the Chinese
philosophical traditions, such as Confucianism and Mohism, associate key values of their philosophical
enterprises with the great sages of their history. Whether the sages were, in fact, actual people or, as many
scholars have concluded, mythical forebearers, they possessed the essential human virtue of listening and
responding to divine voices. This attribute can be inferred from the Chinese script for sheng, which bears the
symbol of an ear as a prominent feature. So the sage is one who listens to insight from the heavens and then is
capable of sharing that wisdom or acting upon it to the benefit of his society (Cheng 1983). This idea is similar
to one found in the Indian tradition, where the most important texts, the Vedas, are known as shruti, or works
that were heard through divine revelation and only later written down.

Although Confucianism is a venerable world philosophy, it is also highly patriarchal and resulted in the
widespread subordination of women. The position of women in China began to change only after the
Communist Revolution (1945–1952). While some accounts of Confucianism characterize men and women as

Access for free at openstax.org

 1.1 • What Is Philosophy? 11

emblematic of two opposing forces in the natural world, the Yin and Yang, this view of the sexes developed over
time and was not consistently applied. Chinese women did see a measure of independence and freedom with
the influence of Buddhism and Daoism, each of which had a more liberal view of the role of women (Adler
2006).

A detailed and important study of the sage tradition in Africa is provided by Henry Odera Oruka (1990), who
makes the case that prominent folk sages in African tribal history developed complex philosophical ideas.
Oruka interviewed tribal Africans identified by their communities as sages, and he recorded their sayings and
ideas, confining himself to those sayings that demonstrated “a rational method of inquiry into the real nature
of things” (Oruka 1990, 150). He recognized a tension in what made these sages philosophically interesting:
they articulated the received wisdom of their tradition and culture while at the same time maintaining a
critical distance from that culture, seeking a rational justification for the beliefs held by the culture.

CONNECTIONS
The chapter on the early history of philosophy covers this topic in greater detail.

FIGURE 1.4 Engraving of Greek historian Diogenes Laërtius from a 1688 edition of his Lives and Opinions of
Eminent Philosophers. (credit: “Diogenes Laërtius, ancient Greek writer” by Unidentified engraver/Wikimedia
Commons, Public Domain)

Among the ancient Greeks, it is common to identify seven sages. The best-known account is provided by
Diogenes Laërtius, whose text Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers is a canonical resource on early
Greek philosophy. The first and most important sage is Thales of Miletus. Thales traveled to Egypt to study with
the Egyptian priests, where he became one of the first Greeks to learn astronomy. He is known for bringing
back to Greece knowledge of the calendar, dividing the year into 365 days, tracking the progress of the sun
from solstice to solstice, and—somewhat dramatically—predicting a solar eclipse in 585 BCE. The eclipse
occurred on the day of a battle between the Medes and Lydians. It is possible that Thales used knowledge of
Babylonian astronomical records to guess the year and location of the eclipse. This mathematical and
astronomical feat is one of Thales’s several claims to sagacity. In addition, he is said to have calculated the
12 1 • Introduction to Philosophy

height of the pyramids using the basic geometry of similar triangles and measuring shadows at a certain time
of day. He is also reported to have predicted a particularly good year for olives: he bought up all the olive
presses and then made a fortune selling those presses to farmers wanting to turn their olives into oil. Together,
these scientific and technical achievements suggest that at least part of Thales’s wisdom can be attributed to a
very practical, scientific, and mathematical knowledge of the natural world. If that were all Thales was known
for, he might be called the first scientist or engineer. But he also made more basic claims about the nature and
composition of the universe; for instance, he claimed that all matter was fundamentally made of up water. He
also argued that everything that moved on its own possessed a soul and that the soul itself was immortal.
These claims demonstrate a concern about the fundamental nature of reality.

Another of the seven sages was Solon, a famed political leader. He introduced the “Law of Release” to Athens,
which cancelled all personal debts and freed indentured servants, or “debt-slaves” who had been consigned to
service based on a personal debt they were unable to repay. In addition, he established a constitutional
government in Athens with a representative body, a procedure for taxation, and a series of economic reforms.
He was widely admired as a political leader but voluntarily stepped down so that he would not become a tyrant.
He was finally forced to flee Athens when he was unable to persuade the members of the Assembly (the ruling
body) to resist the rising tyranny of one of his relatives, Pisistratus. When he arrived in exile, he was reportedly
asked whom he considered to be happy, to which he replied, “One ought to count no man happy until he is
dead.” Aristotle interpreted this statement to mean that happiness was not a momentary experience, but a
quality reflective of someone’s entire life.

Beginnings of Natural Philosophy

The sage tradition is a largely prehistoric tradition that provides a narrative about how intellect, wisdom, piety,
and virtue led to the innovations central to flourishing of ancient civilizations. Particularly in Greece, the sage
tradition blends into a period of natural philosophy, where ancient scientists or philosophers try to explain
nature using rational methods. Several of the early Greek schools of philosophy were centered on their
respective views of nature. Followers of Thales, known as the Milesians, were particularly interested in the
underlying causes of natural change. Why does water turn to ice? What happens when winter passes into
spring? Why does it seem like the stars and planets orbit Earth in predictable patterns? From Aristotle we
know that Thales thought there was a difference between material elements that participate in change and
elements that contain their own source of motion. This early use of the term element did not have the same
meaning as the scientific meaning of the word today in a field like chemistry. But Thales thought material
elements bear some fundamental connection to water in that they have the capacity to move and alter their
state. By contrast, other elements had their own internal source of motion, of which he cites the magnet and
amber (which exhibits forces of static electricity when rubbed against other materials). He said that these
elements have “soul.” This notion of soul, as a principle of internal motion, was influential across ancient and
medieval natural philosophy. In fact, the English language words animal and animation are derived from the
Latin word for soul (anima).

Similarly, early thinkers like Xenophanes began to formulate explanations for natural phenomena. For
instance, he explained rainbows, the sun, the moon, and St. Elmo’s fire (luminous, electrical discharges) as
apparitions of the clouds. This form of explanation, describing some apparent phenomenon as the result of an
underlying mechanism, is paradigmatic of scientific explanation even today. Parmenides, the founder of the
Eleatic school of philosophy, used logic to conclude that whatever fundamentally exists must be unchanging
because if it ever did change, then at least some aspect of it would cease to exist. But that would imply that
what exists could not exist—which seems to defy logic. Parmenides is not saying that there is no change, but
that the changes we observe are a kind of illusion. Indeed, this point of view was highly influential, not only for
Plato and Aristotle, but also for the early atomists, like Democritus, who held that all perceived qualities are
merely human conventions. Underlying all these appearances, Democritus reasoned, are only atomic,
unchanging bits of matter flowing through a void. While this ancient Greek view of atoms is quite different
from the modern model of atoms, the very idea that every observable phenomenon has a basis in underlying

Access for free at openstax.org

 1.1 • What Is Philosophy? 13

pieces of matter in various configurations clearly connects modern science to the earliest Greek philosophers.

Along these lines, the Pythagoreans provide a very interesting example of a community of philosophers
engaged in understanding the natural world and how best to live in it. You may be familiar with Pythagoras
from his Pythagorean theorem, a key principle in geometry establishing a relationship between the sides of a
right-angled triangle. Specifically, the square formed by the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is
equal to the sum of the two squares formed by the remaining two sides. In the figure below, the area of the
square formed by c is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares formed by a and b. The figure represents
how Pythagoras would have conceptualized the theorem.

FIGURE 1.5 The Pythagorean Theorem describes the relationship between the sides of a right-angled triangle as
demonstrated by the ancient Greek philosopher, Pythagoras. (credit: modification of "Pythagorean right angle" by
Marianov/Wikimedia Commons, CC0)

The Pythagoreans were excellent mathematicians, but they were more interested in how mathematics
explained the natural world. In particular, Pythagoras recognized relationships between line segments and
shapes, such as the Pythagorean theorem describes, but also between numbers and sounds, by virtue of
harmonics and the intervals between notes. Similar regularities can be found in astronomy. As a result,
Pythagoras reasoned that all of nature is generated according to mathematical regularities. This view led the
Pythagoreans to believe that there was a unified, rational structure to the universe, that the planets and stars
exhibit harmonic properties and may even produce music, that musical tones and harmonies could have
healing powers, that the soul is immortal and continuously reincarnated, and that animals possess souls that
ought to be respected and valued. As a result, the Pythagorean community was defined by serious scholarship
as well as strict rules about diet, clothing, and behavior.

Additionally, in the early Pythagorean communities, it was possible for women to participate and contribute to
philosophical thought and discovery. Pythagoras himself was said to have been inspired to study philosophy by
the Delphic priestess Themistoclea. His wife Theano is credited with contributing to important discoveries in
the realms of numbers and optics. She is said to have written a treatise, On Piety, which further applies
Pythagorean philosophy to various aspects of practical life (Waithe 1987). Myia, the daughter of this illustrious
couple, was also an active and productive part of the community. At least one of her letters has survived in
which she discusses the application of Pythagorean philosophy to motherhood. The Pythagorean school is an
example of how early philosophical and scientific thinking combines with religious, cultural, and ethical
beliefs and practices to embrace many different aspects of life.

How It All Hangs Together

Closer to the present day, in 1962, Wilfrid Sellars, a highly influential 20th-century American philosopher,
wrote a chapter called “Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man” in Frontiers of Science and Philosophy. He
opens the essay with a dramatic and concise description of philosophy: “The aim of philosophy, abstractly
formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the
14 1 • Introduction to Philosophy

broadest possible sense of the term.” If we spend some time trying to understand what Sellars means by this
definition, we will be in a better position to understand the academic discipline of philosophy. First, Sellars
emphasizes that philosophy’s goal is to understand a very wide range of topics—in fact, the widest possible
range. That is to say, philosophers are committed to understanding everything insofar as it can be understood.
This is important because it means that, on principle, philosophers cannot rule out any topic of study.
However, for a philosopher not every topic of study deserves equal attention. Some things, like conspiracy
theories or paranoid delusions, are not worth studying because they are not real. It may be worth
understanding why some people are prone to paranoid delusions or conspiratorial thinking, but the content of
these ideas is not worth investigating. Other things may be factually true, such as the daily change in number
of the grains of sand on a particular stretch of beach, but they are not worth studying because knowing that
information will not teach us about how things hang together. So a philosopher chooses to study things that are
informative and interesting—things that provide a better understanding of the world and our place in it.

To make judgments about which areas are interesting or worthy of study, philosophers need to cultivate a
special skill. Sellars describes this philosophical skill as a kind of know-how (a practical, engaged type of
knowledge, similar to riding a bike or learning to swim). Philosophical know-how, Sellars says, has to do with
knowing your way around the world of concepts and being able to understand and think about how concepts
connect, link up, support, and rely upon one another—in short, how things hang together. Knowing one’s way
around the world of concepts also involves knowing where to look to find interesting discoveries and which
places to avoid, much like a good fisherman knows where to cast his line. Sellars acknowledges that other
academics and scientists know their way around the concepts in their field of study much like philosophers do.
The difference is that these other inquirers confine themselves to a specific field of study or a particular
subject matter, while philosophers want to understand the whole. Sellars thinks that this philosophical skill is
most clearly demonstrated when we try to understand the connection between the natural world as we
experience it directly (the “manifest image”) and the natural world as science explains it (the “scientific
image”). He suggests that we gain an understanding of the nature of philosophy by trying to reconcile these two
pictures of the world that most people understand independently.

READ LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

“Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man”
This essay, “Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man (https://openstax.org/r/psim)” by Wilfrid Sellars, has been
republished several times and can be found online. Read through the essay with particular focus on the first section.
Consider the following study questions:

• What is the difference between knowing how and knowing that? Are these concepts always distinct? What does
it mean for philosophical knowledge to be a kind of know-how?
• What do you think Sellars means when he says that philosophers “have turned other special subject-matters to
non-philosophers over the past 2500 years”?
• Sellars describes philosophy as “bringing a picture into focus,” but he is also careful to recognize challenges
with this metaphor as it relates to the body of human knowledge. What are those challenges? Why is it difficult
to imagine all of human knowledge as a picture or image?
• What is the scientific image of man in the world? What is the manifest image of man in the world? How are they
different? And why are these two images the primary images that need to be brought into focus so that
philosophy may have an eye on the whole?

Unlike other subjects that have clearly defined subject matter boundaries and relatively clear methods of
exploration and analysis, philosophy intentionally lacks clear boundaries or methods. For instance, your
biology textbook will tell you that biology is the “science of life.” The boundaries of biology are fairly clear: it is
an experimental science that studies living things and the associated material necessary for life. Similarly,

Access for free at openstax.org

 1.2 • How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth? 15

biology has relatively well-defined methods. Biologists, like other experimental scientists, broadly follow
something called the “scientific method.” This is a bit of a misnomer, unfortunately, because there is no single
method that all the experimental sciences follow. Nevertheless, biologists have a range of methods and
practices, including observation, experimentation, and theory comparison and analysis, that are fairly well
established and well known among practitioners. Philosophy doesn’t have such easy prescriptions—and for
good reason. Philosophers are interested in gaining the broadest possible understanding of things, whether
that be nature, what is possible, morals, aesthetics, political organizations, or any other field or concept.

1.2 How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth?

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Identify philosophical methods of inquiry.
• Explain the role of logical consequences in assessing a philosophical position.
• Define conceptual analysis, coherence, argument, intuition, and experimental philosophy.
• Explain the importance of trade-offs in establishing a philosophical position.

We have seen some examples of how philosophy emerged in antiquity, its relationship to natural philosophy
and modern science, and one goal of philosophy, specifically—to provide a coherent story of how the world as it
appears to us can be explained in a way that also makes sense of what the sciences tells us. In this section, we
describe in greater detail the specific strategies and tools that philosophers use to arrive at truth.

Sources of Evidence
Even though philosophy is not an empirical science, philosophical claims require evidence, and philosophers
ought to have reasons for the claims they make. There are many different types of philosophical evidence,
some of which follow.

History

A basic but underappreciated source of evidence in philosophy is the history of philosophy. As we have already
seen, philosophical thinking has its origins around the world, from the beginning of recorded history.
Historical philosophers, sages, natural philosophers, and religious thinkers are often a source of insight,
inspiration, and argument that can help us understand contemporary philosophical questions. For instance,
the Greeks recognized early on that there is a difference between the way we use language to talk about things,
with generic terms that apply to many different things at the same time (like cat, tree, or house), and the things
as they actually exist—namely, as specific, individual beings or objects. Philosophers ask, what is the
relationship between the general terms we use and the specific things that exist in the world? This sort of
question is a perennial philosophical question. Today’s philosophers have their own response to this sort of
question, and their answers often respond to and are informed by the historical treatment of these issues.
16 1 • Introduction to Philosophy

FIGURE 1.6 European philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau influenced the framing of the United States
Constitution. (credit: “Jean Jacques Rousseau. Né en Genêve en 1708 (https://openstax.org/r/digitalcollections)” by
Maurice Quentin de La Tour/New York Public Library)

While you may expect questions about the natural world to change over time (and certainly they have changed
due to scientific progress), questions of morality and social organization do not change as much. What
constitutes the good life? How should communities be organized to benefit all the members of that
community? These sorts of questions stay with us throughout time. In the United States, it is common for
political leaders to appeal to the “founding fathers” of the US Constitution. People like Thomas Jefferson,
Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington were heavily influenced by early modern European philosophers
like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Hobbes. In similar fashion, the current Chinese leader,
Xi Jinping, is fond of reading and citing the foundational philosopher Confucius. Most of Xi’s addresses include
quotations from Confucius, and Xi stresses the importance of reading classical Chinese philosophers (Zhang
2015). For Chinese political leaders, Confucius provides an important reminder of the role of virtue and a
sense of belonging among the Chinese people. There is a widespread belief among the Chinese political class
that their intellectual heritage is an important factor in their contemporary political success, in much the same
way as American political leaders trace their success back to the founding fathers. Given the influence of
philosophy on world history, it is worthwhile to engage with the writings of past philosophers to inform our
understanding of pressing philosophical questions of today.

Intuition

One of the hallmarks of philosophical thinking is an appeal to intuition. What philosophers today mean by
intuition can best be traced back to Plato, for whom intuition (nous) involved a kind of insight into the very
nature of things. This notion has had religious connotations, as if the knowledge gained through intuition is
like catching a glimpse of divine light. But intuition does not have to involve faith. René Descartes defined
intuition in the following manner: “By intuition [I mean] . . . the conception of a clear and attentive mind, which
is so easy and distinct that there can be no room for doubt about what we are understanding” (Descartes 1985,
14). This concept of intuition is clearest in mathematical examples. Importantly, it is quite different from the
way that many people use the word intuition today to mean something like “gut feeling” or “hunch.” When
philosophers talk about intuition, they mean something much more definite. Consider the equation 2 + 2 = 4.

Access for free at openstax.org

 1.2 • How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth? 17

Examine the equation in your mind. Could it possibly be false? So long as we operate under the assumption
that these numbers represent counting numbers, it seems impossible that this equation could be false. More
than that, there is a kind of clarity and certainty about the equation. It is not just that you have learned 2 + 2 = 4
by habit. You could easily perform the counting operation in your head and verify that the answer is correct.
The truth of this mathematical sentence is so clear that if it turned out to be wrong, you would have to give up
core beliefs about the nature of numbers, addition, and equality. This kind of clarity is a paradigm of intuition.

Intuition operates in other realms besides mathematics, such as in the use of language. For instance, it is
obvious that a three-legged stool has three legs or that the tallest building is taller than any other building.
These statements are true in an obvious way that is similar to the mathematical sentence above. We can
branch out further, to say, for instance, that a camel is a mammal. We might intuitively know this statement is
true, but we may also recognize that we are on slightly less certain ground. After all, whether a camel is a
mammal is based on some understanding of the anatomy of a camel as well as the biological classification
system that assigns animals to different classes. So the definition of camel as “a mammal” is not the same as “a
three-legged stool has three legs.” Here, we can see that some statements are intuitively true by virtue of their
definition. Others are intuitively true by virtue of some mental operation that we can perform very easily. Still
others are intuitively true in that they rely on a body of knowledge that is commonly accepted and foundational
for our understanding of the world.

There are many other places outside of pure linguistic analysis and mathematics where intuitions are helpful.
Consider morality: the proposition that “it is better to be good than to be bad” may seem similar to the
statement that “a three-legged stool has three legs,” but the former introduces the words good and bad, which
are fraught terms that produce disagreement among people. Nonetheless, while it may be difficult to agree on
what constitutes “good” or “bad,” everyone probably recognizes that whatever is good ought to be better than
what is bad. That seems intuitively true. On this basis, we might imagine that there are intuitive truths even in
morality. As we gain confidence in the ability of intuition to reveal truth, we might be tempted to extend
intuitions even further. However, when intuitions extend into areas where there is no consensus on what is
true, we have to be cautious. At that point, we might be using the term intuition to stand in for belief or
perspective. Such “intuitions” do not have the same force as the intuition that 2 + 2 = 4. It is not always easy to
distinguish between intuitions that are certain and evident and those that are mere feelings or hunches;
recognizing that distinction is part of the practical know-how philosophers try to develop.

Common Sense

We ought not to neglect a third source of evidence in philosophy, namely, common sense. The idea of common
sense is frequently used to describe a basic set of facts or common knowledge that any adult human being
ought to possess. But common sense is rarely defined. When philosophers talk about common sense, they
mean specific claims based on direct sense perception, which are true in a relatively fundamental sense. In
other words, philosophical champions of common sense deny that one can be skeptical of certain basic claims
of sense perception.

Famously, early-20th-century British philosopher G. E. Moore argued that a perfectly rigorous proof of the
external world could be given by simply making the appropriate gesture toward his right hand and saying,
“Here is one hand.” So long as it is granted that the sensory perception of a hand is evidence of the existence of
a hand and that there is such a thing as a hand in the external world, then it must be granted that there is an
external world. Such an argument trades on the idea that knowledge of the existence of one’s own hands is
something that does not need further proof; it is something we can know without proof. This idea is not
something that all philosophers accept, but it is, in many cases, an important source of evidence in
philosophical inquiry. At a certain point, it may be necessary to stop demanding proofs for the things we can
plainly see, such as the fact that this is a hand (as we hold a hand in front of our faces and examine it). Common
sense may be questioned by further philosophical interrogation, but the common-sense philosopher may
respond that such interrogation is either unnecessary, excessive, or misses the point.
18 1 • Introduction to Philosophy

Experimental Philosophy

Experimental philosophy is a relatively recent movement in philosophy by which philosophers engage in

empirical methods of investigation, similar to those used by psychologists or cognitive scientists. The basic
idea motivating experimental philosophy is that philosophers use terms and concepts that can be tested in a
laboratory. For instance, when philosophers talk about free will, they frequently cite the idea that free will is
necessary to assign moral responsibility; thus, moral responsibility is one reason to believe in the existence of
free will. Consequently, you might wonder whether most people do, in fact, believe that the existence of free
will is necessary to assign moral responsibility. This claim can be tested, for instance, by posing problems or
scenarios to research subjects and asking them whether the absence of free choice removes moral
responsibility. Similar strategies have been applied to causation, philosophy of biology, consciousness,
personal identity, and so forth. In these areas, philosophers use experimental methods to find out what
average people think about philosophical issues. Since common sense and intuition are already a source of
evidence in philosophical reasoning, it makes sense to confirm that what philosophers ascribe to common
sense or intuition aligns with what people generally think about these things.

Such experimental research is subject to many of the same issues that confront experimentation in the social
sciences. These studies need to be replicable and ought to fall within a psychological or biological theory that
helps explain them. When philosophers tread into experimental philosophy, they behave a lot more like
scientists than philosophers, and they are held to the same rigorous standards as other researchers in similar
experimental disciplines.

Results from Other Disciplines

The relevance of experimental methods for philosophy suggests a broader source of evidence for philosophical
claims, namely, the results of scientific disciplines. When philosophers make claims about the natural world,
they ought to be aware of what the natural sciences say. When philosophers make claims about human nature,
they ought to be aware of what biology and the social sciences say. As we have already seen, there is an
important difference between philosophical investigation and these various disciplines. Yet, given that
philosophers attempt to gain some understanding of truth as a whole, they ought to welcome evidence from
other disciplines that can help them better understand portions of that whole truth.

Table 1.1 summarizes these different types of philosophical evidence.

Type of
Description Example
Evidence

The insights of historical

philosophers, sages, natural
The question “What is a good life?” is a perennial
philosophers, and religious thinkers
History philosophical concern; attempts at answers from the past
can help us understand
continue to have relevance for contemporary people.
contemporary philosophical
questions.

The philosophical meaning of

The truth of a mathematical sentence like “2+2=4” is so
intuition can best be traced back to
clear that if it turned out to be wrong, you would have to
Intuition Plato, for whom intuition involved a
give up core beliefs about the nature of numbers, addition,
kind if insight into the very nature of
and equality.
things.

TABLE 1.1 Types of Philosophical Evidence

Access for free at openstax.org

 1.2 • How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth? 19

Type of
Description Example
Evidence

When philosophers talk about

Someone who is holding their hand in front of their face can
Common common sense, they mean specific
rightly claim “this is my hand” without having to resort to
sense claims based on direct sense
any further proofs.
perception.

The basic idea motivating A philosopher might pose scenarios to research subjects
experimental philosophy is that and ask them whether they believe an absence of free
Experimental
philosophers use terms and choice would remove moral responsibility in these
philosophy
concepts that can be tested in a scenarios, in order to test a philosophical claim about moral
laboratory. responsibility and free will.

Evidence from other disciplines can

Results from Information provided by other social scientists (e.g.,
help philosophers better
other sociologists, historians, anthropologists) can be used to
understand portions of
disciplines inform philosophical claims about human nature.
philosophical inquiries.

TABLE 1.1 Types of Philosophical Evidence

Logic
One of the first and most reliable ways that philosophers have of verifying and analyzing claims is by using
logic, which is, in some sense, the science of reasoning. Logic attempts to formalize the process that we use or
ought to use when we provide reasons for some claims. By interpreting the claims we make using logic, we can
assess whether those claims are well founded and consistent or whether they are poorly reasoned. The chapter
on logic and reasoning will provide much more detail about the nature of logic and how it is used by
philosophers to arrive at truth.

CONNECTIONS
The chapter on logic and reasoning covers this topic of logic in greater detail.

Argument

The first and most important move in logic is to recognize that claims are the product of arguments. In
particular, a claim is just the conclusion of a series of sentences, where the preceding sentences (called
premises) provide evidence for the conclusion. In logic, an argument is just a way of formalizing reasons to
support a claim, where the claim is the conclusion and the reasons given are the premises. In normal
conversation and even philosophical writing, arguments are rarely written so clearly that one can easily
identify the premises and the conclusion. Nevertheless, it is possible to reconstruct any argument as a series of
sentences with clearly identified premises and conclusions. This process is the first step in analyzing an
argument: identify the claim that is being made, then identify the sentences that provide supporting evidence
for the argument. This process will necessarily require some interpretation on the part of the reader.
Therefore, it is important to try to remain faithful to the original intention of the argument and outline the
premises and conclusions in such a way that they display the reasoning of the person making that claim.

Once the premises and conclusion are identified and written in order, it is possible to use formal techniques to
evaluate the argument. Formal techniques will be covered in the chapter on logic and reasoning. For now, it is
sufficient to note that there is a process for evaluating whether claims are well supported by using the
techniques of logic. Poorly supported claims may be true, but without good reasons to accept those claims, a
20 1 • Introduction to Philosophy

person’s support of them is irrational. In philosophy, we want to understand and evaluate the reasons for a
claim. Just as a house that is built without a solid foundation will rapidly deteriorate and eventually fall, the
philosopher who accepts claims without good reasons is likely to hold a system of beliefs that will crumble.

Explanation

While arguments can be thought of as building blocks to construct a solid foundation for beliefs about the
world, arguments can also be understood as explanations for phenomena that are evident but not well
understood. To generate well-founded beliefs, we start with evidence in the form of premises and infer a
conclusion from that evidence. To explain observed phenomena, we start with a conclusion in the form of
some observation and reason backward to the evidence that explains why the observation is true. For example,
we infer that there is a fire based on the appearance of smoke, or we infer lightning when we hear thunder,
even if we do not see the lightning. We can compare the way we reason about explanations to the way a
detective might reconstruct a crime based on the evidence found at a crime scene. By reconstructing the
premises that led to a given conclusion, a philosopher can explain the reasons for a conclusion that are evident
through observation. In summary, logical reconstruction can be used to investigate the world around us,
providing a rational explanation for why the world is the way it appears.

Coherence

Finally, logic provides philosophers with a powerful technique for assessing a set of claims or beliefs. We can
ask whether a set of beliefs is logically consistent with one another. Given that we expect our beliefs to present
to us a world that makes rational sense, we want those beliefs to be internally consistent. A set of beliefs or
statements is coherent, or logically consistent, if it is possible for them to all be true at the same time. If it is
not possible for statements or beliefs to be true at the same time, then they are contradictory. It seems
unreasonable for a person to accept contradictory claims because a contradiction is a logical impossibility. If a
person holds contradictory beliefs, then they must be wrong about at least some of their beliefs.
Metaphorically, the house of beliefs in which they live must be poorly founded, at least in some places. When
you are reading philosophy, you should be aware of places where the author says things that appear to be
inconsistent. If you discover inconsistencies, that is a good indication that at least one of their claims is false.
You may not know which claim is false, but you can know it is logically impossible for all claims to be true.

When faced with the possibility of incoherent beliefs, the philosopher will need to either revise those beliefs so
that they become consistent, or they will need to give up some beliefs to preserve others. Logical consistency
cannot tell us that a set of beliefs is true; a complete fiction might be logically consistent. But logical
consistency can tell us what is not true. It is impossible for a logically inconsistent set of beliefs to be wholly
true.

Conceptual Analysis
One of the techniques that philosophers use to clarify and understand philosophical statements (either
premises or conclusions) is conceptual analysis. Conceptual analysis involves the analysis of concepts,
notions, or ideas as they are presented in statements or sentences. The term analysis has been a part of
philosophical terminology and methodology since its beginning. In its most basic sense, analysis refers to the
process of breaking apart complex ideas into simpler ones. Analysis also involves a cluster of related strategies
that philosophers use to discover truths. Each of these techniques attempts to arrive at a clearer and more
workable definition of the concepts in question.

When students are asked to give a definition of some concept or term, they frequently go to a dictionary. But a
dictionary provides only a description of how a concept is used in ordinary speech. A dictionary cannot tell us
what the word means in a fundamental sense because dictionary definitions never ask whether that common
usage is coherent, accurate, or precise. It is up to the person engaged in reflection on the concept to figure out
what the term means and whether that meaning fits within a larger understanding of the world. The next
section illustrates four methods of analysis.

Access for free at openstax.org

 1.2 • How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth? 21

Predicates

When philosophers today talk about concepts, they are usually referring to a notion that comes from the work
on logic done by German philosopher Gottlob Frege. Frege demonstrated that any sentence in natural
language could be translated into a formal, symbolic language, provided that we consider the sentence to be a
kind of function that describes a relationship between names (or objects) and concepts. This symbolic
language is what has become modern logic. Frege modeled his logic on mathematics, with the idea that he
could eliminate the ambiguity and vagueness of natural language by translating it into a purely symbolic
notation. Following Frege, we can break sentences into parts, including names, or object identifiers, and
concepts, or predicates.

FIGURE 1.7 Young Gottlob Frege in about 1879. (credit: “Young Frege” by Unknown author/Wikimedia Commons,
Public Domain)

Predicates are descriptive terms, like “yellow,” “six feet tall,” or “faster than a speeding bullet.” Simple
sentences like “the flower is yellow,” or “Superman is faster than a speeding bullet” can be easily analyzed into
object terms and predicates. But any sentence can be analyzed in multiple ways. And some sentences express
multiple relations between predicates and objects. So the role of conceptual analysis is to identify the right
predicates for analysis and to clarify the relationship between them. Predicates can help us clarify statements.
For any sentence, we can ask, what is being predicated, and how is it being predicated?

Descriptions

While the concepts that describe or categorize objects can be analyzed using predicates, the objects
themselves can be analyzed by using descriptions. Bertrand Russell identified definite descriptions as the way
to analyze proper names or objects. His idea is that in a sentence like “the flower is yellow” or “my dog likes
naps,” the subject term—“flower” or “dog”—can be substituted with a descriptive sentence that uniquely
identifies this particular flower or dog. There are unique characteristics that differentiate my dog from all
others, for instance: my dog was born on a certain day, lives in a certain city, belongs to me, or occupies a
specific location. Similarly, the flower can be identified by its position in a garden, field, or particular
geographical location. One of Russell’s insights was that proper names, such as “Max” (suppose it is the name I
22 1 • Introduction to Philosophy

use to call my dog), are definite descriptions in disguise. That is, any proper name can be substituted with a
description that identifies the one and only thing named.

A definite description is a way of analyzing names and object terms for the purpose of making them more like
predicates. This way we can clarify what we are talking about without resorting to gestures, context, or direct
experience. You probably do this in your everyday life when you encounter confusion about a name. For
instance, suppose a coworker says, “Kevin used up all the paper in the printer.” If there is more than one Kevin
in the office, you might answer, “Which Kevin?” And your coworker may then respond, “The one with brown
hair whose workspace is right next to the entrance.” “Oh,” you might reply, “You mean the one with the picture
of his kids on his desk?” In a sense, this process of disambiguating the reference for the name “Kevin” is a
process of seeking a more definite description to supplement the proper name. Understanding that language is
composed of definite descriptions and predicates can help us remove some of the ambiguity and vagueness
that is a natural part of speech.

Enumeration

Sometimes, to understand the meaning of a concept, it is helpful to enumerate its component parts. For
instance, we may say that a governmental body is composed of its legislature, its executive, and its judicial
branches. Or we might recognize that a cell is composed of a nucleus, a cell wall, and organelles. The process of
enumeration can help us specify the nature of the thing we are talking about. In effect, we are identifying the
parts that make up a whole. Since claims about the whole can be analyzed as claims about its parts and claims
about how the parts pertain to the whole, it is helpful to enumerate the parts and consider how claims about
the whole relate to claims about the parts.

Just as enumeration is helpful in understanding material things, it can be used to understand abstract
concepts. For example, Aristotle says that wisdom is composed of scientific knowledge, plus understanding,
where understanding is the grasp of first principles and scientific knowledge is the grasp of demonstrated
reasoning that follows from first principles. Whether or not Aristotle is correct, his enumeration may help us
understand the nature of wisdom.

Thought Experiments

When philosophers want to clarify the relationship between concepts, they often consider hypothetical
scenarios meant to isolate one or more features of a concept and place it in the appropriate relationship with
other concepts. Such hypothetical scenarios are called thought experiments. These imaginative scenarios
allow us to test or compare concepts to better understand their connections and logical consequences.
Philosophers have used thought experiments for as long as we have a written record of philosophical thought.
For instance, Plato devised an elaborate thought experiment in The Republic, in which he depicts Socrates and
several of his friends describing an ideal city. The premise of this thought experiment is that if the
philosophers could describe an ideal city in detail, they would be able to identify which part of the city gives
rise to justice.

Aristotle, a Greek philosopher who followed Plato, arrives at the famous claim that “nature abhors a vacuum”
(i.e., nature would not allow empty space between matter) by constructing a thought experiment. To argue for
this conclusion, Aristotle assumes that there is such a void and then asks, how could one know the distance
between two points in a vacuum? If there is any distance between two points, Aristotle reasons, that distance
would have to be the property of something. But, by hypothesis, there is nothing between the two points: it is a
pure void. Aristotle bases his reasoning on the idea that it is impossible for properties to exist without
something they are the property of. This argument reveals that Aristotle thinks distance is a property of
matter. Accordingly, it is impossible to measure distance in a pure void. Therefore, Aristotle reasons, it is not
possible for a void to exist because it would occupy a distance that has no measure. Puzzles like this one can
prompt fruitful philosophical reflection. What do you think about it?

Thought experiments are also common in ethics as a way of testing out moral theories. A moral theory could

Access for free at openstax.org

 1.2 • How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth? 23

be supported by a thought experiment if the result of applying the theory to a hypothetical case made good
moral sense. On the other hand, the thought experiment might undermine the moral theory by demonstrating
that when the theory is applied, it results in an absurd or immoral outcome. In any case, thought experiments
can help us clarify the relationship between our concepts and theories.

Table 1.2 summarizes these four methods of conceptual analysis.

Type of
Conceptual Description Application
Analysis

Predicates are descriptive terms, like “yellow”

Predicates can help us clarify statements. For
or “six feet tall”. The role of conceptual analysis
Predicates any sentence, we can ask, what is being
is to identify the right predicates for analysis
predicated, and how is it being predicated?
and to clarify the relationship between them.

A definite description is a way of analyzing

names and object terms for the purpose of Understanding that language is composed of
making them more like predicates. This way we definite descriptions and predicates can help us
Descriptions
can clarify what we are talking about without remove some of the ambiguity and vagueness
resorting to gestures, context, or direct that is a natural part of speech.
experience.

Since claims about the whole can be analyzed

The process of enumeration can help us specify
as claims about its parts and claims about how
the nature of the thing we are talking about. In
Enumeration the parts pertain to the whole, it is helpful to
effect, we are identifying the parts that make
enumerate the parts and consider how claims
up a whole.
about the whole relate to claims about the parts.

Thought experiments are hypothetical

Thought experiments allow us to test or
Thought scenarios meant to isolate one or more features
compare concepts to better understand their
experiments of a concept and place it in the appropriate
connections and logical consequences.
relationship with other concepts.

TABLE 1.2 Four Methods of Conceptual Analysis

Trade-offs
Conceptual analysis, logic, and sources of evidence together help philosophers compose a picture of the world
that helps them get a better grasp of truth. Recall that philosophers are attempting to understand how things
hang together in the broadest possible sense. However, it is unlikely that any single philosophical picture of the
world will turn out to be so obviously compelling that it completely satisfies all criteria of logic, evidence, and
conceptual analysis. It is much more likely that there will be competing pictures, each with strong reasons for
believing in it. This situation is the basis for philosophical discussions. No one picture is so obviously true that
all others can be discarded. Instead, we have to evaluate each picture of the world and understand the trade-
offs that these pictures impose on us. We have to consider the practical and logical implications of the beliefs
we hold to fully understand whether those beliefs are true and right.
24 1 • Introduction to Philosophy

READ LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Excerpt from “Thinking and Moral Considerations” by Hannah Arendt
Hannah Arendt was a German-Jewish philosopher who fled Germany in the 1930s and eventually settled in New
York City, where she became a prominent public intellectual. She is best known for her work on totalitarianism,
power, and the notion of evil. She coined the phrase “the banality of evil” when reporting for the New Yorker
magazine on the Nuremberg trial of Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann. The Nuremberg trials were a series of trials
held in Nuremberg, Germany, after World War II in which Nazi leaders were held accountable for their war crimes
before the international community. Subsequently, Arendt wrote the article “Thinking and Moral Considerations,” in
which she describes the ways that Eichmann’s inability or unwillingness to consider the real, moral consequences of
his actions caused him to behave in radically immoral ways. Arendt diagnoses the core problem of a person like
Eichmann as “not stupidity but a curious, quite authentic inability to think.” She considers thought to involve
aesthetic and moral judgments; thus, for a person to engage in evil action, they must necessarily disregard self-
reflection and conscientious thought.

Read this article, particularly focusing on the first two paragraphs and the last four paragraphs. You may be able to
obtain a copy of the article through JSTOR (https://openstax.org/r/jstor) if you access this database through your
college library. Then consider the following questions:

• In what sense does thinking require consideration of moral and aesthetic concerns? What is the relationship
between thought and judgment?
• How does the word conscience function in Arendt’s analysis? What is important about this word for
understanding the nature of thought?
• How does the figure of Socrates function in Arendt’s analysis to reveal the role of thinking?
• Why is thinking, in the sense that Arendt considers it, so easily disregarded by society? When does thinking
matter most?

“Biting the Bullet”

Sometimes when weighing the trade-offs of a particular view and its logical consequences, you may decide to
“bite the bullet.” This means that you are willing to accept the negative consequences of the view because you
find the view attractive for other reasons. For instance, on the topic of free will, a philosopher might be
committed to the idea that past events fully determine the future. In such a case, the philosopher is willing to
accept the negative implication that free will is an illusion. In ethics, some philosophers are committed to the
view that morality is entirely determined by the total quantity of effects caused by an action. Such
philosophers may be willing to accept things that would otherwise seem immoral, like harming an individual
person, if that action results in a greater quantity of positive effects in the end. No view is going to be perfect,
and it is difficult to make sense of the world in terms that we can explain and understand. Nonetheless, we
must be honest about the logical and moral consequences of the views we hold. If you are ultimately willing to
accept those consequences to maintain the view, then you can bite the bullet.

Reflective Equilibrium

Another method for assessing the logical and moral consequences of our thinking is to use judgments about
particular cases to revise principles, rules, or theories about general cases. This process of going back and
forth between an assessment of the coherence of the theory and judgments about practical, applied cases is
called reflective equilibrium. This process requires the revision of a theoretical and principled stance based
on practical judgments about particular cases. Reflective equilibrium is achieved when you are able to
establish some coherence between your theoretical and practical beliefs. Reflective equilibrium is a kind of
coherence method: that is, reflective equilibrium justifies beliefs by assessing their logical consistency. As
opposed to a traditional coherence approach, however, reflective equilibrium encourages the use of practical

Access for free at openstax.org

 1.3 • Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher 25

and applied judgments about cases as part of the set of beliefs that is logically consistent. Reflective
equilibrium is an important method for introductory students to understand because students are frequently
tempted to think they need to solve theoretical issues first before they can consider applications. Or they may
choose a theory and then try to apply it to cases. Reflective equilibrium emphasizes that this procedure is
likely neither possible nor desirable. Instead, a philosopher should be aware of both the theoretical
commitments and the practical concerns of their position and use their understanding of each to inform the
final analysis of their beliefs.

1.3 Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Explain Socrates’s appreciation for the limits of human knowledge.
• Identify Socrates’s primary moral principles.
• Describe Socrates’s life, death, and philosophical interests.
• Compare Socrates’s moral philosophy with classical Indian philosophy.

Socrates is a foundational figure for Western philosophy. Even though he did not write any works himself, his
life and thought are captured by three different, contemporary sources whose works we still have. Socrates is
depicted in several of Aristophanes’s comedic plays. Aristophanes, an accomplished Athenian playwright, won
several dramatic competitions of his day. Eleven of his 40 plays survive, and in three of them—The Clouds, The
Frogs, and The Birds—Socrates appears as a main character. Aristophanes’s depiction of Socrates is ridiculous,
and Plato appears to think that this depiction is partially responsible for Socrates’s ultimate trial and death.
Another contemporary of Socrates, the historian Xenophon, wrote an account of Socrates’s trial and death in
his Memorabilia. Finally, and most important, Socrates’s student and friend Plato made Socrates the central
figure in nearly all of his dialogues. Plato and Aristotle are the most influential of the Athenian philosophers
and have had a profound influence on the development of Western philosophy. Plato wrote exclusively in the
form of dialogues, where his characters engage in discussion centered on philosophical issues. Most of what
we know about Socrates is derived from Plato’s depiction of him as the primary questioner in most of the
dialogues. Therefore, even though Socrates did not write works of his own, his life—and death—remain a
testament to his profound and impactful philosophical life. For that reason, it is useful for us to consider the
figure of Socrates as a paradigm of the philosophical life.
26 1 • Introduction to Philosophy

FIGURE 1.8 Roman 1st century marble sculpture of Socrates, which is perhaps a copy of a lost bronze statue made
by Lysippos. (credit: “Head of Socrates, 1st Century, A.D.” by Nathan Hughes Hamilton/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

In particular, Socrates’s defense of himself during his trial is in many ways a defense of the philosophical life.
Socrates was accused by a young, upstart politician named Meletus of corrupting the youth and undermining
the gods of the city. These crimes were considered to be a kind of treason that undermined the legitimacy and
future of Athenian democracy. The speech Socrates gave in his own defense to the Athenians, as recorded by
Plato, remains a vivid and compelling defense of the sort of life he lived. In the end, his defense was not
successful. He was convicted, imprisoned, and killed in 399 BCE. Plato provides accounts of the trial and
death, not only in the Apology, but also in the Crito, where Socrates argues with his friend Crito that it would be
unjust for him to escape from prison, and in the Phaedo, where Socrates engages in a debate with several close
friends, arguing in his jail cell just before he dies that the soul is immortal.

READ LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

This excerpt from Plato’s Apology (https://openstax.org/r/platosapology), translated by Benjamin Jowett, records
one account of Socrates’s defense at his trial. He is responding to accusations made against him in front of the
Assembly, which was the main governing body and jury for trials in Athens. This body was composed of 500 citizens.

I dare say, Athenians, that someone among you will reply, “Why is this, Socrates, and what is the origin of
these accusations of you: for there must have been something strange which you have been doing? All this
great fame and talk about you would never have arisen if you had been like other men: tell us, then, why
this is, as we should be sorry to judge hastily of you.” Now I regard this as a fair challenge, and I will
endeavor to explain to you the origin of this name of “wise,” and of this evil fame. . . . I will refer you to a
witness who is worthy of credit, and will tell you about my wisdom—whether I have any, and of what
sort—and that witness shall be the god of Delphi. You must have known Chaerephon; he was early a friend
of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the exile of the people, and returned with you. Well,
Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the

Access for free at openstax.org

 1.3 • Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher 27

oracle to tell him whether—as I was saying, I must beg you not to interrupt—he asked the oracle to tell him
whether there was anyone wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man
wiser. Chaerephon is dead himself, but his brother, who is in court, will confirm the truth of this story.

Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard
the answer, I said to myself, “What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? for I
know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men?
And yet he is a god and cannot lie; that would be against his nature.” After a long consideration, I at last
thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then
I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, “Here is a man who is wiser than I
am; but you said that I was the wisest.” Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and
observed to him—his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination—and
the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really
wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to
him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and
his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went
away: “Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am
better off than he is—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know.
In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him.” Then I went to another, who
had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy
of him, and of many others besides him.

After this I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I
lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me—the word of God, I thought, ought to be
considered first. And I said to myself, “Go I must to all who appear to know, and find out the meaning of the
oracle.” And I swear to you, Athenians, by the dog I swear!—for I must tell you the truth—the result of my
mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that some
inferior men were really wiser and better. I will tell you the tale of my wanderings and of the “Herculean”
labors, as I may call them, which I endured only to find at last the oracle irrefutable. When I left the
politicians, I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. And there, I said to myself, you will be
detected; now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of
the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them—thinking that
they would teach me something. Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to speak of this, but still I must
say that there is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they did
themselves. That showed me in an instant that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius
and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand
the meaning of them. And the poets appeared to me to be much in the same case; and I further observed
that upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in
which they were not wise. So I departed, conceiving myself to be superior to them for the same reason that
I was superior to the politicians.

At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure
that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I
was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans
fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all
sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom—therefore I asked myself on
behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance,
or like them in both; and I made answer to myself and the oracle that I was better off as I was.

This investigation has led to my having many enemies of the worst and most dangerous kind, and has given
occasion also to many calumnies, and I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself
28 1 • Introduction to Philosophy

possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise;
and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing; he is not speaking of
Socrates, he is only using my name as an illustration, as if he said, “He, O men, is the wisest, who, like
Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing.” And so I go my way, obedient to the god, and
make inquisition into the wisdom of anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he
is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite
absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own,
but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.

“The Life Which Is Unexamined Is Not Worth Living”

After Socrates is convicted and has a chance to address the jury to persuade them to offer him a sentence or
punishment other than death, he considers and then rejects the idea of exile. If he lived in exile, Socrates
believed he would no longer be able to carry on his work as a philosopher because a foreign city would be even
less welcoming of his strange questioning than his hometown. In speaking about this alternative, he says the
following:

Someone will say: “Yes, Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign
city, and no one will interfere with you?” Now I have great difficulty in making you understand my
answer to this. For if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore
that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that the greatest
good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining
myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living—that you are still less
likely to believe. (Plato, Apology)

This idea—that a life that is “unexamined” is not worth living—strikes at the heart of what Socrates tells us
motivates him to live a philosophical life. The statement ought to make us pause and reflect, not only because
Socrates himself demonstrates his commitment to a particular kind of life, to the point of accepting death, but
also because the charge that an unexamined life is not worth living rightly seems like such a serious thing. To
have lived a life that is not worth living: What could be worse? Given the stakes, we ought to wonder, what does
Socrates mean by an unexamined life? Or, alternatively, what would it look like to examine one’s life in the
appropriate way?

Examination of the Self

The first form of examination that Socrates clearly advises is self-examination. At the temple to the oracle at
Delphi, one of three maxims engraved in stone is the phrase “know thyself.” Like most oracular statements, it
is not clear what is meant by this phrase. Plato suggests it may be a kind of warning to those who enter the
oracle: “Know your position relative to the gods!” Alternatively, it may be a command to understand your own
nature and your own mind before you seek to understand other people or the things of the world. Based on our
reading of Socrates’s life and works, we can assume that he considers this saying to be a command to
investigate our beliefs and knowledge, to appreciate the limits of our own knowledge, and to strive to eliminate
inconsistencies. After all, Socrates’s method of questioning as it is described in Plato’s dialogues (and as
Socrates himself describes in the excerpted passage) is exactly such an inquiry.

Socrates questions others about whether their beliefs are consistent and whether they have adequate
justification for the beliefs they hold. This line of questioning suggests that Socrates holds such consistency
and internal justification in high regard. We can imagine that Socrates considers an unexamined life to be one
in which a person holds beliefs without justification or holds beliefs that are inconsistent with one another. We
may then speculate that an unexamined is not worth living because it is dictated by beliefs and ideas that have
never been tested, justified, or accounted for. You might respond that endless questioning is boring or difficult,
or you may respond that “ignorance is bliss.” For a philosopher, this attitude is not only undesirable, but it also

Access for free at openstax.org

 1.3 • Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher 29

approaches irrationality. It seems that, whatever makes life worth living for creatures capable of rational
thought, a minimum requirement is that we believe things worth believing in, hold positions we can defend,
and understand why we do what we do. To do that, we need to engage in self-examination.

FIGURE 1.9 This image depicts Socrates in deep conversation with Athenian statesman Alciabiades, Athenian
politician and orator Pericles, and Aspasia, a well-known Milesian woman who gained political and philosophical
influence as Pericles’ romantic partner. (credit: “Drawing, Socrates, Pericles, Alcibiades, Aspasia in Discussion” by
Felice Giani/Cooper Hewitt Smithsonian Design Museum, Public Domain)

Examination of Nature

Even though Socrates himself did not develop an account of nature and the cosmos like many of the pre-
Socratic philosophers, we may imagine that living an examined life requires us to understand the world
around us. Socrates himself was well aware of the various natural philosophical accounts that were prominent
in his day. Plato frequently records Socrates quoting or citing another philosopher’s account of the planets and
stars, natural change, or other natural phenomenon when he is questioning others. Indeed, several of the
dialogues place Socrates in conversations about the nature of the soul, the nature of causality, the classification
of animals and plants, and so forth, all of which could fall under the examination of nature. Why might such a
process of examination be important for a life worth living? We might speculate that it is important for us
remain curious. The capacity to reason gives human beings the ability to investigate how things work—to
discover truths about the world around them. Neglecting that drive to understand the world around us is like
neglecting a natural skill. Methods of philosophical reflection can help us make sense of the world around us.
Such investigation is characteristic of the ancient philosophers and may be considered part of a life worth
living.

Human Wisdom Is Worth Little or Nothing

In the excerpt from Plato’s Apology, Socrates investigates the oracle’s strange response that he is the wisest of
men. First, Socrates attempts to prove the oracle wrong by finding someone wiser than he. But, after a time, he
comes to realize that the oracle’s response was a kind of riddle. He interprets the oracle as saying that Socrates
is wisest because he alone realizes that human wisdom is worth little or nothing. This realization is important
for Socrates’s own self-examination and provides an important lesson for philosophy students.
30 1 • Introduction to Philosophy

Understanding the Limits of Knowledge

Perhaps one of the greatest lessons you can learn from a well-rounded college education is just how much
more there is to know about the world. Even the most respected scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, and
historians recognize that the scope of their expertise is extremely limited. A lifetime of study can, at best, give
a person deep insight into a tiny fraction of the universe of human knowledge. Beyond that, there is a vast
domain of things that no human has yet discovered or understood. Consequently, it is a good idea to practice
Socrates’s advice: to be aware of what you do not know and not to assert knowledge where you lack it. People
are often resistant to taking this position because they want answers. Someone who can convince others that
they know the solution to their problems or personal dilemmas can exert a great deal of power over them. But
we ought to recognize the dangers of asserting knowledge where we lack it. In technical areas, a refusal to
admit ignorance can result in the failure of equipment, the malfunctioning of machines, and in the worst
cases, injury and loss of life. In the moral and political arenas, asserting knowledge where you lack it may lead
to unnecessary disagreements and polarization, or it may result in ill-considered actions that result in ethical
mistakes or harm to others. Most importantly, if you are not aware when you lack knowledge, you will not seek
to acquire the knowledge you lack. If you believe you already know something, you will not listen to the
evidence that disproves what you believe. As a result, you will miss out on learning the truth.

The Socratic Method

Socrates engaged in a particular method of questioning, sometimes known as the Socratic method, that was
characterized by his asking questions of others rather than explaining his own beliefs. Socrates is typically
hesitant to offer his own ideas about the topic under discussion. Instead, he asks the people he is questioning
to supply the subject matter for their discussion. Socrates’s use of this strategy may be puzzling. One
explanation may be that he is following the god’s command, as he says in the Apology. Another explanation is
that he does not claim to have knowledge about the topic in question and is genuinely happy to learn from
others. Yet another possibility is that Socrates feigns ignorance and is being insincere. Perhaps his true goal is
to trap or humiliate the other person by discovering some inconsistency or obvious falsehood in what they
believe. It is hard to know which of these is the most likely explanation, but we will focus for a moment on a
fourth possibility, namely, a pedagogical one.

In two different Platonic dialogues, Socrates explains what he is doing by using an analogy: he compares his
method of questioning to the role taken by a midwife during childbirth. In fact, Plato tells us that Socrates’s
mother was a midwife and that he assumes her role in philosophical conversation. The goal of Socratic
questioning, then, is to assist the person being questioned in discovering the truth on their own. By asking
questions and examining the claims made by another person, Socrates allows that person to go through a
process of self-discovery. This method provides an interesting lesson for teaching and learning. Often,
students believe that their role is to simply receive knowledge from the teacher. But Socrates reminds us that
real learning comes only through self-discovery and that the role of the teacher is to be an assistant, providing
the kind of critical examination and evaluation necessary to help the student discover truth on their own.

The Importance of Doing No Harm

Even though many early philosophers were concerned with understanding nature, Socrates is much more
concerned with ethics, or how to live a good life. He considers the primary purpose of philosophy to make one’s
life better by making the philosopher a better person. Even though Socrates rarely claims to have knowledge
about anything at all, the few instances where he does profess knowledge relate directly to morality. In
particular, Socrates asserts a pair of moral principles that are quite controversial and may appear at first
glance false. However, upon closer inspection, you may find that these principles bear some truth that is worth
consideration.

Socrates’s Harm Principle

Socrates’s harm principle claims the following:

Access for free at openstax.org

 1.3 • Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher 31

1. No one willingly chooses what is harmful to themselves.

2. When a person does harm to others, they actually harm themselves.

The first principle is sometimes stated as “no one intentionally chooses evil,” but for the purposes of this
discussion, it will be clearer to consider the above formulation. The important thing to understand about the
first principle is that Socrates believes that when people choose bad things, they do so out of ignorance. The
reason he thinks so is that he believes all people desire what is good. For Socrates, it is intuitively true that
whatever someone desires, that desire is always directed at something that appears good to them, which
means a person cannot choose what is harmful for its own sake. Instead, Socrates reasons, when individuals
do harmful things, they believe that what they are doing will bring about some good for them. In other words,
when people choose evil, they do so in the belief that it is good or will bring about something good. If, in fact,
they are wrong, then that was the fault of ignorance, not a desire to do evil. If they had better understood the
consequences of their actions, Socrates reasons, they would not have chosen something harmful.

The second principle derives from the fact that Socrates thinks the greatest harm that can come to anyone is
for their soul—or their character—to become corrupted. Since a corrupted soul is the result of making the
kinds of choices that produce harm, it follows that whenever someone does something harmful, they corrupt
their soul, so they harm themselves. At the end of the Apology, Socrates argues that it is not possible to harm a
good man because, even though you might kill him, you cannot harm his character or make him do evil.
Socrates seems to regard physical suffering, and even death, as a temporary and minor harm. Moreover, he
regards the harm to one’s character by living a life of ignorance or malevolence as far worse than physical
death.

THINK LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

• Do you agree with the first principle of Socrates, which leads him to claim that no one willingly does harm? Why
do you agree or disagree with him?
• Can you think of examples from your own life or experience that demonstrate that people deliberately do harm
for harm’s sake?
• Is the second claim true or false? Can you think of examples to prove the second claim true? False?
• Why might Socrates believe that harm to one’s character is more significant than even death? Is Socrates
mistaken? If you believe he is mistaken, on what do you base your claim?

When you answer these questions, be sure to give Socrates the benefit of the doubt. After all, there is no question
that Socrates was a smart person. He lived at a different time and may appear strange to you, but you will find that
his ideas are still relevant if you give them some consideration. After you take Socrates seriously, can you still find an
error in Socrates’s thinking?

Comparison of Socrates’s Harm Principle with Ahimsa in the Indian Tradition

It may be instructive to consider the possible connection between the core concept of ahimsa in classical
Indian philosophy and Socrates’s harm principle as discussed above. Etymologically, the word ahimsa, in
Sanskrit, literally means “the absence of doing injury or harm.” The concept is found throughout Hindu, Jain,
and Buddhist texts and likely has its origins deep in classical Indian thought. A well-known illustration of
ahimsa comes from Jainism, where the concept is taken to what most of us would consider to be extreme
measures—at least in the case of Jain ascetics observing ahimsa as one of the “great vows.” Such ascetic Jains
must take the greatest possible care not to cause harm, intentionally or unintentionally, to any creature,
including insects, plants, and microbes. At the end of their lives, a devout Jain may even fast to death (stop
eating) in one final renunciation of doing harm. Another well-known example of ahimsa can be seen the
philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, who used the concept to establish a nonviolent civil disobedience movement
that some say helped speed the colonial British departure from India.
32 1 • Introduction to Philosophy

Ahimsa is identified as one of the highest virtues in the Vedic tradition (the Vedas are the most sacred
scriptures of India) and is one of the loftiest teachings in Indian philosophy. The idea of ahimsa informs animal
ethics, just-war theory, and interpersonal relations. On a metaphysical level, ahimsa is connected with
karma—the causal law that links causes to effects, even across lifetimes. This informs the belief that an
individual will bear a future burden for harms committed in the present through the process of samsara, or
transmigration and rebirth of the soul. According to this religious and philosophical theory, the soul brings
both its good and bad karma (fruit of action) with it from life to life and will either enjoy the fruits of prior good
actions or suffer the consequences of bad ones. Because of the laws of karma and reincarnation, any action
resulting in violence, injury, or harm has the direct consequence of chaining an individual’s soul to a process of
rebirth and material suffering. Insofar as a person causes injury and suffering to others, they increase the total
negative effects in nature. In summary, the individual creates bad effects for themselves by acting badly. From
the perspective of Indian philosophy, there is a natural connection among all beings, so causing harm or injury
to one entity is like harming a family member or even a part of oneself. Additionally, because individual
experience is governed by the laws of karma, harm and injury to others has the result of causing injury to
oneself.

However, ahimsa does not focus only on the problem of causing harm. The practice of ahimsa also calls for the
practice of love and compassion toward all beings. Following the same principles of karma and samsara, acts
of love, kindness, and generosity have the effect of increasing the total amount of good in the world, of
recognizing that we are, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “caught in an inescapable network of
mutuality” and “tied in a single garment of destiny” (1963). The practice of love and compassion increases the
possibility of liberation from material suffering.

It may be useful to consider possible comparisons between the Indian notion of ahimsa and Socrates’s harm
principle. Both doctrines teach that by causing harm, acting through violence, or causing suffering to others,
we actually harm ourselves. They describe different mechanisms for how that harm comes to us. Which do you
think sounds more likely to be true? Are there other advantages or disadvantages to either view?

Additionally, Socrates says that no one directly desires to cause harm or do evil; harm is the product of
ignorance. For Indian philosophers, there is a connection between harm or suffering and ignorance as well.
For them, suffering is caused by attachment to temporary things, both material and immaterial, including
feelings, goals, or ideals. The remedy for attachment is enlightenment, which comes from recognizing that all
perceptions, feelings, and desires emerge from prior causes and that the chain of causes continues without
end. All things that are part of the chain of causes, according to Indian philosophers, are temporary. Once a
person has this realization, they ought to recognize the harm that comes from attachment, from trying to hold
on to any product of the unending chain of causes. The connection between ignorance and harm is quite
different for each philosophy, but it may be worthwhile to consider how and why they are different. It may also
be worthwhile to reflect on whether there is a connection between harm and ignorance and what it might be.

1.4 An Overview of Contemporary Philosophy

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Identify the role of professional philosophers in academics and beyond.
• Identify the structure, organization, and thematic goals of the textbook.

Contemporary academic philosophy bears minimal resemblance to the classical traditions we have discussed
in the previous sections. Philosophers today, like other academics, focus on specific areas of research
expertise with the goal of producing new research that advances our philosophical understanding of specific
problems or topic areas. That said, philosophical investigation is still motivated by the same desire to make
sense of things in the most general way possible. In this section, we will introduce you to what philosophy
majors do. Additionally, we will provide a brief summary of the themes and organization of the textbook.

Access for free at openstax.org

 1.4 • An Overview of Contemporary Philosophy 33

What Can You Do with a Philosophy Major?

Majoring in philosophy is a great way to complete a liberal arts degree. Philosophy will introduce you to
fascinating ideas and teach you to think analytically and creatively. If you enjoy the topics in this book, you
should consider a philosophy major.

Becoming a Philosophy Teacher

To pursue a career in academic philosophy, you must major in philosophy as an undergraduate and continue
your studies in the field by doing some graduate work. Community colleges and some four-year schools
employ instructors with a master’s degree in philosophy. However, it is very common for these jobs to be
occupied almost entirely by people with PhDs. Academic jobs, particularly in the humanities and liberal arts,
are extremely competitive. Even with a PhD, it will be difficult to find a job in an academic department. That
said, it is much more common to find jobs teaching than doing research, but many teaching jobs still require
some research. A philosophy professor or instructor may be asked to teach on a wide variety of subjects,
depending on the needs of the school. By contrast, when doing research, academic philosophers tend to focus
on a very specific area with the goal of becoming an expert in that topic. Expertise is generally marked by the
production of research work, such as a dissertation, book, or several research articles on the topic. Academic
research jobs are typically secured with tenure, meaning that there are strong protections against unjustified
firing. However, recent studies of federal data show that 73 percent of all academic jobs are not on the tenure
track (meaning there is no chance to secure tenure). Additionally, 40 percent of all academic teaching
positions are occupied by part-time faculty. The distribution of tenured, tenure-track, non-tenure track, and
part-time employees varies greatly by institution type, with community colleges employing far more part-time
instructors and far fewer tenured and tenure-track instructors. Meanwhile, research universities employ more
tenured and tenure-track faculty and fewer part-time faculty (AAUP 2018).

Alternatives to Academic Philosophy

Philosophy undergraduate and graduate degree majors have many options outside of teaching and research in
an academic environment. There is a widespread and somewhat mistaken belief that the purpose of selecting
a college major is to prepare you for a specific career. While that may be true for some technical degrees, like
engineering or nursing, it is generally not true for degrees in the liberal arts and sciences. Many students enter
college with a desire to pursue a career in some area of business or commerce. Others plan to go on to a
professional graduate school in medicine or law. While it may seem like the best career decision would be to
major in business, premed, or prelaw, this notion is probably misguided.

The original idea behind a liberal arts and sciences education was that high school graduates could study a
broad range of fields in the core areas of knowledge that are foundational for our culture, society, and
civilization—areas like the natural and social sciences, literature, history, religion, and philosophy. By studying
these fields, students gain insights into the key ideas, methods of investigation, questions, and discoveries that
underlie modern civilization. Those insights give you a perspective on the world today that is informed by the
history and learning that make today’s world possible. And that perspective can have a transformative effect
that goes far beyond job preparation.

When philosophy majors are compared to other majors in terms of their long-term career earnings, it appears
that philosophy majors do very well. While the starting salaries of philosophy majors are lower than some
other majors, their mid-career salaries compare very favorably with majors in areas like finance, engineering,
and math.
34 1 • Introduction to Philosophy

FIGURE 1.10 Median mid-career salaries (10 years after graduation) by college major. Philosophy majors make
more, on average, than those majoring in many other areas. (source: Wall Street Journal) (attribution: Copyright Rice
University, OpenStax under CC BY 4.0 license)

Additionally, philosophy majors have some of the highest LSAT and GMAT scores of any major (these are the
tests generally required for admission to law school and business school, respectively). Quite a few former
philosophy majors have gone on to become CEOs of large corporations, such as Reid Hoffman, cofounder of
LinkedIn, and Carly Fiorina, CEO of Hewlett-Packard (Chideya 2015).

Many philosophers who have earned a graduate degree in philosophy and held positions as professors and
instructors have made successful transitions to other careers, including start-ups, technology, business, ethics
review boards, and public philosophy. Nigel Warburton, a former philosophy professor, started the philosophy
podcast “Philosophy Bites” that is one of the most downloaded podcasts on academic topics. He also is an
editor-in-chief of the online magazine Aeon. David Barnett, a former philosophy professor, founded the
company PopSockets in 2012 after leaving academia. That company now employs over 200 people and
generates hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue. Additionally, there are a growing number of
technology, neuroscience, and medical firms that are specifically looking to hire philosophers to help with
research and ethics reviews. Marcus Arvan maintains a public directory of academic philosophers who have
found work outside of academia at Philosophers in Industry (https://openstax.org/r/philosopher). In short,
philosophers can be found nearly everywhere doing useful work and making good money. You should not let
concerns about career prospects drive you away from studying philosophy.

An Overview of Your Philosophy Textbook

This textbook is organized in a way that generally reflects the broad areas of specialization in contemporary
academic philosophy. Areas of specialization can be grouped into the following fields: historical traditions;

Access for free at openstax.org

 1.4 • An Overview of Contemporary Philosophy 35

metaphysics and epistemology; science, logic, and mathematics; and value theory. The fields of science, logic,
and mathematics include research into contemporary symbolic logic as well as interdisciplinary work in the
philosophy of mathematics and the sciences; these areas are closely related to metaphysics and epistemology.
Value theory includes metaethics and the meaning of value, aesthetics, normative moral theories (ethics), and
political philosophy. This textbook aims to provide a general overview of each of these areas. We give students
a theoretical survey of each field in philosophy and introduce applications of these areas of study to
contemporary issues of interest. Additionally, we have an explicitly multicultural focus. We emphasize that
philosophy has been studied and practiced throughout the world since the beginning of recorded history. In
doing so, we are attempting to confront the Eurocentric bias that has been inherent to the study of philosophy
in the West and create a more inclusive curriculum.

Throughout this text, we introduce you to the stunning array of philosophers and ideas from ancient Greece,
Rome, and China, the classical Islamic and the late medieval European worlds, Africa, India, Japan, and Latin
America. We help situate you within the different regions and time periods using timelines and other tools.

Whether you go on to study philosophy or this is the only philosophy course you take, the habits of mind and
techniques of philosophical thought you will learn can have a transformative effect. When you allow yourself to
reflect on how a certain situation connects to the whole, when you critically examine your own biases and
beliefs, when you investigate the world with an open mind, informed by rational methods of investigation, you
will arrive at a richer sense of who you are and what your place is in the world.
36 1 • Summary

Summary
1.1 What Is Philosophy?
The word “philosophy” derives from ancient Greek, in which the philosopher is a lover or pursuer (philia) of
wisdom (sophia). The earliest Greek philosophers were not known as philosophers; they were simply known as
sages. The sage tradition is a largely prehistoric tradition that provides a narrative about how intellect,
wisdom, piety, and virtue lead to the innovations central to the flourishing of ancient civilizations. Particularly
in Greece, the sage tradition blends into a period of natural philosophy, where ancient scientists or
philosophers try to explain nature using rational methods.

Wilfrid Sellars emphasizes that philosophy’s goal is to understand a very wide range of topics—in fact, the
widest possible range. That is to say, philosophers are committed to understanding everything insofar as it can
be understood. A philosopher chooses to study things that are informative and interesting—things that provide
a better understanding of the world and our place in it. To make judgments about which areas are interesting
or worthy of study philosophers need to cultivate a special skill. Sellars describes this philosophical skill as a
kind of know-how. Philosophical know-how has to do with knowing your way around the world of concepts and
being able to understand and think about how concepts connect, link up, support, and rely upon one
another—in short, how things hang together.

1.2 How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth?

The goal of philosophy is to provide a coherent story of how the world as it appears to us can be explained in a
way that also makes sense of what the sciences tells us. Given the influence of philosophy on world history, it is
worthwhile to engage with the writings of past philosophers to inform our understanding of pressing
philosophical questions of today.

What philosophers today mean by intuition can best be traced back to Plato, for whom intuition (nous)
involved a kind of insight into the very nature of things. This notion has had religious connotations, as if the
knowledge gained through intuition is like catching a glimpse of divine light.

When philosophers talk about common sense, they mean specific claims based on direct sense perception,
which are true in a relatively fundamental sense. In other words, philosophical champions of common sense
deny that one can be skeptical of certain basic claims of sense perception.

Experimental philosophy is a relatively recent movement in philosophy by which philosophers engage in

empirical methods of investigation, similar to those used by psychologists or cognitive scientists. Philosophers
use experimental methods to find out what average people think about philosophical issues. Since common
sense and intuition are already a source of evidence in philosophical reasoning, it makes sense to confirm that
what philosophers ascribe to common sense or intuition aligns with what people generally think about these
things.

Logic attempts to formalize the process that we use or ought to use when we provide reasons for some claims.
The first and most important move in logic is to recognize that claims are the product of arguments. In
particular, a claim is just the conclusion of a series of sentences, where the preceding sentences (called
premises) provide evidence for the conclusion. In logic, an argument is just a way of formalizing reasons to
support a claim, where the claim is the conclusion and the reasons given are the premises.

A set of beliefs or statements is coherent, or logically consistent, if it is possible for them to all be true at the
same time. If it is not possible for statements or beliefs to be true at the same time, then they are contradictory.
It seems unreasonable for a person to accept contradictory claims because a contradiction is a logical
impossibility. If a person holds contradictory beliefs, then they must be wrong about at least some of their
beliefs.

One of the techniques that philosophers use to clarify and understand philosophical statements (either
premises or conclusions) is conceptual analysis. Conceptual analysis involves the analysis of concepts,

Access for free at openstax.org

 1 • Key Terms 37

notions, or ideas as they are presented in statements or sentences. The term analysis has been a part of
philosophical terminology and methodology since its beginning. In its most basic sense, analysis refers to the
process of breaking apart complex ideas into simpler ones. Analysis also involves a cluster of related strategies
that philosophers use to discover truths. Each of these techniques attempts to arrive at a clearer and more
workable definition of the concepts in question.

1.3 Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher

Most of what we know about Socrates is derived from Plato’s depiction of him as the primary questioner in
most of the dialogues. The idea that a life which is “unexamined” is not worth living strikes at the heart of what
Socrates tells us motivated him to live a philosophical life. The first form of examination that Socrates clearly
advises is self-examination. Even though Socrates rarely claims to have knowledge about anything at all, the
few instances where he does profess knowledge relate directly to morality. In particular, Socrates asserts a pair
of moral principles that are quite controversial and may appear at first glance false. Socrates claims the
following: 1) No one willingly chooses what is harmful to themselves; 2) When a person does harm to others,
they actually harm themselves.

Socrates engaged in a particular method of questioning, sometimes known as the “Socratic method,” which
was characterized by his asking questions of others rather than explaining his own beliefs. The goal of Socratic
questioning is to assist the person being questioned in discovering the truth on their own. By asking questions
and examining the claims made by another person, Socrates allows that person to go through a process of self-
discovery.

1.4 An Overview of Contemporary Philosophy

Contemporary academic philosophy is different from the classical traditions, although the motivation for
doing philosophy remains the same. If you are interested in pursuing a career in academic philosophy, a
graduate degree—most likely a PhD—is required. However, philosophy majors at any level can have fulfilling
and rewarding careers in a variety of fields.

This textbook is organized in a way that generally reflects the broad areas of specialization in contemporary
academic philosophy. Areas of specialization can be grouped into the following fields: historical traditions;
metaphysics and epistemology; science, logic, and mathematics; and value theory. The fields of science, logic,
and mathematics include research into contemporary symbolic logic as well as interdisciplinary work in the
philosophy of mathematics and the sciences; these areas are closely related to metaphysics and epistemology.
Value theory includes metaethics and the meaning of value, aesthetics, normative moral theories (ethics), and
political philosophy. This textbook aims to provide a general overview of each of these areas.

Key Terms
Ahimsa one of the highest virtues of classical Indian religions. It is the practice of refraining from harming
other living things.
Argument a set of sentences, where some of those sentences (called premises) provide support for another
sentence, called the conclusion.
Coherence a situation in which it is possible for a set of beliefs or statements to be true at the same time.
Common sense knowledge primarily derived from perception that seems clearly or obviously true.
Conceptual analysis the process of taking apart and making sense of sentences or claims by examining their
component parts.
Definite description a method of conceptual analysis that substitutes a descriptive phrase that uniquely
identifies the object or thing named for an object term or proper name.
Enumeration the listing of the component parts of a concept, notion, or thing.
Experimental philosophy philosophy that uses methods from experimental science to test claims made in
philosophy.
38 1 • References

Intuition certain and evident cognition; the kind of knowledge that is so clear that it seems impossible for it to
be false.
Logic the formalization of reasoning.
Milesians a school of early philosophers from Miletus; followers of Thales. They were known for examining
the underlying causes of natural phenomena.
Philosophy the “love of wisdom.” An academic discipline that attempts to grasp the broadest possible
understanding of things. It is characterized by rational explanation and a willingness to question
assumptions.
Predicate the portion of a sentence that provides the description or characterization of an object or name. (A
philosophical predicate is different from the predicate of grammar, and their definitions should not be
confused.)
Reflective equilibrium a process of reviewing a theoretical position by going back and forth between the
theory and its practical applications. This process seeks coherence between theory and practice.
Sage a wise person. Many ancient cultures designated important wise figures as “sages.”
Sanatana dharma the core or absolute set of moral and religious duties ordained for all people of ancient
India, regardless of class or caste, and that predate the term Hinduism.
Socratic method a method of questioning used by Socrates (and named after him later) to help people
understand what they were thinking and to arrive at some truth.
Thought experiment an imaginative scenario that tests some philosophical theory or concept by considering
how it might apply in the imagined situation.

References
———. The Republic. Translated by Allan Bloom. New York: Basic Books, 1968.

Adler, Joseph A. 2006. “Daughter/Wife/Mother or Sage/Immortal/Bodhisattva? Women in the Teaching of

Chinese Religions.” ASIANetwork Exchange 14 (2): 11–16.

American Associate of University Professors (AAUP). 2018. “Data Snapshot: Contingent Faculty in US Higher
Ed.” October 11, 2018. https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/
10112018%20Data%20Snapshot%20Tenure.pdf.

Cheng, Julia. 1983. “The Ancient Sages (sheng): Their Identity and Their Place in Chinese Intellectual History.”
Oriens Extremus 30:1–18.

Chideya, Farai. 2015. “Philosophers Don’t Get Much Respect, But Their Earnings Don’t Suck.” FiveThirtyEight.
November 11, 2015. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/philosophers-dont-get-much-respect-but-their-
earnings-dont-suck/.

Descartes, René. “The Rules for the Direction of the Mind.” The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Translated
and edited by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch, 7–78. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1985.

Diogenes Laërtius. (1925) 1972. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by R. D. Hicks. New York: G.P.
Putnam’s Sons. http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0004.tlg001.perseus-eng1:1.prologue

King, Martin Luther, Jr. 1963. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” April 16, 1963. https://letterfromjail.com/.

McCarthy, Julie. 2015. “Fasting to the Death: Is It a Religious Rite or Suicide?” NPR. September 2, 2015.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/09/02/436820789/fasting-to-the-death-is-it-a-religious-
rite-or-suicide.

Moore, G. E. 1939. “Proof of an External World.” Proceedings of the British Academy 25:273–300.

Oruka, Henry Odera. 1990. Sage Philosophy: Indigenous Thinkers and Modern Debate on African Philosophy.
Nairobi: African Center for Technological Studies (ACTS) Press; also published by Leiden, The Netherlands:

Access for free at openstax.org

 1 • Review Questions 39

Brill.

Plato. Apology, translated by Benjamin Jowett. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

Plato. Apology. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html.

Rout, Naresh. 2016. “Role of Women in Ancient India.” Odisha Review, 72 (6): 42–47.

Sellars, Wilfred. 1962. “Philosophy in the Scientific Image of Man.” In Frontiers of Science and Philosophy,
edited by Robert Colodny, 35–78. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.

Waithe, Mary Ellen, ed. 1987. A History of Women Philosophers, Vol. I: Ancient Women Philosophers, 600
BC–500 AD. Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Zhang, Fenzhi. 2015. Xi Jinping: How to Read Confucius and Other Chinese Classical Thinkers. Beijing: CN
Times Books.

Review Questions
1.1 What Is Philosophy?
1. What are some common characteristics of ancient sages in the Greek, Indian, and Chinese traditions?

2. What characteristics are essential for being identified as a “sage”?

3. What is the connection between sages and philosophers?

4. Provide one example of an ancient philosopher or sage who was doing something like natural science.
What made this philosopher’s activity scientific?

5. What does it mean for philosophy to “have an eye on the whole”? How is this different from other
disciplines?

6. Why is it necessary for philosophers to discard suppositions or assumptions that may be acceptable in
other disciplines?

1.2 How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth?

7. What are five sources of evidence commonly used in philosophy? Which of these are empirical? Which do
not require observation or experiment?

8. What are three techniques used in conceptual analysis? Explain how they work.

9. What is coherence? What does it mean for a set of beliefs or statements to be coherent?

10. What do philosophers mean by intuition?

11. What are thought experiments?

1.3 Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher

12. Consider Socrates's conclusion that "human wisdom is worth little or nothing." Do you think this is true?
Why or why not?

13. Do you think the Socratic method is an effective way of maintaining humility about knowledge?

14. What do you think Socrates means by "the life which is unexamined is not worth living"? Do you agree?

15. Compare and contrast Socrates's moral philosophy with that of the Hindu principle of ahimsa.

1.4 An Overview of Contemporary Philosophy

16. What are the primary areas of specialization in academic philosophy?
40 1 • Further Reading

Further Reading
Arendt, Hannah. 1971. “Thinking and Moral Considerations.” Social Research 38 (3): 417–446.

Daniels, Norman. 2016. “Reflective Equilibrium.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Updated October
14, 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/reflective-equilibrium/.

Knobe, Joshua. n.d. “Program in Cognitive Science and Department of Philosophy.” Department of Philosophy
and Cognitive Science at Yale, Experimental Philosophy. http://experimental-philosophy.yale.edu/

Ludlow, Peter. 2018. “Descriptions.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Updated April 5, 2018.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/descriptions/.

Marques, Joan. 2012. “Consciousness at Work: A Review of Some Important Values, Discussed from a Buddhist
Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics 105 (1): 27–40.

Masolo, Dismas. 2016. “African Sage Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Updated February
22, 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/african-sage/.

Plato. “The Theaetetus.” Translated by Benjamin Jowett. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/theatu.html.

Access for free at openstax.org

Critical Thinking, Research,
Reading, and Writing 2

FIGURE 2.1 Thinking: a sculpture of two figures in Prague. (credit: modification of “Thinking” by Kurtis Garbutt/
Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

CHAPTER OUTLINE
2.1 The Brain Is an Inference Machine
2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection
2.3 Developing Good Habits of Mind
2.4 Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence
2.5 Reading Philosophy
2.6 Writing Philosophy Papers

INTRODUCTION You have likely heard the term “critical thinking” and have probably been instructed to
become a “good critical thinker.” Unfortunately, you are probably also unclear what exactly this means because
the term is poorly defined and infrequently taught. “But I know how to think,” you might say, and that is
certainly true. Critical thinking, however, is a specific skill. This chapter is an informal and practical guide to
critical thinking and will also guide you in how to conduct research, reading, and writing for philosophy
classes.

Critical thinking is set of skills, habits, and attitudes that promote reflective, clear reasoning. Studying
philosophy can be particularly helpful for developing good critical thinking skills, but often the connection
between the two is not made clear. This chapter will approach critical thinking from a practical standpoint,
42 2 • Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

with the goal of helping you become more aware of some of the pitfalls of everyday thinking and making you a
better philosophy student.

While you may have learned research, reading, and writing skills in other classes—for instance, in a typical
English composition course—the intellectual demands in a philosophy class are different. Here you will find
useful advice about how to approach research, reading, and writing in philosophy.

2.1 The Brain Is an Inference Machine

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Describe the role of emotion in thought.
• Explain how cognitive systems produce inferences without conscious thought.

One of the first steps to becoming a more critical and reflective thinker is to understand how and why you are
prone to making mistakes in thinking. These mistakes are not the result of a lack of intelligence but are a
function of the way our minds work and how they naturally lead us astray.

From a biological perspective, we have been shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, which
have primed our brains to become extremely effective inference machines. An inference is the mental process
that allows us to draw conclusions from evidence. While we tend to think of inference as a deliberative and
conscious process, we infer all kinds of things unconsciously, effortlessly, and immediately; in fact, most of
sense perception is a kind of inference. Inference making has been crucial to human survival, but our
conclusions are not always correct. By becoming aware of how our brains function to ward off threats and
provide us with “cognitive ease,” or a feeling of well-being and comfort, we can begin to correct for and guard
against faulty thinking.

The Brain’s Adaptive Ability to Plan Ahead

One insight of evolutionary biology is that every cell and organ in our body is adapted to its local environment
for the purpose of making it more likely that our genes will survive into the next generation. Consequently, it’s
helpful to think about the brain’s role in propagating our genes. Our brains facilitate our survival and promote
our ability to find a partner and reproduce by using thought, calculation, prediction, and inference. For this
reason, our natural and genetically primed ways of thinking do not necessarily serve the goals of philosophy,
science, or truth.

Access for free at openstax.org

 2.1 • The Brain Is an Inference Machine 43

FIGURE 2.2 The “mind-brain” problem points to the unclear relationship between our thoughts, feelings, and
perceptions, and the neurological and electrochemical interactions that take place in the brain. (attribution:
Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)

Philosophical Caveats about “Brain Talk”

Before we get much further, note that it is important to be cautious when we talk about brains and minds,
which are distinct concepts. In fact, the relationship between mind and brain is one of the central problems of
metaphysics, known as the “mind-body problem,” which might just as well be called the “mind-brain
problem.” Briefly stated, the mind-body problem is the problem of understanding the relationship between the
organic gray and white matter in our skulls (the brain) and the range of conscious awareness (the mind). We
know that the brain and central nervous system provide the physical basis for our thoughts, perceptions,
emotions, imagination, and desire—in short, our entire mental life. But biology does not tell us what the
relationship is between our private mental life and the neurological, electrochemical interactions that take
place in the brain. Is the relationship of the mind to the brain like the relationship between lightning and
electrical discharge or a rainbow and the refraction of light through water droplets? In other words, is “the
mind” just the term we use to label certain kinds of brain activity? Some philosophers think so. However,
mental activity is not easily associated with any specific brain activity. Additionally, there seems to be
something about the subjective experience of our mental life that is lost when we attempt to explain it fully in
terms of brain activity. So other philosophers maintain that the mind is something different from the brain.
Nonetheless, the mind and the brain are closely and somewhat mysteriously connected. As a result, it can be
helpful to use the resources of psychology and cognitive science (the study of the brain’s processes) to help us
understand how to become better thinkers. We can think of the resources from psychology and cognitive
science as providing us with a description of how the brain actually behaves. By contrast, when we study
critical thinking, we are interested in how we ought to think. Being aware of how we do think may help us
devise effective strategies for how we ought to think, but we should understand that the descriptions provided
by psychology are not determinative. In this chapter, we explore psychological findings that can help you
become more reflective about the ways your thinking can go wrong.

CONNECTIONS
Read more about the nature of the mind and the mind-body problem in the chapter on metaphysics.
44 2 • Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

Representation as Projection

While you may consider thinking to be made up of ideas or thoughts, philosophers and cognitive scientists use
the term representation to describe the basic elements of thinking. Representations are information-bearing
units of thought. This notion of representation can be traced back to Aristotle and has played a significant role
in the history of philosophy, but in contemporary philosophy the term representation is more precise. When
we think about things, whether through perception, imagination, memory, or desire, we represent those
things. What is represented may be something present and real, or it may be fictitious, imagined in the future,
or remembered from the past. Representations may even be unconscious. That is, the mind may have some
defined content that is directed toward an object without the person being aware that they have produced such
a representation.

During the process of representation, even in a relatively simple case of visual perception, the brain makes a
complex set of inferences. For instance, consider the checkerboard below. You might imagine that when you
perceive something like a checkerboard, your brain passively takes a mental picture of the grid. In this
analogy, the eye functions like the lens of a camera, and the brain develops the picture to present to the mind.
But there are several problems with this model. First, where is the picture in your brain? Who is viewing the
picture in your head? There are further problems with the camera analogy that can be revealed when we
examine optical illusions. Look at the checkered set of squares in Figure 2.2. Are the horizontal lines parallel?

FIGURE 2.3 The horizontal lines on this grid are parallel, but unless you look at the image from the side, it is
impossible to “see” this. This is one of many examples of common perceptual illusions. (credit: “Optical Illusion” by
Selena N. B. H. CC BY 2.0)

In fact, the horizontal lines are parallel, but unless you look at the image from the side, it is impossible to
visualize this. There are countless examples of these types of perceptual illusions. We represent the world
outside as a stable picture that is completely filled in, in full focus, and uniformly colored. In reality, our visual
field is limited and hazy around the edges, and colors change dramatically depending on lighting conditions,
distance, movement, and a host of other factors. In fact, your brain is not passively capturing the world, like a
camera, but is actively projecting the world so that it makes sense to you. In the illusion above, your brain is
automatically adjusting your perception of the colored squares by accounting for the shadow cast by the
cylinder. So your brain presents square B as if it is lighter than A by adjusting the hue of B to account for the
shadow.

Neuroscientist David Eagleman (2011) uses the analogy of the front page of a newspaper to describe how
perception works. The front page is a representation of the world’s events for a given day. Of course, it does not

Access for free at openstax.org

 2.1 • The Brain Is an Inference Machine 45

present a full or complete picture of the world, but a summary intended to highlight the events of
consequence, those that have changed, and those that we are most likely to care about. Like a newspaper
editor, your brain is working overtime to project an image of the world based on what is relevant to your
survival. You unconsciously adjust the images you perceive to give you the impression that they are far away,
nearby, moving, and so forth. Instead of the fully formed, three-dimensional image of the world we seem to
see, we actually perceive a kind of sketch, highlighting what we need to know to navigate safely in our
environment and obtain what we need. You probably think that sense perception is the clearest and most
certain way you can know the world around you. As the adage says, “Seeing is believing.” To become a better
critical thinker, however, you will need to become skeptical of some of your basic beliefs. There are times when
you absolutely should not believe your lying eyes.

Emotions and Reason: Homeostasis and Allostasis

In addition to the editorial license of mental representation, thinking is not always as rational as we imagine.
The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio (1994) was one of the first to popularize the notion that rational thought is
tempered by emotions. He is critical of what he perceives as the philosophical bias against emotion in the
history of philosophy. In Descartes’ Error, he says modern philosophers have neglected the role of emotions in
thought, imagining that the goal of rational thinking is to eliminate the influence of emotions. Instead, his
years of clinical work with patients revealed to him that emotions cannot be separated from reason. Our most
rational thoughts are, in fact, guided, informed, and influenced by emotions. According to Damasio, reasoning
and intelligence function best when we care about something. Without feelings, says Damasio, we are less
rational, not more rational.

Damasio (1994) explains that emotions serve to maintain homeostasis in the brain through the chemical
messengers known as neurotransmitters. Homeostasis is the biological tendency to find a neutral state of
equilibrium (the word stasis means “standing still,” and homeo means “same or similar”). This process relies
on a feedback loop where current bodily states are monitored, observed, and then altered to bring the body
back into balance. Most homeostatic processes in the body are unconscious, but emotions are linked to
conscious awareness. For instance, when your blood sugar is low and your body needs calories, there is a
series of chemical processes that give rise to the feeling of hunger. This is a conscious signal that you need to
eat; it promotes behavior that ensures survival. Similarly, a rustling sound in the bushes at night will trigger a
series of physiological responses (heightened senses, increased heart rate, pupil dilation, etc.) that correspond
to the feeling of fear and promote behavior, such as fight or flight, that are necessary for survival. What
Damasio demonstrates is that emotions have their own feedback mechanism, so that an idea or image can
generate physiological responses even in the absence of an external stimulus. Because emotional responses
and conscious thought are closely linked, decision-making can be influenced by this emotional-physiological
feedback mechanism. Our thinking can go astray because we are afraid of bad outcomes, and that fear
dominates a more rational calculation about which course of action is most beneficial (1994, 172–175).

In addition to maintaining equilibrium, the brain also anticipates future events and circumstances by
projecting likely scenarios based on a catalog of past experiences and concepts generated through social
norms and social interactions. The process of regulation that prepares the body to anticipate future needs
before they arise is called allostasis (allo means “other or different”). Psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett (2017)
explains that the brain stores neural pathways that are triggered by external or internal stimuli to provide the
closest match to the current situation. The neural pathways form a kind of template of action, promoting
behavior like increased heart rate, pupil dilation, or motion. Feelings are a goal-oriented response to certain
situations: they prepare us to behave and react in certain ways that promote what is beneficial to the body and
sharpen and shape our awareness of the world.

In summary, the brain makes inferences about the world through perceptions, emotions, and concepts that are
largely unconscious and deeply ingrained in our psyches. This process allows us to navigate fluidly and
accurately through a world with so many and varied stimuli. Our reactions to stimuli are partially homeostatic,
46 2 • Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

meaning that the body tends to bring itself back into an optimal state of equilibrium, and partially allostatic,
meaning that the body prepares for and anticipates future situations. Together, these impulses construct a
picture of the world that we experience seamlessly and dynamically. Our experience is far more complicated
than the crude mental model we imagine. We are projecting and constructing the world we experience as
much as we are recording and viewing it. And that fact has important consequences for the kind of reflective
and critical thought we ought to engage in when we try to think clearly about the world.

The Evolutionary Advantage of Shortcuts

Human beings have evolved to navigate the world most effectively and efficiently by engaging conscious
awareness only when necessary. For that reason, you can walk through the grocery store while thinking about
what you are going to cook for dinner. You do not have to consciously think about where to go, how to slow
down to make way for other people, or how hard to push the shopping cart so that it maintains momentum in
front of you even as its weight changes as you add groceries to the basket. All that biomechanical activity can
be outsourced to unconscious mechanisms as you scan your shopping list. The brain is quite good at engaging
in habitual activities without the assistance of conscious thought. And that is a good thing because conscious
thought is expensive in energy terms. Consider the picture that follows.

FIGURE 2.4 Many inferences can be made about this woman’s inner experience based on her expression and
posture. While such inferences can be made quickly, they cannot be verified without further investigation, and they
are highly susceptible to error, bias, and stereotyping. (credit: “CL Society 226: Woman with mobile phone” by
Francisco Osorio/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

You are probably immediately able to provide complex inferences about this picture, such as the woman is
worried, concerned, or anxious about something. The inferences you make about this image are easy, fast, and
complex. They are driven by the kind of emotional and conceptual thought processes that are unconscious and
efficient. While these inferences are quick and easy, you may also be aware that they are provisional without
more information. Given more data about the circumstances surrounding this picture, you might revise your
perception about what is going on. This is exactly the sort of thinking that drives the emotional projections
discussed in the previous section.

Access for free at openstax.org

 2.1 • The Brain Is an Inference Machine 47

A different type of thinking is required to solve a math problem. The following example comes from
psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s book Thinking Fast and Slow (2013). Try to solve the following in your head:

24 × 14 =

Do you know the answer? For most people, multiplying two-digit numbers without pen and paper (or a
calculator) is quite difficult. You might need perhaps 10 or 20 seconds of effortful thinking to solve the problem
in your head since you do not have the unconscious mechanisms to do so automatically. Long-term social and
evolutionary pressures have shaped our brains to find efficient solutions to complex questions about facial
expressions. The same cannot be said for math problems. Knowing the solution to a math problem may be
useful, but it is not the sort of thing generally required for survival and reproduction. On the other hand,
quickly reading other people’s emotions is at times vital for survival. There are other interesting differences
between these two kinds of thinking. While it is difficult to solve the math problem, once you solve it, you can
be 100 percent certain the answer is correct. By contrast, it is easy to generate a story about facial expressions,
but this story is highly susceptible to error, bias, and stereotyping. As a result, critical thinkers should be
careful not to jump to the first, most obvious solution.

Energy Demands on Deliberate Thinking

Solving a math problem requires rational thought and effort. When we engage in rational thought, our brains
use up precious energy stores that may be required for the maintenance of the body. Because evolutionary
pressures seek to keep us alive long enough to pass our genes to the next generation, we have a biological
tendency to avoid effortful thinking. In a sense, it is evolutionarily wise to be lazy.

The resources demanded by conscious thought can be understood in terms of the familiar notion of
“attention.” When a task requires significant attention, it places increased energy demands on the brain.
Periods of high-attention activity can be stressful, as the body increases blood flow to the brain, delivering
more glucose and oxygen for increased mental activity. Additionally, attention is limited and focused on
specific tasks. Consider the “selective attention test” developed by Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris.
Watch the video below and see how you perform on this test.

VIDEO
Selective Attention Test
Click to view content (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/2-1-the-brain-is-an-
inference-machine)

How many passes did you count? Did you miss anything in the process? When our attention is focused on a
novel and complex task, we become less aware of other stimuli outside the specific area of focus. Additionally,
we may become fatigued, stressed, or anxious while engaged in paying close attention. Not surprisingly, our
brains prefer automated shortcuts.

Heuristics and Learning

Kahneman (2013) calls these mental shortcuts heuristics, or rules of thumb for drawing inferences. Problem-
solving with heuristics is largely unconscious, automated, effortless, and efficient, but it is not always correct.
Rational thinking or computation requires conscious attention and effort and may not even be possible
without some practice. We are forced to engage in effortful thinking when confronted with something new and
possibly dangerous—or even with something slightly outside of our normal routine. For example, you have
probably driven home from work or school along a familiar route on “autopilot,” preoccupied with your
thoughts. Maybe you have even gotten home and felt as if you cannot remember how you got there. By contrast,
you have probably experienced the stress of navigating a new, unfamiliar city. In the first case, navigation can
be carried out using easy, largely automatic processing, whereas in the second case, navigation requires the
intense resources of active attention and rational calculation.
48 2 • Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

Sometimes complex activities can become effortless, but unlike when we are on “automatic pilot,” such
activities feel pleasant and fulfilling. When you become fully immersed in a complex activity to the point at
which it becomes effortless, you have entered the state of “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi 2008).

Flow states are possible only for someone who has achieved some level of proficiency at a task. They are
characterized by intense concentration and awareness as well as a sense of personal control or agency, but
they are pleasurable because the challenge of engaging in the task is commensurate with your ability. By
contrast, a novice may find the same tasks stressful and frustrating. This phenomenon can be illustrated using
the notion of the “learning curve” that describes how a novice grows in proficiency.

What this means is that a person may be able to rely on intuitions, gut reactions, and other automatic
responses in a field in which they are an expert, but the novice should be skeptical of these methods of
thinking. As a novice, your mental heuristics are frequently faulty, so you are susceptible to prejudice, implicit
bias, and error.

Consider the case of buying a car. Someone who is deeply familiar with the automobile market as either a
buyer or a seller may be able to estimate the true value of a car easily, but the average person would need to do
a great deal of research to arrive at a true estimate. Because of the effort required for nonexperts to appraise
car value, they are easily influenced by dealer incentives, marked-up list prices, financing options, and other
tricks of the trade. Given that we are all susceptible to these types of errors, it seems like a good idea to try to
become more self-aware and critical and not rely exclusively on gut reactions or intuitions when encountering
new material. Since you are probably a novice in philosophy if you are reading this textbook, you ought to be
suspicious of your gut reactions to and intuitions about philosophical questions. Keep an open mind, and don’t
assume you already understand the philosophical problems you will encounter in the chapters that follow.
Being open to new ideas and allowing yourself to admit some degree of ignorance are important first steps in
becoming a better thinker.

Heuristics and Substitution in Decision-Making

The cognitive biases that we will examine in the next section are based on a more fundamental “substitution
heuristic.” This term describes our tendency to answer a difficult question or problem by substituting it with
an easier question to answer. While substitution often results in an incorrect or inappropriate response, it
gives us a sense of satisfaction or “cognitive ease” in thinking we have solved a problem. For instance, when
you are asked to evaluate something complex and uncertain, like the future value of an investment or the
political prospects of a politician, you are likely to substitute that complex calculation for an easier one. In
particular, you may substitute your positive or negative feelings toward the politician or the investment
product. But your feelings are likely to be guided by your preconceptions.

When the brain defaults to heuristics that produce a less-than-optimal result or even an incorrect decision, it
is operating with a cognitive bias. A cognitive bias is a pattern of “quick” thinking based on the “rule of
thumb.” A person operating under a cognitive bias does not use logic or careful reasoning to arrive at a
conclusion. Cognitive biases are like perceptual illusions. Just like perceptual illusions, cognitive biases are the
result of the natural and, ordinarily, efficient operation of the brain. Even though mental heuristics often work
perfectly well to help give us an estimation of reality without the mental effort required to generate a more
comprehensive picture, cognitive biases are the result of misleading and faulty patterns that arise from this
process.

Access for free at openstax.org

 2.2 • Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection 49

2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Label the conditions that make critical thinking possible.
• Classify and describe cognitive biases.
• Apply critical reflection strategies to resist cognitive biases.

To resist the potential pitfalls of cognitive biases, we have taken some time to recognize why we fall prey to
them. Now we need to understand how to resist easy, automatic, and error-prone thinking in favor of more
reflective, critical thinking.

Critical Reflection and Metacognition

To promote good critical thinking, put yourself in a frame of mind that allows critical reflection. Recall from
the previous section that rational thinking requires effort and takes longer. However, it will likely result in
more accurate thinking and decision-making. As a result, reflective thought can be a valuable tool in
correcting cognitive biases. The critical aspect of critical reflection involves a willingness to be skeptical of
your own beliefs, your gut reactions, and your intuitions. Additionally, the critical aspect engages in a more
analytic approach to the problem or situation you are considering. You should assess the facts, consider the
evidence, try to employ logic, and resist the quick, immediate, and likely conclusion you want to draw. By
reflecting critically on your own thinking, you can become aware of the natural tendency for your mind to slide
into mental shortcuts.

This process of critical reflection is often called metacognition in the literature of pedagogy and psychology.
Metacognition means thinking about thinking and involves the kind of self-awareness that engages higher-
order thinking skills. Cognition, or the way we typically engage with the world around us, is first-order
thinking, while metacognition is higher-order thinking. From a metacognitive frame, we can critically assess
our thought process, become skeptical of our gut reactions and intuitions, and reconsider our cognitive
tendencies and biases.

To improve metacognition and critical reflection, we need to encourage the kind of self-aware, conscious, and
effortful attention that may feel unnatural and may be tiring. Typical activities associated with metacognition
include checking, planning, selecting, inferring, self-interrogating, interpreting an ongoing experience, and
making judgments about what one does and does not know (Hackner, Dunlosky, and Graesser 1998). By
practicing metacognitive behaviors, you are preparing yourself to engage in the kind of rational, abstract
thought that will be required for philosophy.

Good study habits, including managing your workspace, giving yourself plenty of time, and working through a
checklist, can promote metacognition. When you feel stressed out or pressed for time, you are more likely to
make quick decisions that lead to error. Stress and lack of time also discourage critical reflection because they
rob your brain of the resources necessary to engage in rational, attention-filled thought. By contrast, when you
relax and give yourself time to think through problems, you will be clearer, more thoughtful, and less likely to
rush to the first conclusion that leaps to mind. Similarly, background noise, distracting activity, and
interruptions will prevent you from paying attention. You can use this checklist to try to encourage
metacognition when you study:

• Check your work.

• Plan ahead.
• Select the most useful material.
• Infer from your past grades to focus on what you need to study.
• Ask yourself how well you understand the concepts.
• Check your weaknesses.
• Assess whether you are following the arguments and claims you are working on.
50 2 • Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

Cognitive Biases
In this section, we will examine some of the most common cognitive biases so that you can be aware of traps in
thought that can lead you astray. Cognitive biases are closely related to informal fallacies. Both fallacies and
biases provide examples of the ways we make errors in reasoning.

CONNECTIONS
See the chapter on logic and reasoning for an in-depth exploration of informal fallacies.

Watch the video to orient yourself before reading the text that follows.

VIDEO
Cognitive Biases 101, with Peter Bauman
Click to view content (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/2-2-overcoming-cognitive-
biases-and-engaging-in-critical-reflection)

Confirmation Bias

One of the most common cognitive biases is confirmation bias, which is the tendency to search for, interpret,
favor, and recall information that confirms or supports your prior beliefs. Like all cognitive biases,
confirmation bias serves an important function. For instance, one of the most reliable forms of confirmation
bias is the belief in our shared reality. Suppose it is raining. When you first hear the patter of raindrops on your
roof or window, you may think it is raining. You then look for additional signs to confirm your conclusion, and
when you look out the window, you see rain falling and puddles of water accumulating. Most likely, you will not
be looking for irrelevant or contradictory information. You will be looking for information that confirms your
belief that it is raining. Thus, you can see how confirmation bias—based on the idea that the world does not
change dramatically over time—is an important tool for navigating in our environment.

Unfortunately, as with most heuristics, we tend to apply this sort of thinking inappropriately. One example that
has recently received a lot of attention is the way in which confirmation bias has increased political
polarization. When searching for information on the internet about an event or topic, most people look for
information that confirms their prior beliefs rather than what undercuts them. The pervasive presence of
social media in our lives is exacerbating the effects of confirmation bias since the computer algorithms used
by social media platforms steer people toward content that reinforces their current beliefs and
predispositions. These multimedia tools are especially problematic when our beliefs are incorrect (for
example, they contradict scientific knowledge) or antisocial (for example, they support violent or illegal
behavior). Thus, social media and the internet have created a situation in which confirmation bias can be
“turbocharged” in ways that are destructive for society.

Confirmation bias is a result of the brain’s limited ability to process information. Peter Wason (1960)
conducted early experiments identifying this kind of bias. He asked subjects to identify the rule that applies to
a sequence of numbers—for instance, 2, 4, 8. Subjects were told to generate examples to test their hypothesis.
What he found is that once a subject settled on a particular hypothesis, they were much more likely to select
examples that confirmed their hypothesis rather than negated it. As a result, they were unable to identify the
real rule (any ascending sequence of numbers) and failed to “falsify” their initial assumptions. Falsification is
an important tool in the scientist’s toolkit when they are testing hypotheses and is an effective way to avoid
confirmation bias.

In philosophy, you will be presented with different arguments on issues, such as the nature of the mind or the
best way to act in a given situation. You should take your time to reason through these issues carefully and
consider alternative views. What you believe to be the case may be right, but you may also fall into the trap of
confirmation bias, seeing confirming evidence as better and more convincing than evidence that calls your

Access for free at openstax.org

 2.2 • Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection 51

beliefs into question.

Anchoring Bias

Confirmation bias is closely related to another bias known as anchoring. Anchoring bias refers to our
tendency to rely on initial values, prices, or quantities when estimating the actual value, price, or quantity of
something. If you are presented with a quantity, even if that number is clearly arbitrary, you will have a hard
discounting it in your subsequent calculations; the initial value “anchors” subsequent estimates. For instance,
Tversky and Kahneman (1974) reported an experiment in which subjects were asked to estimate the number
of African nations in the United Nations. First, the experimenters spun a wheel of fortune in front of the
subjects that produced a random number between 0 and 100. Let’s say the wheel landed on 79. Subjects were
asked whether the number of nations was higher or lower than the random number. Subjects were then asked
to estimate the real number of nations. Even though the initial anchoring value was random, people in the
study found it difficult to deviate far from that number. For subjects receiving an initial value of 10, the median
estimate of nations was 25, while for subjects receiving an initial value of 65, the median estimate was 45.

In the same paper, Tversky and Kahneman described the way that anchoring bias interferes with statistical
reasoning. In a number of scenarios, subjects made irrational judgments about statistics because of the way
the question was phrased (i.e., they were tricked when an anchor was inserted into the question). Instead of
expending the cognitive energy needed to solve the statistical problem, subjects were much more likely to “go
with their gut,” or think intuitively. That type of reasoning generates anchoring bias. When you do philosophy,
you will be confronted with some formal and abstract problems that will challenge you to engage in thinking
that feels difficult and unnatural. Resist the urge to latch on to the first thought that jumps into your head, and
try to think the problem through with all the cognitive resources at your disposal.

Availability Heuristic

The availability heuristic refers to the tendency to evaluate new information based on the most recent or most
easily recalled examples. The availability heuristic occurs when people take easily remembered instances as
being more representative than they objectively are (i.e., based on statistical probabilities). In very simple
situations, the availability of instances is a good guide to judgments. Suppose you are wondering whether you
should plan for rain. It may make sense to anticipate rain if it has been raining a lot in the last few days since
weather patterns tend to linger in most climates. More generally, scenarios that are well-known to us,
dramatic, recent, or easy to imagine are more available for retrieval from memory. Therefore, if we easily
remember an instance or scenario, we may incorrectly think that the chances are high that the scenario will be
repeated. For instance, people in the United States estimate the probability of dying by violent crime or
terrorism much more highly than they ought to. In fact, these are extremely rare occurrences compared to
death by heart disease, cancer, or car accidents. But stories of violent crime and terrorism are prominent in the
news media and fiction. Because these vivid stories are dramatic and easily recalled, we have a skewed view of
how frequently violent crime occurs.

Tribalism

Another more loosely defined category of cognitive bias is the tendency for human beings to align themselves
with groups with whom they share values and practices. The tendency toward tribalism is an evolutionary
advantage for social creatures like human beings. By forming groups to share knowledge and distribute work,
we are much more likely to survive. Not surprisingly, human beings with pro-social behaviors persist in the
population at higher rates than human beings with antisocial tendencies. Pro-social behaviors, however, go
beyond wanting to communicate and align ourselves with other human beings; we also tend to see outsiders as
a threat. As a result, tribalistic tendencies both reinforce allegiances among in-group members and increase
animosity toward out-group members.

Tribal thinking makes it hard for us to objectively evaluate information that either aligns with or contradicts
the beliefs held by our group or tribe. This effect can be demonstrated even when in-group membership is not
52 2 • Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

real or is based on some superficial feature of the person—for instance, the way they look or an article of
clothing they are wearing. A related bias is called the bandwagon fallacy. The bandwagon fallacy can lead you
to conclude that you ought to do something or believe something because many other people do or believe the
same thing. While other people can provide guidance, they are not always reliable. Furthermore, just because
many people believe something doesn’t make it true. Watch the video below to improve your “tribal literacy”
and understand the dangers of this type of thinking.

VIDEO
The Dangers of Tribalism, Kevin deLaplante
Click to view content (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/2-2-overcoming-cognitive-
biases-and-engaging-in-critical-reflection)

Sunk Cost Fallacy

Sunk costs refer to the time, energy, money, or other costs that have been paid in the past. These costs are
“sunk” because they cannot be recovered. The sunk cost fallacy is thinking that attaches a value to things in
which you have already invested resources that is greater than the value those things have today. Human
beings have a natural tendency to hang on to whatever they invest in and are loath to give something up even
after it has been proven to be a liability. For example, a person may have sunk a lot of money into a business
over time, and the business may clearly be failing. Nonetheless, the businessperson will be reluctant to close
shop or sell the business because of the time, money, and emotional energy they have spent on the venture.
This is the behavior of “throwing good money after bad” by continuing to irrationally invest in something that
has lost its worth because of emotional attachment to the failed enterprise. People will engage in this kind of
behavior in all kinds of situations and may continue a friendship, a job, or a marriage for the same
reason—they don’t want to lose their investment even when they are clearly headed for failure and ought to cut
their losses.

A similar type of faulty reasoning leads to the gambler’s fallacy, in which a person reasons that future chance
events will be more likely if they have not happened recently. For instance, if I flip a coin many times in a row, I
may get a string of heads. But even if I flip several heads in a row, that does not make it more likely I will flip
tails on the next coin flip. Each coin flip is statistically independent, and there is an equal chance of turning up
heads or tails. The gambler, like the reasoner from sunk costs, is tied to the past when they should be
reasoning about the present and future.

There are important social and evolutionary purposes for past-looking thinking. Sunk-cost thinking keeps
parents engaged in the growth and development of their children after they are born. Sunk-cost thinking
builds loyalty and affection among friends and family. More generally, a commitment to sunk costs encourages
us to engage in long-term projects, and this type of thinking has the evolutionary purpose of fostering culture
and community. Nevertheless, it is important to periodically reevaluate our investments in both people and
things.

In recent ethical scholarship, there is some debate about how to assess the sunk costs of moral decisions.
Consider the case of war. Just-war theory dictates that wars may be justified in cases where the harm imposed
on the adversary is proportional to the good gained by the act of defense or deterrence. It may be that, at the
start of the war, those costs seemed proportional. But after the war has dragged on for some time, it may seem
that the objective cannot be obtained without a greater quantity of harm than had been initially imagined.
Should the evaluation of whether a war is justified estimate the total amount of harm done or prospective harm
that will be done going forward (Lazar 2018)? Such questions do not have easy answers.

Table 2.1 summarizes these common cognitive biases.

Access for free at openstax.org

 2.2 • Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection 53

Bias Description Example

The tendency to search for, interpret, As part of their morning routine, a person scans news
Confirmation
favor, and recall information that headlines on the internet and chooses to read only
bias
confirms or supports prior beliefs those stories that confirm views they already hold.

The tendency to rely on initial values, When supplied with a random number and then asked
Anchoring prices, or quantities when estimating to provide a number estimate in response to a question,
bias the actual value, price, or quantity of people supply a number close to the random number
something they were initially given.

The tendency to evaluate new People in the United States overestimate the probability
Availability
information based on the most recent of dying in a criminal attack, since these types of stories
heuristic
or most easily recalled examples are easy to vividly recall.

People with a strong commitment to one political party

The tendency for human beings to align
often struggle to objectively evaluate the political
Tribalism themselves with groups with whom
positions of those who are members of the opposing
they share values and practices
party.

The tendency to do something or Advertisers often rely on the bandwagon fallacy,

Bandwagon
believe something because many other attempting to create the impression that “everyone” is
fallacy
people do or believe the same thing buying a new product, in order to inspire others to buy it.

The tendency to attach a value to things

Sunk cost in which resources have been invested A business person continues to invest money in a failing
fallacy that is greater than the value those venture, “throwing good money after bad.”
things actually have

The tendency to reason that future Someone who regularly buys lottery tickets reasons that
Gambler’s
chance events will be more likely if they they are “due to win,” since they haven’t won once in
fallacy
have not happened recently twenty years.

TABLE 2.1 Common Cognitive Biases

THINK LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

As we have seen, cognitive biases are built into the way human beings process information. They are common to us
all, and it takes self-awareness and effort to overcome the tendency to fall back on biases. Consider a time when
you have fallen prey to one of the five cognitive biases described above. What were the circumstances? Recall your
thought process. Were you aware at the time that your thinking was misguided? What were the consequences of
succumbing to that cognitive bias?

Write a short paragraph describing how that cognitive bias allowed you to make a decision you now realize was
irrational. Then write a second paragraph describing how, with the benefit of time and distance, you would have
thought differently about the incident that triggered the bias. Use the tools of critical reflection and metacognition to
improve your approach to this situation. What might have been the consequences of behaving differently? Finally,
write a short conclusion describing what lesson you take from reflecting back on this experience. Does it help you
understand yourself better? Will you be able to act differently in the future? What steps can you take to avoid
cognitive biases in your thinking today?
54 2 • Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

2.3 Developing Good Habits of Mind

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Define epistemic humility and the Dunning-Kruger effect.
• Identify three strategies to increase the ability to think objectively.
• Analyze emotional responses to information.

One of the ways to respond to cognitive biases is to develop good habits of mind. There are no quick fixes or
easy solutions to cognitive biases. Remember, these biases are a result of the way the brain works.
Nevertheless, metacognition and critical reflection, as well as good mental habits, can help combat these
natural tendencies in thought that otherwise leads us astray. The strategies outlined below can help you
become a better philosopher. You should compare them with the methods philosophers use to arrive at truth,
covered in Chapter 1.

CONNECTIONS
See the introduction to philosophy chapter to learn more about how philosophers arrive at the truth.

Strive for Objectivity

We are likely to assume that our experience or our perspective is generally true for others. To be more
objective in thinking about issues, problems, or values, we should actively engage in strategies that remove us
from our naturally subjective mindset. In this section, we will explore several strategies for approaching
philosophical problems with less subjective bias.

Abstract from Specific Circumstances

Most people’s point of view is based on generalizing from their specific circumstances and experiences.
However, if your view of morality, consciousness, or free will is tied to notions that come from a specific time or
location, then your view is not likely to be objective. Your personal experience has limitations when it comes to
understanding what is going on in the world at large. To arrive at more general and representative notions, use
your imagination to separate the specific properties of your experience from your worldview. This process of
abstraction can make the concept appropriately general. For instance, if you wish to imagine a governing
arrangement among citizens, you will probably default to the governmental organizations you are familiar with
in your community, state, or nation. But these institutions differ from the way government works in other
countries or in different eras of history. So when you think about justice in political organizations, it is
important to imagine those not limited by your personal experience, moment in history, or location.

In some cases, however, the specific features of your experience are indispensable to the philosophical
position you wish to take. In such instances, your specific experience provides critical information that needs
to be preserved. For example, the prevailing views in philosophy as well as any other subject are biased in that
they reflect the views of the dominant cultural group who wrote the texts. If you are a person who belongs to a
nondominant or minority group or a group that has been historically marginalized, your personal experience
may shed new light on a problem. In such cases, specific experience can help you, as well as others, reshape
the general view so that it is more comprehensive and inclusive. In these cases, abstracting from the particular
circumstances may not be useful.

Promote Alternative Points of View

Actively considering points of view contrary to your own is most useful in political or ethical areas of
philosophy. But a similar strategy may also be useful in metaphysics or epistemology. For instance, when
considering issues in metaphysics, you may believe that parts of experience—like consciousness, God, or free
will—cannot be explained by the natural sciences. Or, conversely, you may think there is a scientific

Access for free at openstax.org

 2.3 • Developing Good Habits of Mind 55

explanation for everything. When considering these views philosophically, try to actively promote the
alternative point of view. Sometimes this strategy is called steelmanning the opposing argument. When you
steelman an argument, you make the strongest possible case in favor of it. This is the opposite of
strawmanning an argument, in which you construct a weaker version of the argument to easily defeat it. You
may be tempted to strawman arguments you naturally disagree with, but you will become a better philosopher
when you steelman those arguments instead.

CONNECTIONS
Learn more about the strawman fallacy in the chapter on logic and reasoning.

Identify Counterexamples

Generating counterexamples is an effective way to test your own or others’ claims. A counterexample is an
instance that renders an argument invalid by satisfying all the premises of the claim but demonstrating the
conclusion is false. Suppose someone wants to argue that the only legitimate way to know something is to have
direct experience of it. To produce a counterexample to this claim, we must imagine something that everyone
knows is true but that would be impossible to experience directly. Here is an example: I know my mother was
born. Clearly, given that I was born, I had a mother, and she, too, must have been born to have given birth to
me. My mother’s birth necessarily preceded my birth by many years, so it would be impossible for me to have
any direct experience of my mother’s birth. And yet, just as surely as I know I was born, I know that my mother
was born. Counterexamples are powerful tools to use in evaluating philosophical arguments. If you practice
using this tool, you will become a better critical thinker.

CONNECTIONS
See the section on counterexamples in the chapter on logic and reasoning for more discussion of this topic.

Maintain Skepticism of Strong Emotions

While emotions play an important role in thinking, they can also cloud judgment. Strong reactions to claims
made by philosophers, other students, your professor, or anyone else may prevent you from considering the
argument objectively. You should be wary of any strong attachment or aversion you feel toward a philosophical
claim. Emotions can guide us, but they may threaten our ability to objectively consider the arguments being
made.

To respond to strong emotions, use the tools of metacognition to reflect on the source of those emotions and
attempt to manage them. There may be good reasons for your emotions, but recognize that those reasons, not
the emotions themselves, are philosophically relevant. Manage emotions by taking a step back from your
personal investment in the issue and considering it from another perspective. Sometimes a short break can
allow the immediate emotional reaction to subside. Sometimes imaginative strategies can help; for example,
substitute the features of the problem that trigger strong emotions for features that are more neutral. This
advice is not to suggest that emotions are harmful or have no place in philosophical thinking. Instead, the
purpose of this strategy is to remind you that the way to derive meaning and guidance from your emotions is to
reflect on them and think through the causes, origins, or reasons for the emotions.

Adopt Epistemic Humility

A final concept that is a critical component for becoming a better critical thinker is adopting a stance of
epistemic humility. As we have already seen, our thinking can be clouded by cognitive biases. Additionally,
our perspective on the world is always colored by our own experience and rooted in the particular place and
time in which we live. Finally, even our best scientific knowledge of the universe explains only a fraction of it,
and perhaps even less of our own experience. As a result, we should recognize these limitations of human
56 2 • Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

knowledge and rein in our epistemic confidence. We should recognize that the knowledge we do possess is
fragile, historical, and conditioned by a number of social and biological processes.

FIGURE 2.5 The principle of epistemic humility calls upon us to recognize that the knowledge we possess is fragile,
fallible, and colored by our own experiences. (credit: “Life is a long lesson in humility.” by e.r.w.i.n./Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

Question Yourself: Do I Really Know What I Think I Know?

We retain all sorts of beliefs from many different sources: memory, testimony, sense perception, and
imagination. Some of these sources may be reliable, while others may not. Often, however, we forget the source
of our beliefs and claim to “know” something simply because we have believed it for a long time. We may
become very confident in believing something that never happened or did not happen in the way we
remember it. In other cases, we may have been told something repeatedly, but the ultimate source of that
information was unreliable. For instance, most people recommend wearing warm clothes outside when the
temperature drops so that they do not “catch a cold.” This is the sort of wisdom that may have been passed
down through generations, but it makes little sense from a medical standpoint. There are not many ways that
getting a chill or even lowering the body temperature will lead to a respiratory infection. Colds are caused by
viruses, not by a drop in temperature. Without thinking through the source of the belief that “if you get cold,
you may catch a cold,” you end up believing something that is not true.

Be Aware of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

An even more pernicious form of epistemic overconfidence is revealed in the psychological phenomenon
known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. David Dunning and Justin Kruger demonstrated a widespread illusion
in which incompetent people or novices rate their own knowledge of a subject more highly than they ought to,
while highly competent people or experts rate their knowledge slightly lower than they ought to. These
findings do not mean that the experts considered themselves to be less competent than novices. In fact,
experts are fairly accurate in rating their own knowledge. However, they tend to assume that everyone else has
a similar level of expertise. By contrast, novices consider themselves to be far more competent in comparison
to others and misrepresent their own incompetence, which can be a dangerous in many situations.

The lesson from the Dunning-Kruger effect is that you should be extremely wary when assessing your
expertise about anything, but especially about something that is a new area of learning for you. The reality is
that your intuitive sense of your own knowledge is likely to be inaccurate. It takes time to build expertise in a
subject area, and the expert is more capable of assessing their own knowledge accurately.

Access for free at openstax.org

 2.4 • Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence 57

2.4 Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Identify four moves for fact-checking.
• Apply fact-checking to specific exercises.

Start with a Strong Foundation

When you are learning a new concept or writing a paper, you probably do some internet research to locate
information about the topic. However, as you probably know, not all internet sources are reliable. Philosophy
students are fortunate to have two online philosophy encyclopedias that provide excellent information about a
wide array of topics. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://openstax.org/r/ieputmedu) provides
good general topic coverage of the major areas of philosophy. The IEP is a traditional encyclopedia, and its
articles are written for new students without a lot of prior knowledge. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(https://openstax.org/r/platostanford) provides in-depth, up-to-date articles on a wide range of topics and
includes both general and specific coverage. The articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are well
written, but they typically go into greater depth and sometimes include technical terms or information you will
have to look up. These articles provide an excellent, free introduction to a wide range of specific topics in
philosophy. As with all encyclopedia entries, students should start with the article itself and then move on to
sources cited in the article. Think of these articles as an entry point into research.

Wherever possible, read articles and books written by philosophers on the topics you are interested in. You can
usually find these resources at your college or university library. You may want to cast a wider net on the
internet itself by tapping into YouTube channels, podcasts, and other websites that can help you understand
philosophical issues or provide information for philosophy papers. However, be discriminating when selecting
material. In this section, we will outline some tools and habits that can make you a better, more critically
engaged online researcher.

Finally, many instructors in philosophy will encourage their students to engage only with the assigned texts in
the class. This can be a valuable technique for learning philosophy since philosophical thinking is cultivated by
serious, critical engagement with good philosophical writing. If you can learn to engage directly with primary
sources (texts written by philosophers about philosophy), you will be a better philosophy student. However, we
acknowledge that most students are accustomed to using the internet for research when they are learning
something new. So this section is intended to provide some guidance for students who want to supplement
their class readings with information gleaned from online sources.

The SIFT Method (Four Moves for Student Fact Checkers)

Information literacy scholar Michael Caulfield came to realize that the methods of research taught by
librarians and information literacy educators often did not work well for students. Typically, students are
encouraged to assess the quality of information using an acronym like CRAAP: currency, relevancy, authority,
accuracy, and purpose. But these criteria are not always useful in spotting misinformation turned up through
search engines. After all, many sources that provide misinformation appear current and relevant and are
generated by organizations that appear to be authoritative while they conceal a hidden agenda.

To find out how students evaluate sources they find on Google, Caulfield relies on the empirical research of
Sam Wineburg and Sarah Mcgrew (2016). The researchers compared the behavior of Stanford University
students to trained fact-checkers at newspapers and magazines. Not surprisingly, the online fact-checkers
used search engines more effectively. Based on this research, Caulfield developed his own protocol to make
students better researchers.

The first thing to know about using a search engine like Google is that results are not ranked by authority,
accuracy, or relevance. Internet companies are notoriously secretive about the algorithms (mathematical
58 2 • Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

procedural rules) they use to generate search engine results, but we know that they prioritize paid
advertisements, popularity, and web interconnectivity (the degree to which key words and links from a website
are shared with other websites). Thus, websites interested in sharing misinformation can use the same search
engine optimization tools that legitimate companies or media sources use to move up the ranks of search
results. So you need to learn to use the search engine to your advantage. Caulfield recommends using the
acronym SIFT, or the “four moves” of student fact checkers.

FIGURE 2.6 The four moves for student fact checkers: stop; investigate the source; find better coverage; and trace
the claims to the original context. (credit: “SIFT (The Four Moves)” by Michael Caulfield/hapgood.us, CC BY 4.0)

Stop

The first move reiterates something we have already discussed: to become a better critical thinker, slow down
the quick and efficient thinking that leads to errors and engage in critical reflection and metacognition. By
stopping, slowing down, or taking your time to allow for critical reflection, you will be using rational and
reflective thinking to assess claims. Additionally, after some searching, you will want stop, return to your
original source, and check its claims again. When you circle back after going down a bit of a rabbit hole, you
will have a new perspective from which to evaluate these claims.

Investigate the Source

Next, investigate the source of your information. Internet searches will often lead you through a series of links,
in which you jump from one document to another. Strive to understand this electronic paper trail. Who wrote
each document? What are their credentials? You can prioritize academic sources, such as web pages of
philosophy faculty members, and you can discount sites that aggregate student papers or provide content
without clear authorship. But investigating authorship does not mean that you should just read the “About”
page on a website. Rather, Wineburg and Mcgrew (2016) found that fact-checkers used search tools to check
the reputation of the sites they were investigating, a move they called “reading laterally.” You do not have to
spend a lot of time on the site itself. Instead, search reviews or critiques of the website and the authors on the
site. Find out what other authoritative sources say about the site. Is this a website that is approved by other
people you trust? Or do people you trust indicate that the website or its information are questionable?

Find Better Coverage

Check the claims and information on the site you are reading. What do other sources say about the same
information? Is there other coverage on the same topic? This move is particularly important for controversial
claims you might find on social media, where the original source is frequently obscured. Is this information
being covered elsewhere, and does the coverage agree with what you have read? This move can help in
evaluating your original source or gaining familiarity with the claims being made. If the claims by one source
do not match up with what you are reading elsewhere, be skeptical.

Access for free at openstax.org

 2.4 • Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence 59

Trace Claims, Quotes, and Media to the Original Context

Frequently, claims made on the internet are divorced from their original context. It is important to trace those
claims back to the original source. This advice holds for online research in philosophy. You may discover a
claim or quote about a philosopher that lacks context. To evaluate the claim, you need its original context,
which will reveal whether the claim or quote was mischaracterized or portrayed in a misleading way. Look for
citations, and then follow those citations to the original publication. If the source you have found does not have
citations, then you will need to search key terms or phrases in quotation marks to see if you can locate the
claim or quote using another method. Good academic sources ought to provide citations so you can verify the
original source of the claim. If it is hard to verify a claim or quote, that should be a red flag to not trust the
source making those claims or providing those quotes.

THINK LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Here are three examples of claims made online. Use the four moves to assess whether these claims are true. You
have been provided with a screen capture of a headline, so you do not have links back to a website. Therefore, use
search tools on the web to verify the claims being made. In each case, find a source that either verifies or debunks
the claim. The source you use to verify or debunk the claim should be reputable and authoritative.

Mexico’s Border Wall

This post claims to be picture of fencing from Mexico’s southern border. Is the photo accurate? Is this an image of
Mexico’s southern border? Has the Mexican government constructed a wall to prevent the flow of migrants from
across its southern border?

FIGURE 2.7 This social media image claims to show a wall Mexico constructed on its southern border. (credit:
“Mexico’s Border Wall?” by Michael Caulfield/fourmoves.blog, CC BY 4.0)

Smart Toilet?

This image was shared on the web. Is it a real product or satire?

60 2 • Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

FIGURE 2.8 This web headline about Kohler’s smart toilet, under the heading “Smart Home,” suggests that Kohler’s
has invented a smart toilet that uses Alexa. (credit: “Alexa Smart Toilet” by Michael Caulfield/fourmoves.blog, CC BY
4.0)

Drilling Stonehenge?

FIGURE 2.9 This newspaper headline claims that engineers drilled a hole into Stonehenge as part of a controversial
tunnel project. (credit: “Stonehenge damaged by blundering engineers?” by Michael Caulfield/fourmoves.blog, CC
BY 4.0)

2.5 Reading Philosophy

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Describe strategies for reading philosophy.
• Distinguish the goals of philosophical reading from other types of reading.
• Employ a three-part method for reading philosophy.

Access for free at openstax.org

 2.5 • Reading Philosophy 61

To be successful in a philosophy course, you must be able to read primary and secondary sources in
philosophy. Many students in their first philosophy class struggle with the required readings. You may find
yourself rereading a passage several times without having a clear notion of what the author is trying to say. Or
you may get lost in the back-and-forth of arguments and counterarguments, forgetting which represent the
author’s opinion. This is a common problem. Using the strategies described below, you can track the key
claims and arguments in your reading. Eventually, you will reach the point where you can begin to reflect on,
evaluate, and engage with the philosophical concepts presented.

Prepare to Read
Preparing your reading space will help you focus and improve the chances of retaining the reading material.
Read at a table with a comfortable chair instead of on a couch or in a bed. Sitting up straight improves
concentration. Have something to drink nearby, and avoid distractions, like TV or music with lyrics. Some
people find it helpful to have a little bit of bustle around them (for example, you might choose to work in a café
or library), while others find this distracting. Some people like music; others prefer silence. Find the setting
that helps you concentrate.

Next, choose an annotation tool. You will need to write notes, underline, and flag portions of the reading, so use
text you can alter whenever possible. If you are working with a printed text, use a pencil so that you can erase
and rewrite notes in the margin. Many students use highlighters when reading text, but readers have a
tendency to highlight too much, which makes the highlighting useless when you go back and reread. A better
system is to write marginal notes or markers to flag and identify key passages. You can devise a simple coding
system using symbols to identify different parts of a text: for example, main ideas or topics, examples,
arguments, references to other philosophers, questions, and quotations to use in papers. If you are working
with a digital text, there are many tools you can use to write notes and place markers in the text. OpenStax
provides a useful annotation tool for its web-based textbooks, allowing you to create notes that link passages
and even to review your notes all together. The purpose of annotation is to create a visual trail you can come
back to for easy tracking of an argument. This will ensure you do not need to reread large portions of the text to
find key information for studying or writing a paper. Annotations allow you to move quickly through a text,
identifying key passages for quotes or citations, understanding the flow of the argument, and remembering the
key claims or points made by the author.

Engaging with Philosophical Texts

The purpose of philosophical writing is to engage the reader in a sequence of thoughts that either present a
problem to be considered, prompt reflection on previous ideas and works, or lead to some insight or
enlightenment. Philosophy consists of ideas and arguments. Your goal is to engage with those ideas and
arguments to arrive at your own understanding of the issues. You may critically engage with the author, or you
may have your perspective changed by reading the author. In either case, your goal ought to be to reach a new
understanding. This is somewhat different from writing in most other disciplines, in which the purpose may
be to convey information, evoke emotions, tell a story, or produce aesthetic enjoyment. While engaging with
philosophical ideas can be pleasurable and may involve understanding some basic information, the primary
purpose of the writing is to engage thought and reflection. This means that you should read the work as fast or
slow as you need to engage thoughtfully with it. The speed of reading will depend on how quickly you grasp the
ideas and arguments presented or how familiar you are with the claims being made. It is not as important to
read sequentially for plot or narrative; much more important is to follow the sequence of ideas and arguments.
Consequently, it may make sense to cross-reference passages, jumping from one section to another to
compare claims, and link ideas that appear in different places in the text.

Philosophical Methods at Work

Look for philosophical methods at work in your readings. Recall that philosophers use a variety of methods to
arrive at truth, including conceptual analysis, logic, and the consideration of trade-offs. Philosophers may also
62 2 • Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

draw on a variety of sources of evidence, including history, intuition, common sense, or empirical results from
other disciplines or from experimental philosophy. In any case, most philosophical works will be attempting to
develop a position through argumentation. Sources of evidence will be used to bolster premises for the
purpose of reaching a desired conclusion. Additionally, the author may use a variety of methods to make an
argument. If you can identify these methods, strategies, and sources of evidence, you will be able to better
evaluate the text.

The Principle of Charity

The principle of charity is an interpretative principle that advises the reader to interpret the author’s
statements in the most rational and best way possible. Sometimes a philosopher’s argument may be unclear or
ambiguous. For example, philosophers from older historical periods may use terminology and expressions
that are difficult for a modern reader to understand. In these cases, the reader should start from the
assumption that the author is putting forward a rational, thoughtful view. The reader’s goal should be to
understand that view in the best light possible. This does not mean that you should ignore difficulties or avoid
criticizing the author. Rather, when you encounter difficulties, look for an interpretation that makes the most
sense of what the author is saying. All the primary- and secondary-source authors you will read are smart,
thoughtful people. Therefore, assume the author has a response to simple or obvious objections, and look for
that response. Try to understand the work on its own terms, and then critically engage with the best version of
that work.

Working with the Dialectic

The dialectical process that is common to many philosophical writings is initially confusing for many students.
Dialectic, a method for discovering truth through dialogue, involves an exchange of ideas with the goal of
arriving at a position that more accurately reflects the truth. In practical terms, philosophers will frequently
move back and forth between the view they are advancing and competing views that they may or may not
support. These alternative views may provide criticisms, or they may represent views that are common in
philosophy. The author’s goal is to present alternative perspectives—in addition to their own—to demonstrate
the range of perspectives on the problem. If one view emerges through this dialectical process, there is a
greater chance that it has some share of the truth since it has survived the criticisms and contrary opinions of
others.

When reading a philosophical work that uses a dialectical method, pay attention to tracking different strands
of argument. Do not assume that every argument or claim in what you are reading is the considered opinion of
the author. Rather, various claims may represent contrasting views that will eventually be rejected. Track the
back-and-forth between views to grasp the thread of argument that the author endorses.

Access for free at openstax.org

 2.5 • Reading Philosophy 63

FIGURE 2.10 Find a comfortable place to do your philosophy readings. (credit: "Woman sitting in the forest and
reading a book, autumn rest" by Marco Verch/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

Pre-reading
Start your reading with a pre-read. This is a very useful practice when tackling academic works. So much
information can be learned simply by reviewing the surrounding features of the article, book, or chapter.
Spend some time reviewing these elements to grasp the context for what you are about to read. Start with these
elements.

Title, Author, and Publication

What does the title and author tell you about the work? When was it written? Who has published the text—an
academic press or a popular press? If you do not know this information, you may want to do some preliminary
internet searches to try to find out. Where does this work fit into the author’s broader body of work? What can
you learn or what do you know about the author? What are the author’s main contributions to philosophy?

Table of Contents and Bibliography

Develop a mental outline for the work by looking carefully at the table of contents, usually at the front of the
book. For a shorter work, scan through the article, looking for section headings and breaks. If the headings are
labeled, you may have enough information to track the general flow of the article just by reading them. If the
headings are not helpful or there are no headings, quickly skim the first and last paragraph, and pick out topic
sentences or words that indicate what individual paragraphs are about to get a sense of where the overall
argument is going.

At this stage, you want to look at the bibliography or references. Depending on the length and style of the work,
the reference list may be very long. As a novice, you may not be able to get much information from a
bibliography, but as you become more familiar with your subject, you will get a sense from titles and authors in
the bibliography about the perspective that informs this author’s writing.

First Read
You may need to read material more than once to become engaged in critical reflection. However, because you
are planning to do multiple readings, do not linger too long on the first read. Move quickly and purposefully
through the material with the goal of understanding the flow of the argument. Use the information you gleaned
from pre-reading to fill in gaps in knowledge where possible, and flag places for follow-up.

Identify Key Claims

During the first read, you should identify the key claims in the text. In a traditional academic article, these
64 2 • Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

claims ought to be highlighted in the introduction or abstract. In a book or historical work, these key claims
may be harder to find. Look for sentences that introduce claims with expressions such as, “I aim to show,”
“What this chapter will demonstrate,” or “The purpose of this work is.” Mark key claims so that you can come
back to them easily. Ask yourself what the author is trying to say; what does the author hope the reader will
take away from reading?

Identify Sources of Evidence and Methods of Argument

Look for the evidence the author is providing to support the key claims. What methods does the author use to
generate this evidence? Is the author using logical argumentation? Are there thought experiments or other
forms of conceptual analysis? Does the author provide empirical evidence to back up the claims? In the best-
case scenario, evidence will be provided shortly before or after the claim is announced. However, sometimes
evidence and claims are mixed together. During this stage, try to flag the dialectic in the argument. Is the
author presenting their own view, a rival view, a criticism, or a supporting view?

Flag for Follow-Up

Use annotation flags to chart the course of the argument and claims being made. Use a simple notation system
that works for you. But you should consider flagging things like thesis, definition, claim, evidence, argument,
question, counterargument, objection, response, and so forth. Flagging should also be used to identify words
or ideas you do not understand. When you are moving quickly, you may ask questions that you later
understand, or you may flag something incorrectly and need to revise your notes. This is fine. You are engaged
in a process of gradually becoming acquainted with the text.

Close Read
At this stage, you will read for thoughtful engagement with the ideas and arguments presented in the text. Now
is when you critically reflect on, evaluate, and understand the author’s writing.

At this point, you should not move any more quickly than you can think alongside the author. Use this time to
follow up on questions you posed during flagging. Look up terms; do some research on concepts you do not
understand. You do not need to understand the article perfectly, but you should understand it well enough to
think about it. If you have a good understanding of what you read, you will have something to say about the
material after you finish reading it.

Reading slowly and actively involves asking the author questions: How does this claim follow from that one?
Where is the evidence to support this assertion? Is the evidence adequate to support the claim being made?
What are the implications of this claim? How does this idea fit with the overall emphasis on some other set of
ideas? If something in the text does not sit well with you, try to articulate what is bothering you. Write a short
objection in the margin. Even if you are not sure, try to work out why you do not agree with the author. The
more you can articulate your concerns and think through your own reactions, the more you will understand
the material and your own reaction to it.

The close reading is intended to prepare you for talking and writing about the author’s work. That means you
are preparing yourself to do philosophy alongside and with the author. Hold yourself to the same standards to
which you hold the author. Provide reasons for your claims, support your opinions with adequate evidence,
and consider possible objections.

READ LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Identify a reading from Chapter 1 (or another introductory reading from this course). This exercise will work best if
the reading is a fairly short, primary source reading from someone who is doing philosophy. Follow the three-step
method for reading:

Access for free at openstax.org

 2.6 • Writing Philosophy Papers 65

• Pre-read
• Fast read with flagging
• Close read and revise flagging

Consider the following prompts in writing a short review of the article (no more than two paragraphs in length):

• Provide a brief synopsis of the argument and dialectical structure of the text.
• What are the primary claims that the author makes?
• What evidence does the author provide to support those claims?
• What methods does the author use to generate evidence or make arguments?
• Is the evidence adequate to support the claims the author makes?
• Where do you think the evidence falls short?
• Do you agree with the author’s claims?
• Where do you disagree, and why?

When you are writing philosophy papers, you should plan the structure of your argument in advance, spend
time thinking about a thesis, and focus on an achievable aim relative to the length of your paper.

2.6 Writing Philosophy Papers

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Identify and characterize the format of a philosophy paper.
• Create thesis statements that are manageable and sufficiently specific.
• Collect evidence and formulate arguments.
• Organize ideas into a coherent written presentation.

This section will provide some practical advice on how to write philosophy papers. The format presented here
focuses on the use of an argumentative structure in writing. Different philosophy professors may have
different approaches to writing. The sections below are only intended to give some general guidelines that
apply to most philosophy classes.

Identify Claims
The key element in any argumentative paper is the claim you wish to make or the position you want to defend.
Therefore, take your time identifying claims, which is also called the thesis statement. What do you want to say
about the topic? What do you want the reader to understand or know after reading your piece? Remember that
narrow, modest claims work best. Grand claims are difficult to defend, even for philosophy professors. A good
thesis statement should go beyond the mere description of another person’s argument. It should say
something about the topic, connect the topic to other issues, or develop an application of some theory or
position advocated by someone else. Here are some ideas for creating claims that are perfectly acceptable and
easy to develop:

• Compare two philosophical positions. What makes them similar? How are they different? What general
lessons can you draw from these positions?
• Identify a piece of evidence or argument that you think is weak or may be subject to criticism. Why is it
weak? How is your criticism a problem for the philosopher’s perspective?
• Apply a philosophical perspective to a contemporary case or issue. What makes this philosophical position
applicable? How would it help us understand the case?
• Identify another argument or piece of evidence that might strengthen a philosophical position put forward
by a philosopher. Why is this a good argument or piece of evidence? How does it fit with the philosopher’s
other claims and arguments?
• Consider an implication (either positive or negative) that follows from a philosopher’s argument. How does
66 2 • Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

this implication follow? Is it necessary or contingent? What lessons can you draw from this implication (if
positive, it may provide additional reasons for the argument; if negative, it may provide reasons against
the argument)?

THINK LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

The following multiple-choice exercises will help you identify and write modest, clear philosophical thesis
statements. A thesis statement is a declarative statement that puts forward a position or makes a claim about some
topic.

1. Which of the following is a declarative statement that puts forward a position or claim?
a. How does Aristotle think virtue is necessary for happiness?
b. Is happiness the ultimate goal of human action?
c. Whether or not virtue is necessary for happiness.
d. Aristotle argues that happiness is the ultimate good of human action and virtue is necessary for happiness.

2. Which of the following declarative statements goes beyond mere description?

a. René Descartes argues that the soul or mind is the essence of the human person.
b. Descartes shows that all beliefs and memories about the external world could be false.
c. Some people think that Descartes is a skeptic, but I will show that he goes beyond skepticism.
d. In the meditations, Descartes claims that the mind and body are two different substances.

3. Which of the following statements proposes a comparison between two philosophical views?
a. Descartes says that the mind is a substance that is distinct from the body, but I disagree.
b. Contemporary psychology has shown that Descartes is incorrect to think that human beings have free will and
that the mind is something different from the brain.
c. Thomas Hobbes’s view of the soul is materialistic, whereas Descartes’s view of the soul is nonphysical. In this
paper, I will examine the differences between these two views.

4. Which of the following statements identifies a weakness in a philosopher’s argument and proposes a criticism
of that argument?
a. John Stuart Mill reasons that utilitarian judgments can be based on qualitative differences as well as the
quantity of pleasure, but ultimately any qualitative difference must result in a difference in the quantity of
pleasure.
b. Mill’s approach to utilitarianism differs from Bentham’s by introducing qualitative distinctions among pleasures,
where Bentham only considers the quantitative aspects of pleasure.
c. J. S. Mill’s approach to utilitarianism aligns moral theory with the history of ethics because he allows qualitative
differences in moral judgments.

5. Which of the following is an example of a statement that applies a philosophical idea to a contemporary issue or
problem?
a. Rawls’s liberty principle ensures that all people have a basic set of freedoms that are important for living a full
life.
b. The US Bill of Rights is an example of Rawls’s liberty principle because it lists a set of basic freedoms that are
guaranteed for all people.
c. While many people may agree that Rawls’s liberty principle applies to all citizens of a particular country, it is
much more controversial to extend those same basic freedoms to immigrants, including those classified by the
government as permanent residents, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, and refugees.

[ANS: 1.d 2.c 3.c 4.a 5.c]

Access for free at openstax.org

 2.6 • Writing Philosophy Papers 67

WRITE LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Use the following templates to write your own thesis statement by inserting a philosopher, claim, or contemporary
issue:

1. [Name of philosopher] holds that [claim], but [name of another philosopher] holds that [another claim]. In this
paper, I will identify reasons for thinking [name of philosopher]’s position is more likely to be true.
2. [Name of philosopher] argues that [claim]. In this paper, I will show how this claim provides a helpful addition to
[contemporary issue].
3. When [name of philosopher] argues in favor of [claim], they rely on [another claim] that is undercut by
contemporary science. I will show that if we modify this claim in light of contemporary science, we will
strengthen or weaken [name of philosopher]’s argument.

Collect Evidence and Build Your Case

Once you have identified your thesis statement or primary claim, collect evidence (by returning to your
readings) to compose the best possible argument. As you assemble the evidence, you can think like a detective
or prosecutor building a case. However, you want a case that is true, not just one that supports your position.
So you should stay open to modifying your claim if it does not fit the evidence. If you need to do additional
research, follow the guidelines presented earlier to locate authoritative information.

If you cannot find evidence to support your claim but still feel strongly about it, you can try to do your own
philosophical thinking using any of the methods discussed in this chapter or in Chapter 1. Imagine
counterexamples and thought experiments that support your claim. Use your intuitions and common sense,
but remember that these can sometimes lead you astray. In general, common sense, intuitions, thought
experiments, and counterexamples should support one another and support the sources you have identified
from other philosophers. Think of your case as a structure: you do not want too much of the weight to rest on a
single intuition or thought experiment.

Consider Counterarguments

Philosophy papers differ from typical argumentative papers in that philosophy students must spend more
time and effort anticipating and responding to counterarguments when constructing their own arguments.
This has two important effects: first, by developing counterarguments, you demonstrate that you have
sufficiently thought through your position to identify possible weaknesses; second, you make your case
stronger by taking away a potential line of attack that an opponent might use. By including counterarguments
in your paper, you engage in the kind of dialectical process that philosophers use to arrive at the truth.

Accurately Represent Source Material

It is important to represent primary and secondary source material as accurately as possible. This means that
you should consider the context and read the arguments using the principle of charity. Make sure that you are
not strawmanning an argument you disagree with or misrepresenting a quote or paraphrase just because you
need some evidence to support your argument. As always, your goal should be to find the most rationally
compelling argument, which is the one most likely to be true.
68 2 • Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

FIGURE 2.11 Good organization is key to strong writing. (credit: "Female hand writing at home." by Nenad
Stojkovic/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

Organize Your Paper

Academic philosophy papers use the same simple structure as any other paper and one you likely learned in
high school or your first-year composition class.

Introduce Your Thesis

The purpose of your introduction is to provide context for your thesis. Simply tell the reader what to expect in
the paper. Describe your topic, why it is important, and how it arises within the works you have been reading.
You may have to provide some historical context, but avoid both broad generalizations and long-winded
historical retellings. Your context or background information should not be overly long and simply needs to
provide the reader with the context and motivation for your thesis. Your thesis should appear at the end of the
introduction, and the reader should clearly see how the thesis follows from the introductory material you have
provided. If you are writing a long paper, you may need several sentences to express your thesis, in which you
delineate in broad terms the parts of your argument.

Make a Logical and Compelling Case Using the Evidence

The paragraphs that follow the introduction lay out your argument. One strategy you can use to successfully
build paragraphs is to think in terms of good argument structure. You should provide adequate evidence to
support the claims you want to make. Your paragraphs will consist of quotations and paraphrases from
primary and secondary sources, context and interpretation, novel thoughts and ideas, examples and analogies,
counterarguments, and replies to the counterarguments. The evidence should both support the thesis and
build toward the conclusion. It may help to think architecturally: lay down the foundation, insert the beams of
your strongest support, and then put up the walls to complete the structure. Or you might think in terms of a
narrative: tell a story in which the evidence leads to an inevitable conclusion.

CONNECTIONS
See the chapter on logic and reasoning for a developed account of different types of philosophical arguments.

Summarize Your Argument in the Conclusion

Conclude your paper with a short summary that recapitulates the argument. Remind the reader of your thesis
and revisit the evidence that supports your argument. You may feel that the argument as written should stand
on its own. But it is helpful to the reader to reinforce the argument in your conclusion with a short summary.

Access for free at openstax.org

 2.6 • Writing Philosophy Papers 69

Do not introduce any new information in the conclusion; simply summarize what you have already said.

The purpose of this chapter has been to provide you with basic tools to become a successful philosophy
student. We started by developing a sophisticated picture of how the brain works, using contemporary
neuroscience. The brain represents and projects a picture of the world, full of emotional significance, but this
image may contain distortions that amount to a kind of illusion. Cognitive illusions produce errors in
reasoning, called cognitive biases. To guard against error, we need to engage in effortful, reflective thinking,
where we become aware of our biases and use logical strategies to overcome them. You will do well in your
philosophy class if you apply the good habits of mind discussed in this chapter and apply the practical advice
that has been provided about how to read and write about philosophy.
70 2 • Summary

Summary
2.1 The Brain Is an Inference Machine
Our brains facilitate our survival and promote our ability to find a partner and reproduce by using thought,
calculation, prediction, and inference. For this reason, our natural and genetically primed ways of thinking do
not necessarily serve the goals of philosophy, science, or truth.

The relationship between mind and brain is one of the central problems of metaphysics, known as the “mind-
body problem.” The mind-body problem is the problem of understanding the relationship between the organic
gray and white matter in our skulls (the brain) and the range of conscious awareness (the mind). Biology does
not tell us what the relationship is between our private mental life and the neurological, electrochemical
interactions that take place in the brain.

It can be helpful to use the resources of psychology and cognitive science (the study of the brain’s processes) to
help us understand how to become better thinkers. Your brain is not passively capturing the world, like a
camera, but is actively projecting the world so that it makes sense to you. When the brain defaults to ways of
thinking that produce a less than optimal result or even an incorrect decision, it is operating with a cognitive
bias. A cognitive bias is a pattern of “quick” thinking based on the ‘rule of thumb.’ Cognitive biases are like
perceptual illusions.

2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection

Metacognition means thinking about thinking and involves the kind of self-awareness that engages higher
order thinking skills. Cognition, or the way we typically engage with the world around us, is first-order
thinking, while metacognition is higher-order thinking.

One of the most common cognitive biases is confirmation bias, which is the tendency to search for, interpret,
favor, and recall information that confirms or supports your prior beliefs. Anchoring bias refers to our
tendency to rely on initial values, prices, or quantities when estimating the actual value, price, or quantity of
something. If you are presented with a quantity, even if that number is clearly arbitrary, you will have a hard
time discounting it in your subsequent calculations; the initial value “anchors” subsequent estimates. The
availability heuristic refers to the tendency to evaluate new information based on the most recent or most
easily recalled examples. The availability heuristic occurs when people take easily remembered instances as
being more representative than they objectively are (i.e., based on statistical probabilities).

Another more loosely defined category of cognitive bias is the tendency for human beings to align themselves
with groups with whom they share values and practices. Tribal thinking makes it hard for us to objectively
evaluate information that either aligns with or contradicts the beliefs held by our group or tribe. A related bias
is called the bandwagon fallacy. The bandwagon fallacy can lead you to conclude that you ought to do
something or believe something because many other people do or believe the same thing.

The sunk cost fallacy is thinking that attaches a value to things in which you have already invested resources
that is greater than the value those things have today. A similar type of faulty reasoning leads to the gambler’s
fallacy, in which a person reasons that future chance events will be more likely if they have not happened
recently.

2.3 Developing Good Habits of Mind

One of the ways to respond to cognitive biases is to develop good habits of mind. There are no quick fixes or
easy solutions to cognitive biases, but some strategies can be helpful.

To be more objective in thinking about issues, problems, or values, we should actively engage in strategies that
remove us from our naturally subjective mindset. When considering philosophical views, try to actively
promote the alternative point of view. Another good strategy is to identify counterexamples – instances that
render an argument invalid by satisfying all the premises of the claim but demonstrating the conclusion is

Access for free at openstax.org

 2 • Key Terms 71

false. To respond to strong emotions, use the tools of metacognition to reflect on the source of those emotions
and attempt to manage them.

A final concept that is a critical component for becoming a better critical thinker is adopting a stance of
epistemic humility. We should recognize these limitations of human knowledge and rein in our epistemic
confidence. We should recognize that the knowledge we do possess is fragile, historical, and conditioned by a
number of social and biological processes.

2.4 Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence

Effective internet research requires knowing how to find information and evaluate the quality of sources. The
SIFT method for evaluating sources teaches students how to become seasoned fact-checkers when searching
online. The four moves for student fact checkers are: stop, investigate the source, find better coverage, trace
the claims to the original context.

2.5 Reading Philosophy

Read at a table with a comfortable chair, instead of on a couch or in a bed. Sitting up straight improves
concentration. Have something to drink nearby, and avoid distractions, like the TV or music with lyrics. Next,
choose an annotation tool. You will need to write notes, underline, and flag portions of the reading, so use text
you can alter whenever possible.

Philosophy consists of ideas and arguments. Your goal is to engage with those ideas and arguments to arrive at
your own understanding of the issues. It is not as important to read sequentially for plot or narrative; it is
much more important to follow the sequence of ideas and arguments. The author may use a variety of methods
to make an argument. If you can identify these methods, strategies, and sources of evidence, you will be able to
better evaluate the text.

An effective method for reading philosophy involves three key steps: pre-read, first read, and close read. When
encountering a new philosophical text, students who use this systematic method will better understand
challenging content.

2.6 Writing Philosophy Papers

Most philosophy papers require students to produce an argument in support of a claim about the readings in
philosophy class. The first and most important step to writing a good argumentative paper is to find a clear,
defensible thesis. The next step is to construct an argument using evidence from assigned readings and
external research, original arguments, and applied cases. However, the goal of writing in philosophy is to
approach truth, not just to win an argument.

Key Terms
Allostasis the biological process whereby the body prepares itself for anticipated needs.
Anchoring bias the tendency to make estimates based on an earlier initial value.
Availability heuristic the tendency to evaluate new information based on the most recent or most easily
recalled examples.
Bandwagon fallacy the fallacy that we ought to do something or believe something because many other
people do or believe the same thing.
Cognitive bias a systematic pattern of reasoning that deviates from a rationally optimal or logical judgment
based on available facts and probabilities.
Cognitive science the study of the brain and the mechanisms underlying thought, perception, memory,
emotion, and other functions of the brain.
Confirmation bias the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or
supports established beliefs.
Dialectic a method of discovering truth that comes from dialogue and uses the exchange of different points of
72 2 • References

view to arrive at a position that is more likely to be true.

Dunning-Kruger effect the cognitive bias in which people with little expertise in a specific task rate their
knowledge too highly relative to others with more knowledge.
Epistemic humility a stance in philosophical and scientific investigation that recognizes the limits of one’s
own ability to know truth and reality in a direct or complete way.
Gambler’s fallacy the reasoning that holds that if a chance event has happened less frequently in the recent
past, it is more likely to happen in the near future (or vice versa).
Heuristics mental shortcuts or rules of thumb that provide a method of problem-solving that is not
necessarily optimal but is efficient.
Homeostasis the biological process whereby the body regulates itself to maintain a state of equilibrium.
Inference the mental process that leads from one set of information (premises, data, or information) to
another (a conclusion, construction, or projection).
Metacognition the process of thinking about thinking. Metacognition engages self-awareness and higher-
order thinking skills so that an individual can regulate, monitor, and critically analyze their own thought
processes.
Principle of charity the interpretative principle that says a reader ought to interpret the author’s statements
in the most rational and best possible way.
Representation an information-bearing unit of thought. Representations are the objects that minds consider
when they think.
Steelmanning a strategy for making opposing arguments as strong as possible so that it is difficult to knock
them down.
Sunk-cost fallacy the fallacy of attaching a greater value to something than is warranted because a person has
already invested time, resources, and emotion in that thing (or person).
Tribalism the tendency for human beings to align their beliefs and attitudes with groups of people who have
similar attitudes, practices, or beliefs.

References
Concepcion, David. 2004. “Reading Philosophy with Background Knowledge and Metacognition.” Teaching
Philosophy 27 (4): 351–68.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 2008. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper Perennial
Modern Classics.

Damasio, Antonio. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Penguin Books.

Eagleman, David. 2011. Incognito: The Secret Lives of Brains. New York: Pantheon.

Feldman Barrett, Lisa. 2017. How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Boston: Mariner Books,
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Hackner, Douglas J., Dunlosky, John, and Graesser, Arthur C, eds. 1998. Metacognition in Educational Theory
and Practice. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Kahneman, Daniel. 2013. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Lazar, Seth. 2018. “Moral Sunk Costs.” The Philosophical Quarterly 68 (273): 841–61.

Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science
185 (4157): 1124–31.

Wason, Peter C. 1960. “On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task.” Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 12 (3): 129-40. doi: 10.1080/17470216008416717.

Wineburg, Sam, and Mcgrew, Sarah. 2016. “Why Students Can’t Google Their Way to the Truth.” Education
Week. November 1, 2016. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-why-students-cant-google-

Access for free at openstax.org

 2 • Review Questions 73

their-way-to-the-truth/2016/11.

Review Questions
2.1 The Brain Is an Inference Machine
1. Distinguish homeostasis from allostasis, and describe the relationship of both to the emotions and rational
thought.

2. What are heuristics?

3. What is the role of emotion in rational thought?

4. Describe some of the reasons for effortless thinking and gut intuitions. Explain why these are sometimes
faulty.

2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection

5. What are some of the conditions that make critical thinking possible?

6. Define three of the common cognitive biases identified in this chapter.

7. Describe critical thinking strategies that can be applied to two of the cognitive biases identified in the
chapter.

2.3 Developing Good Habits of Mind

8. What is epistemic humility, and how does it relate to the Dunning-Kruger effect?

9. How can you apply the strategies for thinking objectively to your philosophy class?

10. How can you manage your emotions when reading and thinking about philosophy?

2.4 Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence

11. What are the four moves of fact-checking, and how do they work?

2.5 Reading Philosophy

12. What is the three-part method for philosophical reading?

13. What are some differences between reading philosophical texts and other kinds of texts?

2.6 Writing Philosophy Papers

14. What is a thesis statement, and how should you go about developing a thesis statement for your papers?

Further Reading
Benson, Buster. 2016. “Cognitive Bias Cheat Sheet.” Better Humans. September 1, 2016. https://medium.com/
better-humans/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18.

Caulfield, Michael. Four Moves (blog). https://fourmoves.blog/.

Caulfield, Michael. n.d. Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers. Pressbooks.

https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/front-matter/web-strategies-for-student-fact-checkers/

Falsafaz. 2014. “How to Read Philosophy.” Falsafaz! Making Philosophy Easy (blog). May 22, 2014.
https://falasafaz.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/how-to-read-philosophy/.

Graff, Gerald, and Birkenstein, Cathy. 2009. They Say, I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing. 2nd
ed. New York: Norton & Norton.

Symons, John. 2017. Formal Reasoning: A Guide to Critical Thinking. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing.
74 2 • Further Reading

Access for free at openstax.org

The Early History of Philosophy
around the World 3

FIGURE 3.1 This cuneiform tablet from Anatolia has been dated to circa 1875–1840 BCE. The development of
writing should not be equated with the development of a culture’s sense of meaning and history, but writing does
make that meaning and history available to those living much later. (credit: “Tablet with Cuneiform Inscription
LACMA M.79.106.2 (4 of 4)” by Ashley Van Haeften/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

CHAPTER OUTLINE
3.1 Indigenous Philosophy
3.2 Classical Indian Philosophy
3.3 Classical Chinese Philosophy

INTRODUCTION As discussed in previous chapters, the figure of the sage, the individual found in early
societies around the world who mediated between the everyday and the transcendent realm, is an important
precursor to philosophy. In most societies, this figure predates the recognition of the philosopher as the
individual seeker of wisdom by many hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Justin E. H. Smith (2016) argues
that philosophical thought requires abstract thinking of the sort required for the bureaucratic administration
of society and that many societies developed philosophical traditions out of these practices of abstract
reasoning. These traditions furnished shared beliefs about ethics, metaphysics, and other realms of
philosophical inquiry.

Homo sapiens have inhabited the earth for at least 250,000 years, originating in the Blue Nile rift region of
northern Africa. However, the oldest forms of human writing were discovered in ancient Sumer, in
76 3 • The Early History of Philosophy around the World

Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers where they enter the Persian Gulf, dating to around
3500 BCE (approximately 5,500 years ago). The vast period of time between the emergence of biological
humans and the emergence of human writing is typically called prehistory. This term does not imply that early
human beings lacked a sense of their past and the lessons they may draw from it. We know from studying
modern aliterate societies that many of them possess oral traditions of storytelling that provide historical
perspective. However, whatever perspective prehistoric humans gained from oral history is completely lost to
us.

The use of writing to record human thought marks the transition from prehistory to history. The first recorded
texts include genealogies, accounts of heroic and everyday actions by human beings, and legal codes. These
earliest writings offer a glimpse into early human systems of government and everyday life. Writing expressing
philosophical questions came later, primarily in the form of religious and mythological stories, and this is
where we begin. There is concrete evidence that at this turning point in human history, people were aware of
and concerned with history; engaged in questions of the origins of nature and the self; speculating about the
goals and purposes of human life, whether moral or spiritual; and reasoning about right, wrong, justice, and
injustice. This turning point is what German intellectual Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) has called the “Axial
Period” (1953), more commonly translated as the “Axial Age.” Jaspers observed that this “axis” of the
emergence of philosophical thought occurred during a somewhat well-defined period, between 800 BCE and
200 BCE, in multiple locations around the world, principally the Mediterranean region, Mesopotamia, India,
and China. Remarkably, human beings in these disparate locations appear to have made roughly simultaneous
transitions, first from prehistory to history, and then from a mythological and religious understanding of
human beings and their place in the world to a more systematic study of human beings and the world around
them. This chapter will cover the period of time from the so-called axial age to the development of rich
philosophical traditions in Africa, Asia, and the Americas.

3.1 Indigenous Philosophy

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Identify challenges in the study of Indigenous philosophies.
• Describe metaphysical and epistemological ideas explored by Indigenous African philosophies.
• Describe metaphysical and epistemological ideas explored by Indigenous Native American philosophies.
• Describe metaphysical and epistemological ideas explored by Mesoamerican philosophies.

Some of the best-known ancient texts, connected to many of the great civilizations around the world, are
religious or mythological in nature. Examples include the Vedas of India, the earliest literature of China, and
the Jewish Talmud. These texts introduce aspects of philosophical inquiry—such as questions concerning the
origins of the cosmos and the nature and purpose of human life, morality, justice, human excellence,
knowledge, and so forth—in terms of stories and explanations that rely on the supernatural. These stories
provide context, meaning, and direction for human life within a framework that assumes that the natural
world is infused with supernatural importance. Such texts are a testament to the fundamental and binding
nature of religion in human societies.

When humans shift from religious answers to questions about purpose and meaning to more naturalistic and
logical answers, they move from the realm of myth to the realm of reason. In Greek, this movement is
described as a move from mythos to logos, where mythos signifies the supernatural stories people tell, while
logos signifies the rational, logical, and scientific stories they tell. This distinction may lead one to believe that
there is a clear transition from religious thought to philosophical or scientific thought, but this is not the case.
The earliest philosophers in Greece, Rome, India, China, and North Africa all used mythological and analogical
(analogy-based) stories to explain their rational systems, while religious texts from the same period often
engage in serious, logical argumentation. Rather than seeing a decisive break between mythological thinking
and rational thinking, one should understand the transition from mythos to logos as a gradual, uneven, and

Access for free at openstax.org

 3.1 • Indigenous Philosophy 77

zig-zagging progression. This progression teaches that there are close connections between religion,
philosophy, and science in terms of the desire to understand, explain, and find purpose for human existence.

Challenges in Researching Indigenous Philosophy

There is growing interest in Indigenous philosophy in contemporary academic philosophy, as a way of
engaging with both the historical and present-day thought of Indigenous peoples around the world. Indigenous
philosophy broadly refers to the ideas of Indigenous peoples pertaining to the nature of the world, human
existence, ethics, ideal social and political structures, and other topics also considered by traditional academic
philosophy. Unlike the philosophies of ancient Greece, India, and China, Indigenous philosophies did not
spread across vast territorial empires or feature centers of formal learning that documented and developed
philosophical ideas over hundreds or thousands of years. The study of Indigenous philosophies, or
ethnophilosophy, often must rely on different methods than typical academic philosophy. Indigenous
philosophy is not usually recorded in texts that can be read and analyzed. Instead, those seeking to understand
Indigenous philosophical thinking must engage in the kind of research often used in ethnographic and
sociological study, including identifying individuals who hold and transmit cultural knowledge about
philosophical thought and recording interviews and conversations with them. Most of the philosophy of
Indigenous peoples has been passed down through oral traditions, in much the same way that prehistoric
thought was transmitted.

There are additional challenges to studying Indigenous philosophy. The discipline of academic philosophy has
traditionally dismissed or ignored the philosophical thought of Indigenous peoples, considering it to lie
outside the realm of logos. The long history of erasure of Indigenous philosophical thought in academic
philosophy makes it difficult to engage in academic discussion with it. There is an absence of past scholarship
in this field in the West. Indigenous peoples have also been subjected to racist practices, such as forced
education in languages other than their own, that make it difficult for them to retain a lively philosophical
tradition. Furthermore, many Indigenous customs have been lost because of the loss of life and cultural
heritage among Indigenous peoples following colonization by Europeans and Americans.

Indigenous African Philosophy

If the transition from mythos to logos is predicated on the development of written language, then this
transition may have first occurred in Africa. Africa was home to the development of many ancient writing
systems, including the system of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics that developed during the fourth millennium
BCE. The modern Western understanding of the deep history of philosophy is severely hampered by the lack of
scholarship in English and other European languages, the loss of collective cultural knowledge exacerbated by
colonialism, and the sometimes deliberate destruction of historical records, such as the burning of the Library
of Alexandria. As a result, research has relied heavily on oral traditions or the rediscovery and translation of
written evidence. The philosophical legacy of ancient Egypt is discussed in the chapter on classical philosophy.
This chapter will examine research into ethnophilosophy from other regions of Africa.

The seizure of the city of Ceuta, bordering present-day Morocco, by the Portuguese in 1415 marks the first
attempts by Europeans to colonize Africa. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, European nations were
engaging in what is called the “scramble for Africa.” Prior to this period, European settlement in Africa had
been limited by the mosquito-borne disease malaria, the inappropriateness of African terrain to equine
(horse-based) conquest, and the power of strong coastal states. European nations now gained access to the
interior of Africa with the help of the discovery of quinine to treat malaria and the development of mechanized
vehicles and advanced weaponry. During the colonial era, young Africans identified as having intellectual
promise were sent to study at European universities, where they read Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, and other
Western philosophers. Whether the intent was to help these communities enter the modern age or to create
local administrations that would further the interests of Western parties—or both—the result was the failure to
preserve knowledge about the history and thought of localities and regions.
78 3 • The Early History of Philosophy around the World

In later decades, some Western-educated Africans began to engage directly with African philosophies. In 1910,
Congolese philosopher Stefano Kaoze (c. 1885–1951) described the thought of the Bantu people pertaining to
moral values, knowledge, and God in an essay entitled “The Psychology of the Bantus” (Dübgen and Skupien,
2019). Bantu is a blanket term for hundreds of different ethnic groups in Central and Southern African that
speak what are referred to as Bantu languages and share many cultural features (see Figure 3.2). In later
writings, Kaoze explored other African thought systems, arguing that these systems had much to teach
Western thought systems grounded in Christianity (Nkulu Kabamba and Mpala Mbabula 2017).

FIGURE 3.2 Approximate territory of Bantu peoples. Bantu is a blanket term for hundreds of different ethnic groups
that speak what are referred to as Bantu languages and share many cultural features. (attribution: Copyright Rice
University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)

It was not until 1945, when Belgian missionary Placide Tempels (1906–1977) published Bantu Philosophy,
that the topic of African philosophy gained significant attention in the West. Tempels rejected the
characterization of African philosophy and theology as consisting of magic, animism, and ancestor worship,
instead exploring the richness of Bantu thought pertaining to individuals, society, and the divine. Tempels
described Bantu peoples as believing in a “vital force,” the source of which is God. He observed that what
Western thinkers envisioned as a divine being, the Bantu understood as various forces, including human
forces, animal forces, and mineral forces. They viewed the universe as comprising all of these forces, and these
forces could directly impact the “life force” of an individual (Okafor 1982, 84).

Later African scholars and theologians, such John Mbiti (1931–2019) and Alexis Kagame (1912–1981),
indicated that Tempels was somewhat inventive in his descriptions and interpretations. They engaged in a
more authentic study of Bantu philosophy, recording and analyzing African proverbs, stories, art, and music to
illuminate what they presented as a shared worldview. One example of this shared worldview is the Zulu term
ubuntu, which can be translated as “humanity.” Variations on the term appear in many other Bantu languages,
all referring to a similar concept, expressed through maxims such as “I am because we are.” The concept of
ubuntu holds that human beings have a deep natural interdependence, to the point that we are mutually
dependent on one another even for our existence. The notion of ubuntu has inspired a uniquely African
approach to communitarian philosophy, which refers to ideas about politics and society that privilege the
community over the individual.

Nigerian philosopher Sophie Olúwọlé (1935–2018) was a practitioner and scholar of Yoruba philosophy. The
Yoruba are a prominent ethnic group in Nigeria and other locations in sub-Saharan Africa. Among other

Access for free at openstax.org

 3.1 • Indigenous Philosophy 79

accomplishments, Olúwọlé translated the Odu Ifá, the oral history concerning the pantheon and divination
system of Ifá, the religion of the Yoruba peoples. Olúwọlé proposed that Ọ̀ rúnmì là, the high priest featured in
the Odu Ifá, was a historical figure and the first Yoruba philosopher. She argued that Ọ̀rúnmì là had an equal
claim to that of Socrates as the founder of philosophy. In Socrates and Ọ̀ rúnmì là: Two Patron Saints of Classical
Philosophy (2015), Olúwọlé compares the two philosophers and finds many similarities. Both are considered
founders of philosophical traditions. Neither wrote anything down during their lifetimes. They both placed a
primacy on the concepts of virtue and learning to live in keeping with virtue. Surprisingly, they shared
cosmological views, such as a belief in reincarnation and predestination. Olúwọlé compiled quotes from each
philosopher on specific topics, some of which are listed in Table 3.1. Olúwọlé argues that Yoruba ideas as
conveyed through the Odu Ifá should be given full standing as a philosophy.

Topic Socrates’s Quote Ọ̀ rúnmì là’s Quote

“Truth is what the Great Invisible God uses in

The nature “But the highest truth is that which is
organizing the world. . . . Truth is the Word that can
of truth eternal and unchangeable.”
never be corrupted.”

“And I am called wise for my hearers “When they turned to me and said: ‘Bàbá, we now
always imagine that I myself possess the accept that you are the only one who knows the end of
The limits
wisdom which I find wanting in others. But everything,’ I retorted, ‘I myself do not know these
of human
the truth is, O men of Athens, that God things.’ For instruction on this matter, you have to go to
knowledge
only is wise. . . . And so I go about the God through divination, for He alone is the possessor of
world, obedient to the God.” that sort of wisdom.”

“Tribulation does not come without its good aspects.

Good and “And are not all things either good or evil,
The positive and the negative constitute an inseparable
bad or intermediate and indifferent?”
pair.”

“No man voluntarily pursues evil, or that “No one who knows that the result of honesty is always
Human
which he thinks to be evil. To prefer evil to positive would choose wickedness when s/he is aware
nature
good is not in human nature.” that it has a negative reward.”

TABLE 3.1 Olúwọlé’s Comparison of Socrates’s and Ọ̀rúnmì là’s Ideas. (source: Olúwọlé 2015)

Olúwọlé does identify one important distinction between the ideas of Socrates and Ọ̀rúnmì là. Socrates held a
binary metaphysical theory of matter and ideas, contrasting the unchanging eternal with the forms in which
the eternal manifests itself in the physical world. By contrast, Ọ̀rúnmì là taught that matter and ideas are
inseparable. Similarly, while Socrates distinguished the concepts of good and bad, Ọ̀rúnmì là held that they are
“an inseparable pair” (Olúwọlé 2015, 64). The strict binary of the Greeks and of the West, Olúwọlé concludes,
leads to an either-or perspective on truth and debate. The Yoruba, she contends, maintain a complementary
dualist view of reality.

VIDEO
̀ ̣ rúnmìlà have in common.
Watch Professor Olúwọlé discuss what Socrates and O
Click to view content (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/3-1-indigenous-philosophy)

WRITE LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Review the contents of Table 3.1. Translate each of the quotes into everyday language and compare your
translations of the sayings of Ọ̀rúnmì là and Socrates. Where do they agree, and how do they differ?
80 3 • The Early History of Philosophy around the World

In the 1970s, Kenyan philosopher Henry Odera Oruka (1944–1995) launched a field study to record the
philosophical thoughts of sages in modern-day Kenya. Researchers interviewed individual thinkers from
various ethnic groups and questioned them about their views on central concepts in Western philosophy and
issues related to applied ethics. Among other aims, this project was intended to demonstrate that philosophy is
not an undertaking that is unique to the literate world. Odera Oruka’s findings were published in 1990, but no
systematic attempt has been made to analyze them (Presbey 2017).

As these philosophers and their work demonstrate, African philosophy has emerged as a body of thought that
stands on its own. The philosophy of African peoples, both those living on the African continent and those
elsewhere in the world, is rooted in and developed out of concepts that both complement and challenge the
Western tradition.

CONNECTIONS
The chapter on classical philosophy discusses Egyptian and Ethiopian philosophers who contributed to the
development of classical philosophy in the ancient and early modern worlds.

Indigenous North American Philosophical Thought

Work on Native American philosophy has expanded in recent years, as philosophers, many of them Native
American themselves, have engaged in collective research on Native American thought. This work has
included the development of academic societies and journals devoted to the topic. Like many Indigenous
African peoples, Native American peoples did not rely on written documents to preserve their history and
culture but instead preserved knowledge through oral tradition. These oral traditions included rituals,
ceremonies, songs, stories, and dance. What is known about Native American philosophy comes from this oral
tradition as well as the experiences and thoughts of contemporary Native American people.

Any attempt to define Indigenous North American philosophical thought is further complicated by the fact that
thousands of distinct societies have existed on the continent, each with their own ideas about how the world
was created, what are the basic elements of reality, what constitutes the self, and other metaphysical issues.
There is a rich expanse of philosophical views to synthesize—and for every possible generalization, there are
exceptions. Still, some generalizations of Indigenous North American philosophy are true more often than not.
One such generalization is the perception that the creative process of the universe is akin to the thought
process. Another is that more than one being is responsible for the creation of the universe—and that these
beings do not take on anthropomorphic forms (Forbes 2001).

Additionally, there are a number of characteristics common to Indigenous North American metaphysical
concepts. Many Native American peoples, for example, emphasize balance, complementarity, and exchange
between the different entities that make up the world. For instance, the Diné see breath as a fundamental force
in nature, with the exchange of the internal and the external passing through all natural processes. Similarly,
the Zuni note that twins, such as the twin Evening Star and the Morning Star—both of which are actually Venus
– share a complementary and mirrored existence, serving as a reminder that there can be multiple
manifestations of the same thing in nature. Additionally, concepts such as gender identity are understood as
animated, nonbinary, and non-discrete, such that gender may develop and change over time (Waters 2004,
107). These generalizations point to a Native American metaphysics that is based on animate processes that
are complementary, interactive, and integrated.

North American Indigenous peoples also have views of the self that differ from the European tradition. The
Pueblo possess a sense of personal and community identity shaped by both place and time. Known as a
transformative model of identity, this social identity is understood to spiral both outward and inward
through expanding and retracting influences over a certain area of land (Jojola 2004). Extant petroglyphic
spirals show the migration of a clan outward to the boundaries of its physical and spiritual territory as well as
the inward journey homeward. These journeys also reflect a temporal component, as they were coordinated

Access for free at openstax.org

 3.1 • Indigenous Philosophy 81

with the cycles of the solstice calendar. Such metaphysical understandings are reflected in the tendency of
many Native American cultures to build moral and ethical concepts on the idea that human beings are
fundamentally social rather than individual—a “we,” not an “I.”

FIGURE 3.3 These petroglyphic spirals created by the Ancestral Pueblo represent both physical and spiritual
journeys. The boxy spiral shown here likely represents the path that many Southwestern tribes believe they took
when they emerged from the earth. Many contemporary scholars identify this with the geographic feature of the
Grand Canyon. (credit: “Anasazi Indian Petroglyphs (~600 to 1300 A.D.) (Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, USA)
1” by James St. John/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

Mesoamerican Philosophy
Mesoamerican peoples include an array of tribes and cultures, speaking multiple languages, that developed
several sophisticated civilizations between 2000 BCE and the arrival of European colonialists in the 1500s CE.
This area of the world developed both pictographic/hieroglyphic and alphabetic/phonetic forms of writing that
allowed them to record thoughts and ideas, providing modern scholars access to some of the philosophical
reflection that occurred within these societies. This section will examine some examples of the thought of
Mesoamerican peoples by looking at the preserved writings of the Maya and the Aztec. Though the
philosophical thought of each civilization is examined as if it were uniform, note that each encompassed many
diverse tribes and cultures with a variety of languages, cultural practices, and religious beliefs.
82 3 • The Early History of Philosophy around the World

FIGURE 3.4 The Maya and Aztec were powerful civilizations for centuries. The existence of written records from
each of these peoples has given contemporary scholars access to their philosophy, spirituality, and scientific
advances. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)

Mayan Writings

The Maya first settled in villages in the area that runs from southern Mexico through Guatemala and northern
Belize around 1500 BCE. Between 750 and 500 BCE, large city-states arose and established a trading network.
At the height of their civilization, between approximately 250 CE and 900 CE, the Maya possessed a written
language that appears to have been a combination of an alphabetic/phonetic language and a pictographic/
hieroglyphic language, used not only by the priesthood but also by the urban elite. This writing appears on
stone slabs, pottery, and sculptures as well as in books called codices (plural of codex), written on a paper
made from tree bark.

The Maya possessed advanced knowledge of mathematics and natural philosophy. However, following the
Spanish conquest of this territory, Catholic priests burned almost all of the Maya codices as well as their
scientific and technical manuals (Yucatan Times 2019). In the years that followed the conquest, the Maya lost
their written language. However, some writings in clay did survive, providing scholars a glimpse into Maya
thought. They implemented a numerical system using symbols that allowed for representation of very large
numbers, and they may have been the first to use the number 0 in mathematics. This numerical system
enabled the Maya to gain insights into arithmetic and geometry that surpassed those of the Egyptians. Their
knowledge of astronomy was so advanced that they could correctly predict the timing of solar eclipses. Unlike
other early civilizations, the Maya had a highly sophisticated calendar and a unique conception of time.

Access for free at openstax.org

 3.1 • Indigenous Philosophy 83

FIGURE 3.5 This piece of Mayan writing, known as the Dresden Codex because it was found in the city of Dresden,
Germany, in the 1700s, is one of the oldest known examples of writing from the Americas. It has been dated to the
11th or 12th century. (credit: “Dresden Codex” by Chris Protopapas/Flickr, Public Domain)

Maya Calendar

The Maya developed a calendar that tracked many cycles simultaneously, including the solar year and the
“calendar round,” a period of 52 years. The calendar played a central role in Maya rituals and sacred
celebrations. Astronomical events, in particular the position of Venus relative to the sun and moon, have been
noted to align with the dates of historical battles, causing some to hypothesize that the Maya may have
scheduled battles to coincide with these cycles. The Maya placed great importance on customs and rituals
surrounding the solar calendar. Using these calendars, the Maya were able to record complex histories of their
civilization.

Maya Concept of Time and Divinity

The Maya had a complex understanding of time. They recognized an experiential or existential aspect of
time—for instance, observing that disinterest or concentration can elongate or shorten time. The experience of
“awe” was considered particularly important because of its ability to bring a person into the present moment,
increasing their awareness of the immediate effect of fundamental forces such as the energy of the sun and
making them more capable of clear thinking, decision-making, and understanding.

Although the Maya worshipped an array of gods, they believed in a single godlike force, the sun’s force or
energy, called K’in. This force was understood in terms of the position of the sun relative to the planets and the
moon during different periods of the calendar. The king served as a conduit through which this divine force,
the solar energy, passed to subjects. The Maya also believed that time is the expression of K’in. The ability of
rulers and priests to predict natural events, such as an eclipse or the coming of spring, and thus seemingly to
control time served to secure the allegiance of their subjects and legitimized their rule.

Aztec Metaphysical Thought

For the Aztecs, the fundamental and total character of the universe was captured by the concept of teotl, a
godlike force or energy that is the basis for all reality. They considered this energy to be a sacred source fueling
all life, actions, and desires as well as the motion and power of inanimate objects. In this sense, Aztec
metaphysics adopted a view of the world that was pantheistic and monist, meaning that it viewed all reality as
composed of a single kind of thing and that thing was divine in nature. However, teotl is not an agent or moral
force, like the Abrahamic God, but rather a power or energy that is entirely amoral.

Teotl is not a static substance but a process through which nature unfolds. It changes continually and develops
through time toward an endpoint or goal, a view that philosophers call teleological. For the Aztecs, time was
not linear but rather cyclical. Thus, even though teotl tends toward an end point and there is an end of
humanity and Earth as we know it, from the point of view of the universe, this is part of a cycle, just like leaves
84 3 • The Early History of Philosophy around the World

fall from trees before winter. Moreover, because teotl is both the matter from which everything in the universe
is made and the force by which things are created, change, and move, it is an all-encompassing, dynamic, and
immanent force within nature (Maffie 2013).

Teotl has three different shapes, aspects, or manifestations, each with different characteristics, including
different motions, powers, and goals. These three aspects of teotl have been assigned metaphorical positions
related to weaving, aligning an important cultural practice of the Aztecs with their conception of fundamental
reality.

Aztec Epistemological Thought

Philosophers use the term epistemology to refer to the study of knowledge involving questions such as how we
know what we know, what is the nature of true knowledge, and what are the limits to what humans can know.
Aztec epistemology understood the concept of knowledge and truth as “well-rootedness.” To say that someone
knows or understands the truth is to say that they are well-grounded or stably founded in reality. The Aztecs
understood truth not in reference to some belief or proposition of reality but as a property of one’s character
when one is well-grounded. Being well-grounded means understanding the ways reality presents itself and
being capable of acting according to what reality dictates. Being well-rooted in reality allows one to grow and
develop, following the metaphor of a plant that is able to thrive because of its well-rootedness in the soil. This
concept has both an epistemological aspect (relating to knowledge) and an ethical aspect (providing the means
by which people may flourish).

In Aztec culture, rooting oneself in the constantly changing and growing power of teotl was considered
necessary because existence on Earth was considered to be “slippery,” meaning that it is part of a process of
cyclic change that is constantly evolving. The fundamental question for human beings is, How does one
maintain balance on the slippery earth? This question motivates the need to develop the type of character that
allows one to remain well-rooted and to find stability and balance, given the shifting and changing nature of
Earth.

READ LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

In the short article “What the Aztecs Can Teach Us about Happiness and the Good Life (https://openstax.org/r/
whattheaztecs)”, Sebastian Purcell outlines an Aztec approach to virtue and the good life grounded in the Aztec folk
wisdom that “the earth is slippery, slick.” In response to this state of affairs, Aztec thinkers advocated for living a
well-rooted life. What does it mean to say that “the earth is slippery”? Do you think this is accurate? What does it
mean to live a well-rooted life? What are the levels of well-rootedness? How might well-rootedness facilitate
happiness and a good life? Do you think that this accurately describes the way one might achieve happiness? What
is missing?

3.2 Classical Indian Philosophy

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Identify key Indian metaphysical concepts.
• Distinguish between major schools of Indian thought.
• Compare and contrast Indian philosophical writings with other areas of philosophy.

The philosophical depth and richness of Indian philosophy rivals that of European philosophy, and to do
justice to it would require a book-length survey. Still, this introductory discussion is intended to show the
richness of various Indian philosophical traditions that are more ancient than the Greek origins of European
philosophy. Beginning with the Vedic texts, which date from between the seventh and sixth centuries BCE,
Indian philosophical traditions are a few centuries older than the earliest European philosophical traditions.

Access for free at openstax.org

 3.2 • Classical Indian Philosophy 85

An important parallel between Greek and Roman philosophy and Indian philosophy lies in their respective
conceptions of philosophy. Philosophers from both of these traditions understand philosophy as something
more than a theoretical activity. For all of these ancient philosophical traditions, philosophy is a practical
endeavor. It is a way of life.

The Vedic Tradition

The earliest philosophical texts in India constitute the Vedic tradition. The four Vedas are the oldest of the
Hindu scriptures. They are the Rigveda, the Samaveda, the Yajurveda, and the Atharvaveda. The four Vedas
were composed between 1500 and 900 BCE by the Indo-Aryan tribes that had settled in northern India. The
Vedas are also called Shruti, which means “hearing” in Sanskrit. This is because for hundreds of years, the
Vedas were recited orally. Hindus believe that the Vedas were divinely inspired; priests were orally
transmitting the divine word through the generations.

The Rigveda is the most ancient of the four Vedic texts. The text is a collection of the “family books” of 10 clans,
each of which were reluctant to part with their secret ancestral knowledge. However, when the Kuru monarchs
unified these clans, they organized and codified this knowledge around 1200 BCE. The Brahmanic, or priestly,
culture arose under the Kuru dynasty (Witzel 1997) and produced the three remaining Vedas. The Samaveda
contains many of the Rigveda hymns but ascribes to those hymns melodies so that they can be chanted. The
Yajurveda contains hymns that accompany rites of healing and other types of rituals. These two texts shine
light on the history of Indo-Aryans during the Vedic period, the deities they worshipped, and their ideas about
the nature of the world, its creation, and humans. The Atharvaveda incorporates rituals that reveal the daily
customs and beliefs of the people, including their traditions surrounding birth and death. This text also
contains philosophical speculation about the purpose of the rituals (Witzel 1997).

The Later Texts and Organization

Later Hindu texts developed during the Vedic and post-Vedic periods were integrated into the four Vedas such
that each Veda now consists of four sections: (1) the Samhitas, or mantras and benedictions—the original
hymns of the Vedas; (2) the Aranyakas, or directives about rituals and sacrifice; (3) the Brahmanas, or
commentaries on these rituals; and (4) the Upanishads, which consists of two Indian epics as well as
philosophical reflections.

The Upanishad epics include the Bhagavad Gita (Song of the Lord), which is part of a much longer poem called
the Mahabharata, and the Ramayana. The Mahabharata is an epic depicting the battles of the noble house of
Bharata, while the Ramayana focuses on the ancient king Rama during his 14-year exile. There are 13
principal Upanishads and more than 100 minor ones, composed between 800 and 200 BCE in a mix of prose
and verse. Upanishad derives from the Sanskrit words upa (near), ni (down), and shad (to sit), which comes
from the fact that these texts were taught to students who sat at their teachers’ feet. Additionally, the term
signifies that these texts reveal esoteric doctrines about the true nature of reality beyond the realm of sense
perception. The Upanishads became the philosophical core of Hinduism.

Metaphysical Thought in the Vedic Texts

The Vedic texts state that through reflection on the self, one comes to understand the cosmos. Like the Greeks
much later, these texts claim that there is a structural analogy between the self and the universe, with one
sharing the form of the other. Through inner reflection on oneself, one can then understand the nature of the
world.
86 3 • The Early History of Philosophy around the World

FIGURE 3.6 The Vedic texts state that reflection on the self can lead to knowledge of the cosmos, proposing that
the two share the same form. (credit: “Nightfall” by Mike Lewinski/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

The Rigveda examines the origin of the universe and asks whether the gods created humanity or humans
created the gods—a question that would later be posed by the Greek philosopher Xenophanes. More than half
of the verses in the Rigveda are devoted to metaphysical speculation concerning cosmological theories and the
relationship between the individual and the universe. The idea that emerges within Hinduism is that the
universe is cyclical in nature. The cycle of the seasons and the cyclical nature of other natural processes are
understood to mirror the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth among humans and other animals. Related to this
conception is the philosophical question of how one puts an end to this cycle. The Hindus suggest that the
answer lies in purification, with ascetic rituals provided as means to achieve freedom from the cycle of
reincarnation.

Another area of similarity between the universe and humanity is that both are understood to have a
hierarchical structure. Hindu theology assigns a rigid hierarchy to the cosmos, with the triple deity, Vishnu,
Brahma, and Shiva, standing above the other gods. India first developed its hierarchical caste system during
the Vedic period. Vedic rituals cemented caste hierarchies, the remnants of which still structure Indian society
today.

CONNECTIONS
See the chapter on the emergence of classical philosophy for more on Hindu views of the nature of the self.

Classical Indian Darshanas

The word darshana derives from a Sanskrit word meaning “to view.” In Hindu philosophy, darshana refers to
the beholding of a god, a holy person, or a sacred object. This experience is reciprocal: the religious believer
beholds the deity and is beheld by the deity in turn. Those who behold the sacred are blessed by this
encounter. The term darshana is also used to refer to six classical schools of thought based on views or
manifestations of the divine—six ways of seeing and being seen by the divine. The six principal orthodox
Hindu darshanas are Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa, and Vedanta. Non-Hindu or heterodox
darshanas include Buddhism and Jainism.

Samkhya

Samkhya is a dualistic school of philosophy that holds that everything is composed of purusha (pure, absolute
consciousness) and prakriti (matter). An evolutionary process gets underway when purusha comes into
contact with prakriti. These admixtures of mind and matter produce more or less pure things such as the

Access for free at openstax.org

 3.2 • Classical Indian Philosophy 87

human mind, the five senses, the intellect, and the ego as well as various manifestations of material things.
Living beings occur when purusha and prakriti bond together. Liberation finally occurs when mind is freed
from the bondage of matter.

CONNECTIONS
The chapter on metaphysics explores Hindu and Buddhist views of self that emerged from Samkhya
metaphysics.

Western readers should take care not to reduce Samkhya’s metaphysics and epistemology to the various
dualistic systems seen in, for example, the account of the soul in Plato’s Phaedo or in Christian metaphysics
more generally. The metaphysical system of creation in Samkhya is much more complex than either of these
Western examples.

When purusha first focuses on prakriti, buddhi, or spiritual awareness, results. Spiritual awareness gives rise
to the individualized ego or I-consciousness that creates five gross elements (space, air, earth, fire, water) and
then five fine elements (sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste). These in turn give rise to the five sense organs,
the five organs of activity (used to speak, grasp, move, procreate, and evacuate), and the mind that coordinates
them.
88 3 • The Early History of Philosophy around the World

FIGURE 3.7 In Hinduism, the interaction between purusha (pure, absolute consciousness) and prakriti (matter) is
understood to result in many elements of existence. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY
4.0 license)

Yoga

Yoga has become popularized as a fitness practice throughout the world, but the Westernization of this concept
has emptied it of much of its original content. Although yoga instructors will still sometimes use Sanskrit

Access for free at openstax.org

 3.2 • Classical Indian Philosophy 89

terms for various poses, the movement has largely lost its cultural and spiritual vitality as it has become
popular in the West. It originally developed during the Vedic period and influenced Buddhist meditation
practices.

First mentioned in the Rigveda, Yoga is the mental process through which an individual’s soul joins with the
supreme soul. Originally a part of the Samkhya school, it emerged as a practice during the first millennium
BCE. The teachings of the sage Patanjali, who lived circa 400 BCE, regarding ancient Yoga traditions and
beliefs were compiled into approximately 200 Yoga sutras. The purpose of Yoga is the stopping of the
movement of thought. Only then do individuals encounter their true selves, and only then is the distinction
between the observer and that which is being observed overcome (Rodrigues 2018).

Yoga involves eight limbs. The first involves the observance of the yamas, moral restraints that keep
individuals from being violent, lying, stealing, hoarding, and squandering vital energies (often interpreted as a
practice of celibacy). The second limb consists of personal codes of conduct, known as the niyamas—purity,
discipline, self-study, contentment (gratitude and nonattachment), and surrender to the higher being. The
third and fourth limbs, familiar to Western practitioners, are the postures, asana, and breath control,
pranayama. The fifth and sixth limbs involve the mastering of the senses needed to achieve a peaceful mind
and focus, the ability to concentrate deeply on one thing—a mental image, a word, or a spot on the wall
(Showkeir and Showkeir 2013). The seventh limb involves meditation, which allows one to reach the eight
limb, samadhi, the oneness of the self and true reality, the supreme soul.

During the Upanishadic period (900–200 BCE), Yoga was incorporated into the new philosophic traditions that
gave rise to Jainism and Buddhism. Yoga influenced the emergence of Bhakti and Sufism within Islamic
culture in the 15th century CE following the conquest of India by Islamic leaders. New schools and theories of
Yoga evolved. Swami Vivekananda’s translations of scriptures into English facilitated the spread of Yoga in the
West in the 19th century. Today, Yoga is practiced as a form of spirituality across the globe (Pradhan 2015).

Nyaya

Nyaya, which can be translated as “method” or “rule,” focuses on logic and epistemology. Scholars seek to
develop four of the Hindu pramanas, or proofs, as reliable ways of gaining knowledge: perception, inference,
comparison, and testimony. Practitioners seek liberation from suffering through right knowledge. They believe
that everything that exists could be directly perceived and understood if only one had the proper method for
doing so. False knowledge is delusion that precludes purification and enlightenment.

Vaisheshika

The Vaisheshika system developed independently of Nyaya but gradually came to share many of its core ideas.
Its epistemology is simpler, allowing for only perception and inference as forms of reliable knowledge. It is
known for its naturalism, and scholars of the Vaisheshika school developed a form of atomism. The atoms
themselves are understood to be indestructible in their pure state, but as they enter into combinations with
one another, these mixtures can be decomposed. Members of the Vaisheshika school believe that only
complete knowledge can lead to purification and liberation.

Mimamsa

The Mimamsa school was one of the earliest philosophical schools of Hinduism, grounded in the
interpretation of the Vedic texts. It seeks to investigate dharma, or the duties, rituals, and norms present in
society. The gods themselves are irrelevant to this endeavor, so there are both theistic and atheistic aspects of
this school. Scholars of the Mimamsa school carefully investigate language because they believe that language
prescribes how humans ought to behave.

Vedanta

Vedanta comprises a number of schools that focus on the Upanishads, and the term itself signifies the end or
culmination of the Vedas. All the various Vedanta schools hold that brahman exists as the unchanging cause of
90 3 • The Early History of Philosophy around the World

the universe. The self is the agent of its own acts (karma), and each agent gets their due as a result of karma. As
with the other Hindu schools, adherents of Vedanta seek liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth.

Like many philosophical traditions, classical Indian philosophy casts the living world as something to
ultimately escape. Practices and teachings such as Yoga provide a particularly explicit set of instructions on
how one might go about achieving this transcendent aim. The incorporation of these teachings into other
traditions and cultures, in both the past and the present, points to their broad and enduring appeal.

3.3 Classical Chinese Philosophy

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Distinguish the three main schools of classical Chinese philosophy: Confucianism, Mohism, and Daoism.
• Explain the five constant virtues of Confucian moral philosophy.
• Identify the key principles of Mohism.
• Evaluate Daoism’s approach to ethics.

In 2013, archaeologists made a remarkable discovery—Chinese characters on a stone axe dating to 5,000 years
ago (Tang 2013). Previously, the earliest known Chinese characters had been dated to approximately 1600
BCE. The stone axe suggests that a written language was in use much earlier than previously thought.

The first written records referring to names, dates, and accounts that were part of Chinese prehistory, like the
details of other prehistoric periods around the world, are unverifiable. But this discovery of very early writing
suggests that what were once considered myths of Chinese history may have a basis in reality. The so-called
Five Emperors and the great leaders Yao, Shun, and Yu are frequently referenced in early writings. These great
leaders are identified as sages and are said to have invented the key tools for agrarian civilization, including
traps, nets, the plow, and river dams to provide a stable water supply.

CONNECTIONS
Read more about the role of sages in the chapter on introduction to philosophy.

That early sages were rulers and inventors of key technological advances is typical of Chinese thought, which
emphasizes the practical importance of wisdom. Classical Chinese philosophers were less interested in
questions of epistemology and logic; instead, the most enduring impact of classical Chinese philosophy
pertained to ethics. Chinese philosophers were less concerned with bridging the gap between internal thought
(subjectivity) and the external world (objectivity) than with understanding how the individual fits in a larger
social system so that each may act in the best possible way. This section will examine how the main schools of
Chinese philosophy—Confucianism, Daoism, and Mohism—address these questions.

Early Chinese Philosophical Thought prior to Confucius

Philosophical thought in China initially developed during an epoch known as the Spring and Autumn period,
between the eighth and fifth centuries BCE. The period gets its name from a historical document attributed to
Confucius called the Spring and Autumn Annals. This period was characterized by the rise of a sophisticated
feudal system and relative stability in Chinese politics. Despite advances in government, agriculture, art, and
culture, the earliest Chinese texts reveal a concern with the supernatural and highlight the connections that
were thought to exist between human beings and the spiritual realm. Great rulers governed not only the affairs
of human beings but also the spiritual forces that influence human affairs (Fung 1952). Similarly, the arts of
divination, astrology, and magic were celebrated as evidence of the capacity of some human beings to
manipulate spiritual forces to benefit humanity.

Magical and mystical thinking of this early period was connected to scientific and philosophical thought. For
instance, it was thought that there were five fundamental elements: earth, wood, metal, fire, and water. It was

Access for free at openstax.org

 3.3 • Classical Chinese Philosophy 91

believed that there was connection between these five elements and the five visible planets (Mercury, Venus,
Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) as well as the five constant virtues (benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom,
and trustworthiness). The connections between human virtues, the planets, and the material elements
provided some rational basis for belief in spiritual and magical forces (Fung 1952).

FIGURE 3.8 Huangdi of China, a mythical-historical sage from the third millennium BCE, is considered both the first
ruler to establish a centralized state in China and the author of the texts that served as the basis for Chinese
traditional medicine for thousands of years. (credit: “Chinese Woodcut, Famous Medical Figures: The Yellow
Emperor” by Gan Bozong/Wellcome Collection, Public Domain)

Early Chinese writings often refer to the concept of heaven in opposition to the earth, but the word has a
meaning that is likely unfamiliar to a modern Western audience. In these texts, the word heaven might refer to
a material or physical space, like the sky; a ruling or presiding power, like the emperor; something over which
human beings have no control, like fate; nature as a whole; or a moral principle guiding human action. Some of
these resemble the familiar Western religious concept, but others are quite different. Nonetheless, records of
great speeches in the Zuozhuan suggest that even in the sixth century BCE, leading thinkers of the period
encouraged people to move away from a concern with heavenly matters and toward a greater interest in
human affairs on Earth (Fung 1952).

Writings from this period also show the beginnings of the theory of yin and yang, the two fundamental forces
that are characterized as male and female, or dark and light, or inactivity and activity. The move toward a
theory that explains natural phenomena through fundamental forces rather than through spiritual or heavenly
forces characterizes a shift from a more mythological and religious age to a more rational and philosophical
age.

Another key concern of early Chinese texts is distinguishing between identity and harmony, where harmony is
understood to produce new things, while identity does not. The point seems to be that whereas the same
matter or form repeated does not generate anything novel, two or more different things, when combined
together in a harmonious way, can produce something new. To illustrate, consider the fact that there is no
music if there is only one note, but many different notes in harmony with one another can produce beautiful
92 3 • The Early History of Philosophy around the World

melodies. A wise and powerful ruler combines elements in harmonious ways to influence their citizens and
exercise their power. Whether the elements are five tastes; five colors; the six notes of the pitch pipe; the
ingredients of soup; the forces of wind, weather, or seasons; or the five virtues, a wise leader institutes a
harmonious relation between these elements, and that relation is what is said to be responsible for the leader’s
success.

Confucianism
Confucius (551–479 BCE) was the founder of Confucianism, a philosophy that has influenced society, politics,
and culture in East Asia for more than 2,000 years. Confucius lived just before the beginning of what is called
the Warring States period, a time in Chinese history plagued with violence and instability. Though not a
member of the aristocracy, Confucius rose from lowly positions to become the minister of justice of Lu, a
province in eastern China. He challenged three powerful families that were trying to wrest control of the
government. After a clash, Confucius left his home with a small group of followers, hoping to serve as an
adviser for rulers in other provinces. After 14 years, he returned to Lu and was able to provide some advice to
government ministers, but he never achieved his goal of finding a leader to carry out his ideas (Huang 2013).
Confucius is credited with authoring or editing the Chinese classical texts that became the core educational
curriculum for hundreds of years, though it was only after his death that Emperor Wudi of the Han dynasty
first adopted Confucianism as the official state ideology.

One measure of the immediate impact of Confucius’s success is that he spawned an entire class of scholars
known as shih, who were trained in classical studies and language and were only suited for teaching and
government work. They maintained their livelihood through a system of patronage. This system has had an
enduring impact in China. Contemporary exams for government officials include testing on traditional
knowledge about classical Chinese philosophy and literature (Fung 1952).

Though Confucius was labeled an atheist and considered an innovator, he was in other ways culturally
conservative. He believed in a well-ordered society where rules and guidance come from the very top (the
emperor or “the heavens,” as it may be). Scholars today identify Confucianism as a form of virtue ethics
because it is an approach to ethics that focuses on personal virtue or character.

CONNECTIONS
Learn more about Confucianism and virtue ethics in the chapter on normative moral theory.

Benevolence and Reciprocity

The Confucian concept of de is closely related to moral virtue in the sense that de identifies characteristics of a
person, understood to be formed through habitual action, that make it more likely the person will act in
morally excellent ways. In Confucianism, the five constant virtues are ren, yi, li, zhi, and xin. Each of these
terms is difficult to translate consistently, having varied meanings. Loose translations are sometimes given as
follows: ren is benevolence, yi is righteousness, li is propriety, zhi is wisdom, and xin is trustworthiness. More
broadly, ren means something like shared humanity, empathy, or care for others. Similarly, the
institutionalized rituals of the Zhou dynasty are captured in the Chinese word li, which is translated as both
propriety and ritual. Though Confucius emphasized the importance of ritual and tradition in daily practice, he
also recognized that such actions are empty if they do not have a solid foundation in benevolence. These terms
can be seen related in the following passage: “If a man is not ren [benevolent], what can he do with li [ritual]? If
a man is not ren, what can he do with music?” (Confucius 2015, p. 9, 3.3).

To emphasize the relational and communal character of Confucian ethics, it is worth noting that alongside the
five virtues, Confucius highlights three fundamental bonds or relationships: father and son, lord and retainer,
and husband and wife. These bonds designate the fundamental relationships that are necessary for social life
(Knapp 2009, 2252). The ethical obligations of children to their parents are frequently captured in the notion

Access for free at openstax.org

 3.3 • Classical Chinese Philosophy 93

of filial piety, or simply filiality, which is a widespread Chinese value. Even though Confucius emphasizes that
there is a subordinate relation between sons and their fathers, wives and their husbands, and subjects and
their lords, he also recognizes that the superior party has obligations to the subordinate one. These obligations
can be characterized by the virtue of benevolence, wherein the good and upstanding person demonstrates
goodwill toward those with whom they have relations. Whereas the virtue of benevolence emphasizes the
common humanity of all people and seems to advise a common concern for all, filial piety introduces the idea
of care with distinctions, where the moral and right thing to do is to show compassion to all human beings but
to recognize that some people are owed more than others. In the case above, Confucius clearly advises that
greater concern is due to one’s family members, then to one’s local community, and finally to the state.

An important concept in Confucianism is zhong, usually translated as “loyalty.” Later commentators have
defined zhong as “the ‘exhaustion of one’s self’ in the performance of one’s moral duties” (Fung 1952, 71); it
might also be translated as conscientiousness or devotion. Another related virtue is reciprocity. Confucius
explains reciprocity with a version of the Golden Rule: “Zigong asked, ‘I[s] there a single saying that one may
put into practice all one’s life?’ The Master said, ‘That would be “reciprocity”: That which you do not desire, do
not do to others’” (Confucius 2015, p. 85, 15.24).

Each of these virtues is identified as fundamental, but they all are expressions of the underlying virtue of
benevolence. The importance of benevolence runs through the relational and community-driven nature of
Confucian ethics. This is quite different from Western ethics, particularly modern Western ethics, which
emphasizes the rights, freedoms, and responsibilities of individuals.

Wisdom and the Dao

The Chinese concept of dao is another difficult-to-translate term. Often, it is interpreted as “way” or “path,”
but in Confucius, it is just as frequently translated as “teaching.” One can see the goal of Confucius’s teaching
as relating a way or pattern of behavior that could be adopted by careful students. The wisdom gained through
reading and, more importantly, living according to the dao is a kind of natural awareness of what is good and
right and a distaste for what is wrong. Confucius also recognizes that a rejection of materiality is a sign of one
who follows the dao. He frequently cites poverty, the ability to enjoy simple foods, and a lack of concern for the
trappings of wealth as signs of one who is devoted to the right path or right ethical teachings.

Propriety and Junzi

One of the five constant virtues is propriety, in the sense of following the appropriate rituals in the appropriate
contexts. Rituals include wearing ceremonial dress, reading and reciting the classic poetry of the Shijing,
playing music, and studying culture. However, Confucius also makes clear that the foundations of ritual lie in
filial respect for parents and elders, demonstrating care and trustworthiness, and having good relations with
people in general (Confucius 2015, pp. 1–2, 1.6). Acting according to propriety or ritual is connected to the idea
of the junzi, a person who represents the goal or standard of ethical action and acts as a model for others. One
can observe key characteristics of virtue by listening to Confucius’s description of the junzi. For instance, he
suggests that a junzi is someone who is thoughtful, but decisive: “The junzi wishes to be slow of speech and
quick in action” (Confucius 2015, p. 17, 4.24). Similarly, Confucius frequently comments on the lack of
material desires or a rejection of material wealth as a sign of the junzi’s virtue: “The junzi does not hem his
upper robes with crimson or maroon. He does not employ red or purple for leisure clothes. In hot weather, he
always wears a singlet of fine or coarse hemp as an outer garment.” (Confucius 2015, p. 47, 10.6).

These virtuous characteristics are connected to propriety and one’s obligations toward others in interesting
ways. Confucius articulates what is required in order to become a junzi as an ordered series of obligations. The
best and highest sense of a junzi is one who serves their lord faithfully and without shame, the next best is one
who is thought to be filial by their local community, and the least of the junzi is one who can keep their word
and follow through on their actions. This suggests that personal responsibilities to others—keeping one’s word
and following through on one’s actions—are the minimum, most basic requirements for being a junzi; next is
94 3 • The Early History of Philosophy around the World

being known as one who is respectful of one’s parents and elders in one’s local community, and greater than
that is being loyal and trustworthy to the regional government.

In a famous passage on filial piety, Confucius introduces a potential moral dilemma for the junzi: “The Lord of
She instructed Confucius, saying, ‘There is an upright man in my district. His father stole a sheep, and he
testified against him.’ Confucius said, ‘The upright men in my district are different. Fathers cover up for their
sons and sons cover up for their fathers. Uprightness lies therein’” (Confucius 2015, p. 70, 13.18). Here,
Confucius suggests that the appropriate way to resolve the dilemma is to favor familial relations over relations
with the state. This is consistent with the previous passage, where Confucius suggests that good family
relations are the most necessary relations to maintain, while relations with the state are the highest relations.
What Confucius means is that it is a sign of the highest standards of conduct that one can act in accordance
with his obligations to the state, but it is essential for one to maintain obligations to family, so if the two are in
conflict, then the junzi should uphold the relations within the family.

THINK LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Consider the moral dilemma presented here. One of your parents has stolen money from their employer, and you are
approached by law enforcement asking what you know about the theft. Do you lie to protect your parent, or do you
tell the truth? Which is the more ethical thing to do? Confucius gives one answer here, but philosophy texts
elsewhere offer other answers. For instance, Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue begins with Euthyphro telling Socrates that
he is prosecuting his father for killing a worker in his fields, claiming that the pious thing to do is to prosecute people
who commit murder no matter who they are. Socrates is shocked to hear this and questions Euthyphro on the
nature of piety. What do you think? If your obligation to protect a parent is in conflict with your obligation to tell the
truth about a theft and follow the law, which obligation do you choose to uphold? Why?

The Legacy of Confucius

It is difficult to overstate the importance of Confucius for Chinese culture, philosophy, and history. After his
death, many of Confucius’s disciples became influential teachers. The greatest among them were Mencius
(372–289 BCE) and Xunzi (c. 310–c. 235 BCE).

Mencius expanded and developed Confucius’s teachings, spreading the ideas of Confucianism more widely
and securing the philosophical foundations of Confucius’s legacy. One of the doctrines for which he is best
known is the idea that human beings are innately benevolent and have tendencies toward the five constant
virtues. This view led Mencius to argue, for instance, that human beings have a natural disposition toward
concern for a child in need or an obviously suffering human being or animal. In one famous example, he
argues that all human beings have hearts that are “not unfeeling toward others”:

Suppose someone suddenly saw a child about to fall into a well: anyone in such a situation would have
a feeling of alarm and compassion—not because one sought to get in good with the child’s parents, not
because one wanted fame among one’s neighbors and friends, and not because one would dislike the
sound of the child’s cries. (quoted in Van Norden 2019)

Given that human beings are innately good, it remains for them to develop the appropriate knowledge of how
to act on that goodness in order to become virtuous. In order to do so, Mencius encourages people to engage in
reflection and the extension of their natural compassion for some to others. For instance, in one account, he
tries to convince a king to care for his subjects by reminding the king of a time he felt compassion for an ox
that was being led to slaughter. The reflection necessary for extending one’s compassion from those for whom
one naturally feels compassion to others requires an awareness that is grounded in practical motivation. In
this sense, Mencius holds that virtue is the result of knowledge grounded in the caring motivations and
relations that individuals have with one another. He locates this grounding in a process of reflection that, he
says, is the natural function of the heart.

Access for free at openstax.org

 3.3 • Classical Chinese Philosophy 95

By contrast with Mencius, Xunzi held that human beings have an innately detestable nature but that they have
the capacity to become good through artifice—that is, by acquiring traits and habits through deliberate action.
Unlike Mencius, Xunzi did not believe that goodness came from reflection on one’s innate tendency toward
compassion. Rather, he held that one’s innate emotional attachments would lead one to harmful behavior
toward others, but through teaching in accordance with Confucian principles, one can become virtuous and
ultimately transform those innate tendencies into something beneficial for humankind. This difference in
perspective led Xunzi to emphasize the importance of external forces to guide behavior. He thought that the
best guide toward virtue was the rituals that were handed down by ancient sages. Along these lines, Xunzi
emphasizes the importance of music for developing an appreciation for ritual. Ultimately, rituals are the
signposts that help mark the way, which flows from the constant and enduring guidance of heaven. Here, Xunzi
returns to Confucius’s appreciation for tradition (Goldin 2018).

Long after Confucius’s death, in the eighth century CE, a new school of Chinese philosophy known as Neo-
Confucianism became prominent. Thinkers such as Han Yu and Li Ao reinvigorated classical Confucianism
with less emphasis on tradition and religion and a greater emphasis on reason and humanism. Neo-
Confucianism engages critically and seriously with the traditions of Buddhism and Taoism, which had become
prominent in Chinese thought. These schools of thought are distinct from Confucius’s own philosophy, but
they explicitly link their ideas with his. Classical Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism continue to influence
modern philosophical writing in China, and their influence extends even beyond China, to Korea, Japan, and
Vietnam.

FIGURE 3.9 Although Confucius was considered an atheist by his contemporaries, the following he has inspired has
many elements of what most consider a religion. This contemporary Confucian temple in Urumqi, Xinjiang, China,
features shrines, altars, and spaces for offerings. (credit: “Confucian Temple” by David Stanley/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

Confucius remains a central and celebrated cultural figure in China. His teachings have produced a following
that at times resembles a religion. The degree to which Confucianism is entrenched in Chinese political and
cultural life suggests that it performs the function of what has been called a “civil religion”—namely, a set of
cultural ideals without the specific doctrinal components that typically characterize religion that nevertheless
provides a common basis for moral norms and standards of conduct in political speech and political life
(Bellah 1967).

Daoism
The dao as a philosophical concept or a school of philosophical thought is associated primarily with the texts
the Daodejing, commonly attributed to Laozi or the “Old Master,” and the Zhuangzi, attributed to Zhuangzi (c.
96 3 • The Early History of Philosophy around the World

fourth century BCE). Many contemporary scholars question whether Laozi actually existed. It is likely that both
texts are collections of writings from a variety of thinkers who belonged to a common school known as
Daoism. Daoism is a belief system developed in ancient China that encourages the practice of living in
accordance with the dao, the natural way of the universe and all things. Daoism is associated with a
countercultural religious movement in ancient China, contrary to the dominant, traditionalist Confucianism.
The religious movement of Daoism varied depending on the region, but the unifying theme among Daoist
religions is a focus on a naturalistic, nontheological view of the underlying basis for morality and goodness.
Part of the attraction and variability of Daoism is the fact that the dao is commonly understood to be empty of
content, equally open to interpretation by anyone. This perspective leads to a kind of anarchism, resisting
traditional hierarchies and authorities.

Daoism is highly critical of Confucianism, as can be seen from passages such as the following in the Doadejing:
“When the Great Dao was discarded, only then came ren and right. When wisdom and insight emerged, only
then came the Great Artifice. When the six kinship classes fell out of harmony, only then came filiality and
parental kindness. When the state is darkened with chaos, only then do the loyal ministers appear” (Eno 2010,
p. 15, 18). Here, the author criticizes the five constant virtues of Confucius by suggesting that these emerged
only after China had lost its way and been separated from the dao. Similarly, the Daodejing is highly critical of
Confucian benevolence (ren) and sagehood. It sees the notions of right, virtue, and goodness as concepts that
distract the masses and obscure their awareness of the dao. Consequently, it recommends a kind of antisocial
tendency to reject the way of the masses and act contrary to conventional wisdom.

The Dao as a Metaethical Concept

One of the ways in which Daoism differs from Confucianism and Mohism is that it emphasizes the grounds for
moral norms but refrains from offering specific moral guidelines for action. Daoism starts with a certain
conception of the natural world that serves as the basis for an ethical perspective on life, whereas
Confucianism largely ignores any description of nature untouched, focusing directly on moral behavior. The
dao itself is understood as a natural force that guides all life: “Men emulate earth; earth emulates heaven (tian);
heaven emulates the Dao; the Dao emulates spontaneity” (Eno 2010, p. 17, 25). The general moral guidance of
Daoism involves becoming aware of the dao and ensuring that one’s action doesn’t oppose natural forces.

In a general sense, the dao is considered to be an order governing the universe from its beginnings through the
various forces of nature and reaching into human affairs. The human condition sets human beings against the
dao and places them in opposition to this underlying force, so most of the Daodejing is focused on attempts to
bring human beings back into alignment with the dao. The text warns, “As a thing the Dao is shadowed,
obscure” (Eno 2010, p. 16, 21b). The problem is that the typical strategies for illuminating and clarifying things
further obscure the dao because the dao itself appears contradictory: “To assent and to object—how different
are they? Beauty and ugliness—what is the distinction between them?” (Eno 2010, p. 15, 20).

Language and rational concepts pull one away from the dao, which is either contentless and empty or
contradictory: “When the Dao is spoken as words, how thin it is, without taste” (Eno 2010, p. 21, 35). This is
why followers of the dao should resist attempts to categorize it in a determinative way: “Those who know do
not speak; those who speak do not know” (p. 27, 56). Instead, the one who follows the dao is capable of
embracing contradiction: “One who knows white but preserves black becomes a standard for the world. Such a
one never deviates from constant virtue and returns again to being limitless” (p. 18, 28a). Here, it is evident
how Daoists draw lessons about the study and mastery of morality from their understanding of metaphysics. If
reality is fundamentally contradictory and escapes the human capacity to capture it in language, then the
person who wants to remain closest to fundamental reality should refrain from attempting to categorize it and
should be willing to live with contradiction.

That said, this teaching leads to several tensions. It seems difficult to derive ethical prescriptions from nature
when nature itself seems to lack a prescriptive force. The dao is simply the total forces of nature, neither good
nor bad. Yet when Daoists advise one to allow the forces of nature to govern all activity, they themselves must

Access for free at openstax.org

 3.3 • Classical Chinese Philosophy 97

refrain from theorizing. Nevertheless, in order to provide guidance, the Daoist must speak or write. This leaves
the reader in a difficult interpretive position (Hansen 2020).

Skepticism, the belief that one can never attain certain knowledge, is entrenched in Daoism. It’s not clear,
however, whether the reason for skepticism is that there is no ultimate answer, that there is an answer but it
cannot be known, or that the answer can be known but it cannot be communicated. The Daodejing suggests
that the best path is to recognize the limits of human knowledge: “To know you do not know is best; not to
know that one does not know is to be flawed. / One who sees his flaws as flaws is therefore not flawed” (Eno
2010, p. 32, 71).

CONNECTIONS
The chapter on epistemology takes a deeper look at Daoism and other forms of skepticism.

The Ethics of Wuwei

Daoist texts teach readers to adopt a stance that is typically called wuwei, meaning nonaction, softness, or
adaptiveness to the circumstances at hand. Wuwei is contrasted with action, assertion, and control. In the
Zhuangzi, followers of the dao are characterized in a way that resembles the psychological state known as flow,
where they find themselves completely absorbed in their task, losing awareness of themselves as a distinct ego
and becoming completely receptive to the task at hand. The Zhuangzi tells the story of Cook Ding, a butcher
who was so skillful that he had used the same knife without sharpening it for 19 years. He never dulled the
blade by striking bone or tendon. Instead, he was able to find the gaps in the joints and cut through with the
thin edge of his blade, no matter how small the gaps. He explains, “At the beginning, when I first began carving
up oxen, all I could see was the whole carcass. After three years I could no longer see the carcass whole, and
now I meet it with my spirit and don’t look with my eyes” (Eno 2019, p. 23, 3.2). The metaphor of flow also
resembles descriptions of wuwei that compare it to water: “Nothing in the world is more weak and soft than
water, yet nothing surpasses it in conquering the hard and strong—there is nothing that can compare” (Eno
2010, p. 34, 78).

Moreover, being in a state of nonaction, softness, and flow allows one to be spontaneous and reactive to
circumstances. Spontaneity is another characteristic of someone who follows the dao: “To be sparse in speech
is to be spontaneous” (Eno 2010, p. 17, 23). Here, speech seems to be associated with control. This may be
because speech exercises a certain control over the world by placing names on things and identifying them as
similar to or different from other things, grouping them in categories, and assembling these categories and
things into chains of reason. For the Daoists, this puts a distance between humanity and the fundamental
forces of nature. The Zhuangzi states, “The Dao has never begun to possess boundaries and words have never
yet begun to possess constancy” (Eno 2019, p. 23, 2.13). The attempt to use language to provide distinctions in
the dao obscures the dao. This is a function of the nature of words to be true or false, allowable or unallowable.
The implication is that these distinctions are foreign to the nature of the dao. In another section, the Zhuangzi
reiterates this principle with the slogan “A this is a that; a that is a this” (Eno 2019, p. 16, 2.7). The point is that
anything that can be designated as a “this” could also be designated as a “that,” which the author takes to
imply that language is relative to the perspective of the speaker.

As a result, the Daoists instruct one to surrender their attempts to understand and control nature: “The wish to
grasp the world and control it—I see its futility. The world is a spiritlike vessel; it cannot be controlled. One who
would control it would ruin it; one who would grasp it would lose it” (Eno 2010, p. 19, 29a). Inaction and the
lack of a desire to grasp or comprehend the nature of the world are characteristic of wuwei: “He who acts, fails;
he who grasps, loses. / Therefore the sage takes no action (wuwei) and hence has no failure, does no grasping
and hence takes no loss” (p. 30, 64c). In contrast with Confucius, the Daoists link inaction and the lack of
reason (spontaneity) with virtue: “The highest virtue does not act (wuwei) and has no reason to act; the lowest
virtue acts and has reason to act” (p. 21, 38).
98 3 • The Early History of Philosophy around the World

WRITE LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Philosophers from around the world believe in the human ability to use reason to create both individual and social
flourishing. Describe the qualities an individual has to possess to achieve ethical well-being in Aztec, Confucian, and
Daoist thought. Then discuss what qualities you personally believe an individual needs to accomplish this goal.

Mohism
The school of Mohism is named after the philosopher Mozi (c. 470–391 BCE), who lived immediately after
Confucius and was critical of the Confucian school. Less is known about Mozi than Confucius because even the
earliest Chinese histories relegated him to relative obscurity. He appears to have been a tradesman who was
skilled in his craft and slowly rose through the ranks of civil society. He was trained in Confucianism but
resisted the way Confucius was overly wedded to ritual and hierarchy. Mozi was a universalist, insisting on the
equal value of all people, without preferential treatment for family, neighbors, and country. He was followed
enthusiastically by his disciples, many of them tradespeople who found solace in his egalitarian approach to
philosophical questions.

Mozi’s followers, known as Mohists, were numerous and intensely loyal during his life and immediately
afterward. Stories from this time indicate that he held strict control over his disciples (Fung 1952). Mohism has
had a much smaller influence on classical Chinese ethics and philosophy than Confucianism. The absence of
immediate cultural relevance should not indicate that Mohism lacks philosophical importance. In fact, it may
be argued that in many ways, Mozi is more philosophical in the contemporary sense of the word than
Confucius. Whereas Confucius transmitted and codified the ritualistic values and customs of the Zhou dynasty,
Mozi challenged traditional values by insisting on a more rational approach to ethics and a rejection of
hierarchical norms. He derived his ethical system from first principles rather than tradition. Followers of
Mohism developed an interest in traditional areas of philosophy that were neglected by the Confucians, such
as logic, epistemology, and philosophy of language.

What is known of Mohism is derived from a collection of texts with obscure authorship, simply titled Mozi. The
collection originally consisted of 71 texts written on bamboo strip scrolls, though 18 are missing and many
have been corrupted through natural degradation. It is unclear how many of the texts were written by Mozi
himself or even during his lifetime. It is likely that many of the doctrines surrounding epistemology, logic, and
philosophy of language are later developments. The core of the texts consists of 10 three-part essays
expounding on and defending the 10 main doctrines of the Mohist school. Those doctrines are presented in
five pairs of principles: “Promoting the Worthy” and “Identifying Upward,” “Inclusive Care” and “Condemning
Aggression,” “Moderation in Use” and “Moderation in Burial,” “Heaven’s Intent” and “Understanding Ghosts,”
and “Condemning Music” and “Condemning Fatalism” (Fraser 2020a). The doctrines of inclusive care and
anti-aggression are discussed below.

Inclusive Care and Anti-aggression

Perhaps the most central doctrine of Mohist philosophy is the principle that every human being is valued
equally in the eyes of heaven (tian). With minimal religious or theological commitments, Mohists believe that
heaven constitutes the eternal and ideal beliefs of a natural power or force that created and governs the
universe. According to Mohists, it is apparent that heaven values every individual human being with exactly
the same worth. In contrast to Confucius, who emphasized the importance of care with distinctions, Mozi
advanced the doctrine of inclusive or impartial care, sometimes translated as “universal love.”

The doctrine of inclusive care leads directly to the doctrine of anti-aggression because the greatest threat to
human well-being and care is aggression and war. Mozi lived during the period known as the Warring States
period, immediately following the decline of the Zhou dynasty. During this period, local rulers fought for power
in the absence of a strong central government. Mozi reasoned that the greatest calamities of the world are the

Access for free at openstax.org

 3.3 • Classical Chinese Philosophy 99

result of wars between states, aggression between neighbors, and a lack of respect among family members.
These calamities are the result of partiality in care—that is, thinking that one group of people has a greater
value than another. Partiality of care is the basis of loyalty among families and nations, but it is also the source
of enmity and hostility between families and nations (Fung 1952).

In defense of the principle of inclusive care, Mozi offers a sophisticated philosophical argument, developed in
dialogue form. He starts with the observation that if other states, capitals, or houses were regarded as if they
were one’s own, then one would not attack, disturb, or harm them. If one did not attack, disturb, or harm
others, this would be a benefit to the world. Those who benefit and do not harm others are said to care for
others and, therefore, to express inclusive or universal rather than partial care. Thus, inclusive care is the
cause of benefit, while partial care is the cause of harm. The virtuous person should benefit the world, so the
virtuous person should adopt inclusive care (Fung 1952). Mozi adds another argument by thought experiment:
Imagine two people who are sincere, thoughtful, and otherwise identical in thought, word, and deed, except
one of them believes in inclusive care while the other believes in partial care. Suppose you had to put your
trust in one of the two people to protect yourself and your family. Which would you choose? He concludes that
everyone would choose the person who believes in inclusive care, presumably because it would guarantee that
their family would be protected and cared for just the same as anyone else. Trusting someone who believes in
partial care only works if you know that the person is partial to you.

One of the key aspects of Mohist ethics is that Mozi asks about the appropriate rational basis for moral
principles. Instead of starting from tradition and developing a system of ethics that conforms to and explains
traditional views, as Confucius had, Mozi prefers to seek a rational ground for his ethical views. In particular,
he asks about the appropriate “model” for ordering and governing society. He rejects any of the usual models,
such as parents, teachers, and rulers, concluding that one cannot be certain that any of these people actually
possess benevolence and therefore provide the right standard for ethical action. Instead, Mozi insists on
finding an objective standard that is not fallible in the way a particular person or cultural tradition may be.
Ultimately, the only acceptable model is heaven, which is entirely impartial in its concern for all human
beings.

This sort of rational reasoning has led scholars to classify Mohism as a form of consequentialism, a
philosophical approach that looks at the consequences of an action to determine whether it is moral.

CONNECTIONS
The chapter on normative ethical theory explores Mohism as a type of consequentialism in further depth.

THINK LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

What doctrines within Mohism and Confucianism might have made Confucianism the more popular choice for
Chinese rulers?

Mohist Epistemology

The search for “models” sets Mohism apart in terms of its philosophical grounding. Mohists consider a wide
range of possible candidates for models, including a rule, law, or definition; a person (i.e., a role model); and a
tool or measuring device, such as a yardstick or compass. There are three different types of standards or
models for assessing the value of anything: its root (the historical precedent), its source (the empirical basis),
and its use (whether it produces benefit). The third standard has priority and reinforces the pragmatic
character of Mohism. The purpose of a model is to help a student better follow the way (dao). The fact that there
are so many different types of models reflects the fact that there are so many different practical contexts in
which one needs to understand the appropriate way to act. Models are applied to practical situations not as a
100 3 • The Early History of Philosophy around the World

principle or premise in an argument but rather as a prototype for the purpose of selecting things of a certain
kind and casting off things that do not conform to that prototype. “The central questions for early Chinese
thinkers are not What is the truth, and how do we know it? but What is the dao (way), and how do we follow it?”
(Fraser 2020a).

Knowledge, for Mohists, is based on the concept of “recognition” or “knowledge of.” This sort of knowledge
involves being able to reliably pick out what a given word means rather than understanding or conceptualizing
the word. This can be illustrated by a passage in which Mozi says that the blind do not know white and black,
not because they are unable to use the terms white and black correctly, but because they are not able to select
the things that are white and differentiate them from the things that are black. For Mohists, there is little value
in investigating the conceptual or ideal nature of terms like white and black. The focus is, instead, entirely
practical: they want to be able to distinguish the things that are white from the things that are black. It is not
necessary to know the essence or nature of something in order to be able to reliably distinguish it from other
things. Similarly, Mohists have little interest in seeking justifications or foundations of knowledge. Such
justifications are unnecessary in order to make the correct distinctions, which is the primary aim of
knowledge. Reliable and consistently correct identification is what counts as knowledge, not having access to
the right rational justifications or definitions (Fraser 2020a).

Access for free at openstax.org

 3 • Summary 101

Summary
3.1 Indigenous Philosophy
When humans shift from religious answers to questions about purpose and meaning to more naturalistic and
logical answers, they move from the realm of myth to reason. In Greek, this movement is described as a move
from mythos to logos, where mythos signifies the supernatural stories we tell, while logos signifies the rational,
logical, and scientific stories we tell. Rather than seeing a decisive break from mythological thinking to rational
thinking, we should understand the transition from mythos to logos as a gradual, uneven, and zig-zagging
progression.

Indigenous thought has in the past been seen as wisdom lying outside the realm of academic discussion;
however, recent scholarship has challenged this assumption. The philosophies of Indigenous African and
North American peoples provide understandings of the self and of society that complement and challenge
traditional Western ideas. The Maya possessed advanced understandings of mathematics and astronomy as
well as metaphysical concepts of a solar life force. The Aztec had a highly developed epistemology that
grounded truth within an understanding of an individual’s character and recognized the fundamental and total
character of the universe as a godlike force or energy.

3.2 Classical Indian Philosophy

Indian philosophical traditions are a few centuries older than the earliest European philosophical traditions.

Philosophers from both Greek and India see philosophy as not just a theoretical activity but also a practical
endeavor—a way of life. The earliest philosophical texts in India are the four Vedas. The Upanishads, a body of
scripture added later, contain much of the philosophical core of these Hindu scriptures. According to this
tradition, there is a rigid hierarchy to the cosmos that is reflected in the earthly world. Six darshanas, or
schools of thought, emerged in Hindu philosophy, each pointing to a different path to seeing and being seen by
a sacred being or beings.

The six principal darshanas are Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa, and Vedanta. Samkhya holds
that everything is composed of puruṣa (pure, absolute consciousness) and prakriti (matter). Liberation occurs
when the mind is freed from the bondage of matter. The purpose of yoga is the stopping of the movement of
thought. Only then do individuals encounter their true selves. Nyaya, which can be translated as “method” or
“rule,” focuses on logic and epistemology. The Vaisheshika system developed independently of Nyaya, but
gradually came to share many of its core ideas. Its epistemology was simpler, allowing for only perception and
inference as the forms of reliable knowledge. The Mimamsa school was one of the earliest philosophical
schools of Hinduism, and it was grounded in the interpretation of the Vedic texts. It sought to investigate
dharma or the duties, rituals, and norms present in society.

3.3 Classical Chinese Philosophy

Early Chinese writings show the beginnings of the theory of yin and yang, the two fundamental forces that are
characterized as male and female, dark and light, inactivity and activity. In Confucianism, the five constant
virtues are benevolence (ren), righteousness (yi), propriety (li), wisdom (zhi), and trustworthiness (xin). The
unifying theme among Daoist religions is a focus on a naturalistic, nontheological view of the underlying basis
for morality and goodness. The general moral guidance of Daoism involves becoming aware of the dao, or the
natural way of things, and ensuring that one’s actions don’t oppose those natural forces.

The most central doctrine of Mohist philosophy is the principle that every human being is valued equally in the
eyes of heaven (tian). In contrast to Confucius, who emphasized the importance of care with distinctions, Mozi
advanced the doctrine of inclusive care, following the principle that every human being has equal value in the
eyes of heaven. The doctrine of inclusive care leads directly to the doctrine of anti-aggression because the
greatest threat to human well-being and care is mutual aggression and war.
102 3 • Key Terms

Key Terms
Codices singular codex; Maya books that transmitted the collective mathematical, scientific, historical,
religious, and metaphysical knowledge of the Maya.
Confucianism a normative moral theory developed in ancient China during the Warring States period that
proposes that the development of individual character is key to the achievement of an ethical and
harmonious society.
Dao in Confucianism, ethical principles or a path by which to live; in Daoism, the natural way of the universe
and all things.
Daoism a belief system developed in ancient China that encourages the practice of living in accordance with
the dao, the natural way of the universe and all things.
Darshana a way of beholding the sacred or manifestations of the divine in Hindu thought.
Epistemology the study of knowledge, involving questions such as how humans know what they know, what is
the nature of true knowledge, and what are the limits to what humans can know.
Ethnophilosophy the study of the philosophies of Indigenous peoples.
Filial piety the ethical obligation of children to their parents.
Indigenous philosophy the ideas of Indigenous peoples pertaining to the nature of the world, human
existence, ethics, ideal social and political structures, and other topics also considered by traditional
academic philosophy.
Junzi in Confucianism, a person who is an exemplary ethical figure and lives according to the dao.
Li rituals and practice that develop a person’s ethical character as they interact with others.
Logos a way of thinking that rationally analyzes abstract concepts and phenomena independent of accepted
belief systems.
Mohism a type of consequentialism established in ancient China by Mozi during the Warring States period.
Mythos a way of thinking that relies on the folk knowledge and narratives that often form part of the spiritual
beliefs of a people.
Prakriti in Hindu thought, matter; one of two elements that make up the universe.
Purusha in Hindu thought, pure, absolute consciousness; one of two elements that make up the universe.
Ren a central concept in Confucianism that refers either to specific virtues or to someone with complete
virtue.
Samkhya a dualist approach in Hindu metaphysics that views the universe as composed of pure
consciousness and matter, which undergoes an evolutionary process.
Skepticism a philosophical position that claims people do not know things they ordinarily think they know.
Transformative model of identity an understanding of social identity as spiraling both outward and inward
through expanding and retracting influences over a certain area of land.
Upanishads Hindu texts that contain the philosophical core of Hinduism.
Vedas the four oldest books within Hinduism, consisting of the Rigveda, the Samaveda, the Yajurveda, and the
Atharvaveda.
Virtue ethics an approach to normative ethics that focuses on character.
Wuwei a natural way of acting that is spontaneous or immediate, in which a person’s actions are in harmony
with the flow of nature or existence.
Yin and yang an explanation of natural phenomena through two fundamental forces, the male yin and the
female yang.

References
Bellah, Robert N. 1967. “Civil Religion in America.” Dædalus 96 (1): 1–21. http://www.robertbellah.com/
articles_5.htm

Blainey, Marc G. (2010). “Deciphering Ancient Maya Ethno-metaphysics: Conventional Icons Signifying the
‘King-as-Conduit’ Complex.” Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture 3 (3):

Access for free at openstax.org

 3 • References 103

267–289. https://doi.org/10.2752/175169610X12754030955896.

Confucius. 2015. The Analects of Confucius: An Online Teaching Translation. Translated by Robert Eno. Self-
published, IUScholarWorks. https://hdl.handle.net/2022/23420.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mark. 2020. “Confucius.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N.
Zalta. Summer 2020 ed. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/confucius/.

Dübgen, Franziska, and Stefan Skupien. 2019. Paulin Hountondji: African Philosophy as Critical Universalism.
Cham: Palgrave Pivot.

Eno, Robert, trans. 2010. Daodejing. Self-published, IUScholarWorks. https://hdl.handle.net/2022/23426.

Eno, Robert, trans. 2019. Zhuangzi: The Inner Chapters. Self-published, IUScholarWorks.
https://hdl.handle.net/2022/23427.

Fasola, Awo Fategbe Fatunmbi. 2014. The Holy Odu: A Collection of Verses from the 256 Odu Ifa with
Commentary. Self-published, CreateSpace.

Forbes, Jack D. 2001. “Indigenous Americans: Spirituality and Ecos.” Dædalus 130 (4): 283–300.
https://www.amacad.org/publication/indigenous-americans-spirituality-and-ecos.

Foster, Lynn V. (2002) 2005. Handbook to Life in the Ancient Maya World. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fraser, Chris. 2020a. “Mohism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. Winter
2020 ed. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/mohism/.

Fraser, Chris. 2020b. “Mohist Canons.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta.
Winter 2020 ed. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/mohist-canons/.

Fung Yu-lan. 1952. A History of Chinese Philosophy. Translated by Derk Bodde. Vol. 1, The Period of the
Philosophers (from the Beginnings to circa 100 BC). London: George Allen & Unwin.

Goldin, Paul R. 2018. “Xunzi.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. Fall 2018
ed. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/xunzi/.

Hallen, Barry. 2002. A Short History of African Philosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Hansen, Chad. 2020. Language and Logic in Ancient China. Socorro: Advanced Reasoning Forum.

Herbjørnsrud, Dag. 2020. “The Untold History of India’s Vital Atheist Philosophy.” Blog of the APA, American
Philosophical Association. June 16, 2020. https://blog.apaonline.org/2020/06/16/the-untold-history-of-
indias-vital-atheist-philosophy/.

Huang, Yong. 2013. Confucius: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Bloomsbury.

Jaspers, Karl. 1953. The Origin and Goal of History. Translated by Michael Bullock. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.

Jojola, Ted. 2004. “Notes on Identity, Time, Space, and Place.” In American Indian Thought: Philosophical
Essays, edited by Anne Waters, 87–96. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Knapp, Keith N. 2009. “Three Fundamental Bonds and Five Constant Virtues.” In Berkshire Encyclopedia of
China, edited by Linsun Cheng, 2252–2255. Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire.

Li Feng. 2013. Early China: A Social and Cultural History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maffie, James. 2013. Aztec Philosophy: Understanding a World in Motion. Boulder: University Press of
Colorado.

Nkulu Kabamba, Olivier, and Louis Mpala Mbabula, eds. 2017. Stefano Kaoze: La sagesse bantu et l’identité
104 3 • References

négro-africaine; Mélanges offerts à l’abbé Stefano Kaoze à l’occasion du centième anniversaire de son
ordination sacerdotale. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Nkulu-N’Sengha, Mutombo. 2005. “African Philosophy.” In Encyclopedia of Black Studies, edited by Molefi Kete
Asante and Ama Mazama, 45–53. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Norton-Smith, Thomas M. 2010. The Dance of Person and Place: One Interpretation of American Indian
Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Okafor, Stephen O. 1982. “Bantu Philosophy: Placide Tempels Revisited.” Journal of Religion in Africa 13 (2):
83–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/1581204.

Olúwọlé, Sophie B. 2015. Socrates and Ọ̀ rúnmì là: Two Patron Saints of Classical Philosophy. Rev. ed. Lagos:
Ark.

Parpola, Asko. 2015. The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Pradhan, Basant. 2015. “Yoga: Original Concepts and History.” In Yoga and Mindfulness Based Cognitive
Therapy: A Clinical Guide, 3–36. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09105-1_1.

Presbey, Gail M. 2017. “Oruka and Sage Philosophy: New Insights in Sagacious Reasoning.” In The Palgrave
Handbook of African Philosophy, edited by Adeshina Afolayan and Toyin Falola, 75–96. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59291-0_6.

Presbey, Gail M. 2020. “Sophie Olúwọlé’s Major Contributions to African Philosophy.” Hypatia 35 (2): 231–242.
https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2020.6.

Purcell, Sebastian. 2020. “How the Mayan Philosophy of Time Can Teach You to Recover Daily Joys.” Medium.
September 3, 2020. https://medium.com/illumination-curated/how-the-mayan-philosophy-of-time-can-
teach-you-to-recover-daily-joys-ed850597afc3.

Rice, Prudence M. 2008. “Time, Power, and the Maya.” Latin American Antiquity 19 (3): 275–298.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1045663500007951.

Riegel, Jeffrey K. 1986. “Poetry and the Legend of Confucius’s Exile.” Journal of the American Oriental Society
106 (1): 13–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/602359.

Rodrigues, Hillary Peter. 2018. “The Self in Hindu Philosophies of Liberation.” In Global Psychologies, edited
by Suman Fernando and Roy Moodley, 99–118. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/
978-1-349-95816-0_6.

Rutherford, Ian. 2016. “Ancient Greek and Egyptian Interactions.” OUPblog, Oxford University Press. April 14,
2016. https://blog.oup.com/2016/04/greek-egyptian-interactions-literature/.

Sharer, Robert J., and Loa P. Traxler. 2006. The Ancient Maya. 6th ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Showkeir, Maren S., and James D. Showkeir. 2013. Yoga Wisdom at Work: Finding Sanity off the Mat and on the
Job. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Smith, Justin E. 2016. The Philosopher: A History in Six Types. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Stewart, Georgina Tuari. 2020. Maori Philosophy: Indigenous Thinking from Aotearoa. London: Bloomsbury
Academic.

Tang, Didi. 2013. “5,000-Year-Old Primitive Writing Generates Debate in China.” NBC News. July 11, 2013.
https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/5-000-year-old-primitive-writing-generates-debate-
china-6c10610754.

Van Norden, Bryan. 2019. “Mencius.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. Fall

Access for free at openstax.org

 3 • Review Questions 105

2019 ed. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/mencius/.

Waters, Anne. “Language Matters: Nondiscrete Nonbinary Dualism.” In American Indian Thought:
Philosophical Essays, edited by Anne Waters, 97–115. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Witzel, Michael. 1997. “The Development of the Vedic Canon and Its Schools: The Social and Political Milieu.”
In Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts: New Approaches to the Study of the Vedas; Proceedings of the
International Vedic Workshop, Harvard University, June 1989, edited by Michael Witzel, 257–348.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies.
https://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/canon.pdf.

Yucatan Times. 2019. “Maya Codices: Invaluable Cultural Heritage Burned by the Inquisition in 1562.”
November 28, 2019. https://www.theyucatantimes.com/2019/11/maya-codices-burned-by-the-inquisition-
in-1562/.

Review Questions
3.1 Indigenous Philosophy
1. How are the terms mythos and logos used to classify bodies of thought?

2. What are some of the challenges of studying Indigenous philosophy?

3. How did the study of African thought as a philosophy begin?

4. What are some of the shared metaphysical ideas between African and Native American philosophies?

5. How did Maya rulers use the metaphysical beliefs of their society to establish political legitimacy?

3.2 Classical Indian Philosophy

6. What are some similarities between classical Greek and Indian philosophies?

7. What cosmological ideas emerged from the Rigveda?

8. What metaphysical approach is advanced by the Samkhya school of philosophy?

9. What is the principal epistemological tool found in the Nyaya school of philosophy?

3.3 Classical Chinese Philosophy

10. Why is Confucianism considered a conservative philosophy?

11. What are the five constant virtues in Confucianism?

12. What is the relational and communal character of Confucian ethics?

13. What are the legacies of Confucianism and Mohism, and what factors might explain this?

14. What is the most central doctrine of Mohism, and how does it contrast to Confucian ethics?

15. In what way can Daoism be seen as a rejection of Confucianism?

16. What are unifying themes within Daoism?

Further Reading
Confucius. 2015. The Analects of Confucius: An Online Teaching Translation. Translated by Robert Eno. Self-
published, IUScholarWorks. https://hdl.handle.net/2022/23420.

Eno, Robert, trans. 2010. Daodejing. Self-published, IUScholarWorks. https://hdl.handle.net/2022/23426.

Fasola, Awo Fategbe Fatunmbi. 2014. The Holy Odu: A Collection of Verses from the 256 Odu Ifa with
106 3 • Further Reading

Commentary. Self-published, CreateSpace.

Access for free at openstax.org

The Emergence of Classical
Philosophy 4

FIGURE 4.1 The pharaoh Akhenaten, his wife Nefertiti, and their children are blessed by the god Aten, represented
by the sun. The Egyptian conception of Aten as the source of all that existed was influential in the metaphysics
embraced by the Greeks. (credit: modification of work “Akhenaten, Nefertiti, and the Royal Princesses Blessed by
the Aten” by MCAD Library/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

CHAPTER OUTLINE
4.1 Historiography and the History of Philosophy
4.2 Classical Philosophy
4.3 Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

INTRODUCTION Scholars long regarded ancient Greece as the birthplace of Western philosophy. After all, the
word philosophy itself derives from the ancient Greek words philos (affection) and sophos (wisdom)—and
indeed, ancient Greece produced the great minds of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Yet the path of classical
philosophy begins in North Africa, reaches Greece and Rome, jumps back across the Mediterranean, and
spreads from Persia to Spain before it emerges to support what is frequently called the birth of modernity. This
chapter examines that path.

In order to consider the historical path of philosophy across these various cultures, we need to begin with a
brief account of how philosophers have studied the history of philosophy and how we might consider the
practice of philosophy throughout history before turning to these historical traditions themselves.
108 4 • The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

4.1 Historiography and the History of Philosophy

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• List and briefly describe three different approaches to the history of philosophy.
• Identify the strengths of each of the three different approaches to the history of philosophy.
• Identify the weaknesses of each of the three different approaches to the history of philosophy.

We will begin our discussion of the history of philosophy and the historiography of philosophy, or the study of
how to conduct history pertaining to philosophy, with two fundamental questions: Why should one study the
history of philosophy? And how should one study the history of philosophy? In response to the first question,
the history of philosophy has both intrinsic and instrumental value. It can give us a more accurate
understanding of our philosophical past while also informing contemporary approaches to philosophy.
Historical authors provide a source of arguments, ideas, and theories that inform contemporary debates.
Historical writings may inspire us. Finally, understanding the process by which philosophical ideas have
developed can help contemporary philosophers better understand the debates and ideas that are important to
them. In response to the second question: How should one study the history of philosophy? We may
distinguish, broadly, between three main approaches to the history of philosophy—the presentist approach,
the contextualist approach, and the hermeneutic approach.

Presentist Approach
A presentist approach to the history of philosophy examines philosophical texts for the arguments they
contain and judges whether their conclusions remain relevant for philosophical concerns today. A presentist
approach concerns itself with the present concerns of philosophy and holds past philosophers to present
standards. This approach allows us to benefit from a rich body of past wisdom—even in our everyday lives. We
might, for example, find strength from the Confucian proverb “Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in
rising every time we fall.” Inspired by the maxim of English philosopher Edmund Burke (1729–1797)—as
restated by President John F. Kennedy—“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing,” we might volunteer, donate, or take action to help a cause. When attempting to understand a
challenging situation, we might apply Occam’s razor, the idea that the most likely explanation is the one that
requires the fewest assumptions.

The main limitation to this approach is that it neglects various contexts in which past philosophers lived and
worked. This does not mean that the arguments found in philosophical texts are not important and that we
should not focus on them. But the focus on arguments at the exclusion of anything else causes problems. It
downplays the various ways that philosophers communicate their ideas and try to persuade readers of their
truth.

In addition to reading philosophical texts too narrowly, the exclusive focus on arguments has been criticized
for yielding a profoundly ahistorical understanding of the development of philosophy. Past philosophers are
judged by contemporary standards instead of being understood in relation to the historical and cultural
contexts in which they lived and wrote. Philosophers are found wanting because they do not contribute to
contemporary debates in subfields such as epistemology (the study of the basis for knowledge) and
metaphysics (the study of the nature of reality). Additionally, ideas from contemporary philosophy may be
attributed to historical philosophers in a way that does not accurately apply to them. This ignores the
differences in time, culture, and context between contemporary philosophers and historical philosophers, an
error known as anachronism.

An example will clarify these points. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, which describes humanity as prisoners within
a cave reacting to shadows on the wall, might be read in terms of how it contributes to debates in epistemology
or metaphysics. However, it is anachronistic and inaccurate to claim that this is exclusively what it is about, as
the Allegory of the Cave also has political significance specific to Plato’s time and social context. We can only

Access for free at openstax.org

 4.1 • Historiography and the History of Philosophy 109

grasp the political significance once we understand the situation in Plato’s home city of Athens during his
lifetime. Athens had suffered a terrible defeat at the hands of Sparta in the Peloponnesian War. Following the
war, Athens’s democratic government was replaced with a group of wealthy tyrants who were sympathetic to
Sparta, called the Thirty Tyrants. Plato, who had relatives among the Thirty Tyrants, was thought to be
sympathetic to the Thirty Tyrants and suspicious of those who were advocating for democracy. But when we
realize that the Thirty Tyrants were the government responsible for Athens’s humiliating defeat and for the
death of Plato’s beloved teacher Socrates, we understand why Plato questions the limits of human
understanding. Plato’s political project becomes easier to understand as well, for in questioning the limits of
human knowledge and seeking a deeper understanding of the truth, the Allegory of the Cave attempts to solve
what Plato sees as the problems inherent in both tyrannical and democratic forms of government. Plato’s hope
is to foster generations of individuals who have a greater understanding of truth and will serve capably in
government.

CONNECTIONS
The chapter on metaphysics covers the Allegory of the Cave in more detail.

Contextualist Approach
The contextualist approach to philosophical texts aims to be more sensitive to the history surrounding their
creation. This approach attempts to understand historical philosophy on its own terms, using concepts and
ideas that would have been appropriate to the time period in which they were written. Contextualist
understandings of philosophy are interested in getting the history right. They give us a richer understanding of
philosophical ideas and help avoid misinterpretation.

For example, an often-misunderstood passage from the Hebrew Bible is “an eye for an eye.” Many today
interpret this passage as a justification for violence, not realizing that the passage reflects a body of laws meant
to restrict retaliation. For millennia, when a wrong was done to an individual, a family or another group to
which the individual belongs would often seek retribution. This retribution was viewed as a means both of
achieving justice and of dissuading others from wronging the family or group in a similar way in the future.
The biblical law, which was eventually adopted widely across the Middle East, meant that the wrongdoer or the
group to which the wrongdoer belonged was not to be made to pay more than an eye for an eye. In this way, a
justice system might prevent the extralegal cycle of increasingly violent retribution that still takes place
between some groups, such as in gang or underworld warfare. Moreover, the biblical law also set monetary
equivalents for specific wrongdoings so that physical harm, as a form of punishment, could be avoided. By
understanding the context of the phrase “an eye for an eye,” we gain greater insight into human behavior and
how systems of justice can prevent violence from cycling out of control.

While the contextualist approach makes possible this detailed and rich type of understanding, there is a
danger that contextualist historians might fall into the trap of antiquarianism. This means that they might
become interested in the history of philosophy for history’s sake, ignoring the instrumental value of historical
philosophy for contemporary philosophers.

Hermeneutic Approach
A third approach to the history of philosophy attempts to address problems inherent to the presentist and
contextualist approaches. The hermeneutic approach takes the historical context of a text seriously, but it
also recognizes that our interpretation of history is conditioned by our contemporary context. The
hermeneutic historian of philosophy recognizes both that a contemporary philosopher cannot abandon their
contemporary framework when interpreting historical texts and that the context of historical authors deeply
influenced the way that historical texts were written. Additionally, hermeneutic philosophers contend that
philosophical ideas are historical in nature; that is, no philosophical concept can be understood if it is
completely abstracted from the historical process that generated it. However, a hermeneutic approach to
110 4 • The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

philosophy can fall prey to a tendency to think about history as culminating in the present. This view of history
might be summarized as an account of history that says, “a, then b, then c, then me.” While this may be the way
things look now, it’s important to remember that our contemporary perspective will be eclipsed by future
historians of philosophy. Also, we ought not assume that history has a purpose or progression. It may be that
the sequence of historical events lacks any goal.

Table 4.1 summarizes these three approaches, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Approach Brief Description What it Offers Where it Can Fall Short

Allows people to
Concerns itself with the present questions Neglects the contexts in
benefit from a rich
Presentist of philosophy and holds past philosophers which past philosophy was
body of past
to present standards developed
wisdom

Might become interested in

Attempts to understand historical Provides a richer
the history of philosophy for
philosophy on its own terms, using understanding of
history’s sake, ignoring the
Contextualist concepts and ideas that would have been philosophical ideas
instrumental value of
appropriate to the time period in which and helps avoid
historical philosophy for
they were written misinterpretations
contemporary people

Grounds the
Recognizes both that contemporary people
philosophy of the
cannot abandon their own frameworks
past within a Can fall prey to a tendency to
when interpreting historical texts, and that
Hermeneutic historical context, think about history as
the context of historical authors deeply
while also culminating in the present
influenced the way that historical texts
acknowledging its
were written
lasting value

TABLE 4.1 Three Different Approaches to Studying the History of Philosophy

4.2 Classical Philosophy

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Evaluate the influence of Egyptian scholarship on classical Greek philosophy.
• Describe the key ideas of the most influential Greek philosophers.
• Describe the key ideas of the most influential Roman philosophers.
• Distinguish between major schools of classical thought.

Egyptian Origins of Classical Philosophy

The understanding that the roots of classical thought lie, at least in part, in Egypt is as old as the ancient
Greeks themselves. In The Histories of Herodotus, the ancient Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484–425 BCE)
traces Greek beliefs about the gods, religious practices, and understanding of the natural world to Egypt.
Herodotus claimed the ancient Greeks adopted practices and ideas as diverse as solemn processions to
temples, the belief in an immortal soul, and the knowledge of geometry and astrology from the Egyptians.
Herodotus notes that the people of Heliopolis, one of the largest cities in ancient Egypt, “are said to be the most
learned in records of the Egyptians” (Herodotus 1890, 116). Plato spent 13 years in Heliopolis, and Pythagoras
(c. 570–495 BCE) studied mathematics in Heliopolis for more than two decades (Boas 1948).

Access for free at openstax.org

 4.2 • Classical Philosophy 111

FIGURE 4.2 This obelisk, erected in Heliopolis, Egypt, in approximately 1200 BCE, was transported to Rome in the
16th century and made part of that city’s public environment. Similarly, many of the ideas of what is now considered
classical Greek philosophy can be traced back to Egyptian origins. (credit: “Egyptian Obelisk (Metres 25), Erected at
Heliopolis” by Carlo Raso/Flickr, Public Domain)

Egyptian and Babylonian Mathematics

Could Pythagoras have learned, rather than discovered, the “Pythagorean” theorem—the law of relationships
between the sides and hypotenuse of a right triangle—in Egypt? Almost assuredly. A Babylonian clay tablet
dating to approximately 1800 BCE, known as Plimpton 322, demonstrates that the Babylonians had knowledge
not only of the relationship of the sides and hypotenuses of a right triangle but also of trigonometric functions
(Lamb 2017). Further, the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus provides evidence that the Egyptians had advanced
knowledge of algebra and geometry as early as 1550 BCE, presenting problems that include calculating the
volume of cylindrical granaries and the slope of pyramids. The Berlin Papyrus 6619, usually dated between
1800 BCE and 1649 BCE, contains a solution to a problem involving the Pythagorean theorem and evidence
that the Egyptians could solve quadratic equations. Pythagoras studied with the priests of Heliopolis more than
1,000 years after these documents were created. It is possible that this Egyptian mathematical knowledge had
been lost and that Pythagoras rediscovered the relationship during or after his studies in Heliopolis. However,
given what we know now about Greek individuals visiting and residing in Egypt, it seems more likely that he
was introduced to the knowledge there. As with mathematics, there are specific philosophical ideas that can be
traced back to Egypt. This is particularly the case within metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that studies
reality, being, causation, and related abstract concepts and principles.

Akhenaten’s Metaphysics

In the mid-14th century BCE, Akhenaten became pharaoh in Egypt. Partly in an attempt to undercut the
growing power of the priests, Akhenaten abolished all other gods and established Aten, the sun god, as the one
true god. Akhenaten held that solar energy was the element out of which all other elements evolved or
emanated (Flegel 2018). In proposing this idea, Akhenaten established an unseen divinity responsible for
causation. Aten became the one true substance that created the observable world. One hymn reads, “You
112 4 • The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

create millions of forms from yourself, the one, / cities and towns / fields, paths and river” (Assmann [1995]
2009, 154). Although the Egyptian elite quickly reestablished the temples and the practices of the full
pantheon of gods after Akhenaten’s death, theological thought incorporated this idea of an all-powerful
invisible first cause. This idea evolved, with the phrase “one and the millions” coming to signify the sun god as
the soul and the world as its body (Assmann 2004, 189). As you will see later in this chapter, this same
concept—a single, invisible, unchanging substance expressing itself through forms to give rise to the material
world—is the key principle in Plato’s metaphysics.

The Egyptian Origins Controversy

Scholars have long puzzled over to what extent the origins of classical thought can be said to lie in Egypt. In
recent years, a heated debate has erupted over this question. In the three-volume text Black Athena: The
Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Martin Bernal, a contemporary American professor specializing in
modern Chinese political history, argued that the ancient Egyptians and Phoenicians played a foundational
role in the formation of Greek civilization and philosophy. He further claimed that an “ancient model”
recognizing the African and Middle Eastern origins of Greece was widely accepted until the 19th century, when
it was replaced by a racist “Aryan model” proposing Indo-European origins instead. Mary Lefkowitz, a
contemporary professor of classical studies, has famously critiqued Bernal’s work. Lefkowitz’s position is that
though it is important to acknowledge the debt the Greeks owe to Egyptian thought, Greek philosophy was not
wholly derived from Egypt, nor did Western civilization arise from Africa. A bitter academic war of words has
ensued, with Lefkowitz and other prominent scholars noting significant errors in Bernal’s scholarship.
Lefkowitz authored Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History in 1997.
Bernal responded with Black Athena Writes Back in 2001. This exchange reflects a much broader
phenomenon in which academics spar over the accuracy of historical narratives and the interpretation of
philosophical ideas, often presenting the issues as ethical questions. By thinking critically about these
disagreements, we gain deeper insight not only into the topic of study but also into philosophical and political
discourse today.

WRITE LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Read the summary of these two articles: (1) Mary Lefkowitz’s “Egyptian Philosophy: Influence on Ancient Greek
Thought (https://openstax.org/r/egyptianphilosophy)” and (2) Simphiwe Sesanti’s “Teaching Ancient Egyptian
Philosophy (Ethics) and History: Fulfilling a Quest for a Decolonised and Afrocentric Education (https://openstax.org/
r/teachingancientegyptian)”. Identify two arguments from each article, and identify two to three sources that could
provide evidence to substantiate or refute each argument.

Ancient Greek Philosophy

Classical philosophy emerged in ancient Greece, following a procession from what are known as the
Presocratics; to the three great philosophers, Socrates (470–399 BCE), Plato (c. 428–347 BCE), and Aristotle
(384–322 BCE); and then to later schools of thought, including the Epicureans and Stoics. As is the case with all
ancient societies, knowledge of these thinkers is limited by the documentation that has survived. Socrates, for
example, wrote down nothing. Rather, Plato wrote dialogues featuring his mentor Socrates engaged in
philosophical debate with various individuals in Athens, some of them his fellow citizens and other prominent
visitors to the city. The material that has survived from ancient Greece has fueled philosophical discourse for
two millennia.

The Presocratics
The term Presocratics is somewhat problematic. At least a few of the thinkers considered part of this school
were contemporaries of Socrates and are mentioned in Plato’s dialogues. Foremost among these are the
Sophists, traveling teachers of rhetoric who serve as foils for Plato’s philosophers. Plato sought to distinguish

Access for free at openstax.org

 4.2 • Classical Philosophy 113

philosophers, seekers of truth, from Sophists, whom he regarded as seeking wealth and fame and peddling in
fallacious arguments. Indeed, one of the most prominent Sophists, Protagoras, is a main character in the
dialogue that bears his name.

Researching the Presocratics is difficult because so little of their work has survived. What we have is
fragmentary and often based on the testimony of later philosophers. Still, based on the work that is available,
we can characterize the Presocratics as interested in questions of metaphysics and natural philosophy, with
many of them proposing that nature consisted of one or more basic substances.

The fragments of the works of these early philosophers that have come down to us focus on metaphysical
questions. One of the central debates among the Presocratics is between monism and plurism. Those who
think nature consisted of a single substance are called monists, in contrast to pluralists, who see it as
consisting of multiple substances. For example, the monist Thales of Miletus thought that the basic element
that comprised everything was water, while Empedocles the pluralist sought to show that there were four basic
elements (earth, air, fire, and water) that were resolved and dissolved by the competing forces of love and strife.

FIGURE 4.3 A central debate among PreSocratic Greek philosophers concerned whether nature consisted of a
single substance—an approach taken by the monists—or was made up of a number of substances—a position taken
by the pluralists. One prominent monist, Thales of Miletus, posited that all of nature was made of water.
Empedocles, a pluralist, argued instead that the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water formed the basis of the
natural world. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)

Prominent Monists

Presocratic philosophers who sought to present a unified conception of nature held that nature ultimately
consists of a single substance. This proposition can be interpreted in various ways. The claim proposed by
Thales of Miletus (620–546 BCE) that the basic substance of the universe was water is somewhat ambiguous. It
might mean that everything is ultimately made of water, or it might mean that water is the origin of all things.
Thales and two of his students, Anaximander and Anaximenes, made up the monist Milesian school.
Anaximander thought that water was too specific to be the basis for everything that exists. Instead, he thought
the basic stuff of the universe was the apeiron, the indefinite or boundless. Anaximenes held that air was the
basic substance of the universe.

Parmenides, one of the most influential Presocratic monists, went so far as to deny the reality of change. He
presented his metaphysical ideas in a poem that portrays himself being taken on a chariot to visit a goddess
who claims she will reveal the truths of the universe to him. The poem has two parts, “the Way of the Truth”,
which explains that what exists is unified, complete, and unchanging, and “the Way of Opinion”, which argues
that the perception of change in the physical world is mistaken. Our senses mislead us. Although it might seem
to us that Parmenides’s claim that change is not real is absurd, he and his student Zeno advanced strong
arguments. Parmenides was the first person to propose that the light from the moon came from the sun and to
114 4 • The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

explain the moon’s phases. In this way, he showed that although we see the moon as a crescent, a semicircle, or
a complete circle, the moon itself does not change (Graham 2013). The perception that the moon is changing is
an illusion.

Zeno proposed paradoxes, known as Zeno’s paradoxes, that demonstrate that what we think of as plurality
and motion are simply not possible. Say, for example, that you wish to walk from the library to the park. To get
there, you first must walk halfway there. To finish your trip, you must walk half of the remaining distance (one
quarter). To travel that final quarter of the distance, you must first walk half of that (an eighth of the total
distance). This process can continue forever—creating an infinite number of discrete distances that you must
travel. It is therefore impossible that you arrive at the park. A more common way to present this paradox today
is as a mathematical asymptote or limit (Figure 4.4). From this point of view, you can never reach point a from
point b because no matter where you are along the path, there will always be a distance between wherever you
are and where you want to be.

FIGURE 4.4 For the function y = 1/x, neither x nor y can have a value of zero because y approaches infinity as x
approaches zero and x approaches infinity as y approaches zero. Other functions show these same characteristics,
which are called asymptotes or limits. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)

VIDEO
The Paradoxes of Zeno
Click to view content (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/4-2-classical-philosophy)

Prominent Pluralists

Parmenides and Heraclitus (525–475 BCE) held diametrically opposed views concerning the nature of the
universe. Where Parmenides saw unity, Heraclitus saw diversity. Heraclitus held that nothing remains the
same and that all is in flux. One of his most well-known sayings illustrates this well: “[It is not possible to step
twice into the same river]. . . . It scatters and again comes together, and approaches and recedes” (quoted in
Curd 2011, 45).

Anaxagoras (500–428 BCE) and Empedocles (494–434 BCE) were substance pluralists who believed that the
universe consisted of more than one basic kind of “stuff.” Anaxagoras believed that it is mind, or nous, that
controls the universe by mixing and unmixing things into a variety of different combinations. Empedocles held
that there were four basic substances (the four elements of air, earth, fire, and water) that were combined and
recombined by the opposing forces of love and strife.

Access for free at openstax.org

 4.2 • Classical Philosophy 115

Finally, there are the schools of the atomists, who held the view that the basic substance of the universe was
tiny, indivisible atoms. For the atomists, all was either atoms or void. Everything we experience is a result of
atoms combining with one another.

CONNECTIONS
The chapter on metaphysics covers monism and pluralism across cultures.

Presocratic Theology

The Presocratic philosopher Pythagoras (570–490 BCE) and his followers, known as the Pythagoreans,
comprised a rational yet mystical sect of learned men. The Pythagoreans had a reputation for learning and
were legendary for their knowledge of mathematics, music, and astronomy as well as for their dietary practices
and other customs (Curd 2011). Like Socrates, Pythagoras wrote nothing, so scholars continue to debate which
ideas originated with Pythagoras and which were devised by his disciples.

Among the Pythagoreans’ key beliefs was the idea that the solution to the mysteries of the universe was
numerical and that these numerical mysteries could be revealed through music. A reminder of their
mathematical legacy can be found in the Pythagorean theorem, which students continue to learn in school.
Pythagoreans also believed in the transmigration of souls, an idea that Plato would adopt. According to this
doctrine, the soul outlives the body, and individuals are reborn after death in another human body or even in
the body of a nonhuman animal.

Another important Presocratic philosopher who produced novel theological ideas is Xenophanes (c. 570–478
BCE). Xenophanes, who was fascinated by religion, rejected the traditional accounts of the Olympian gods. He
sought a rational basis of religion and was among the first to claim that the gods are actually projections of the
human mind. He argued that the Greeks anthropomorphized divinity, and like many later theologians, he held
that there is a God whose nature we cannot grasp.

Socrates and Plato

As Socrates never wrote anything, he is remembered today because thinkers like Plato featured him in their
writings. Plato deliberately dramatized the life of his teacher Socrates. One of the key questions of Plato’s
scholarship is exactly how many liberties he took in depicting the life of his teacher. Scholars generally agree
that the dialogues that Plato wrote early in his career are more faithful to the life of Socrates than later ones.
His writings are usually divided into three periods: early, middle, and late.

The early dialogues feature a skeptical Socrates who refuses to advance any doctrines of his own. Instead, he
questions his interlocutors until they despair of finding the truth at all. These early dialogues tend to be
somewhat short with a simpler composition. One of the dialogues features a young man named Meno who is
the pupil of a prominent Sophist. The dialogue focuses on the nature of virtue and whether virtue can be
taught. At one point in the dialogue, Meno famously compares Socrates to a torpedofish, a fish similar to a
stingray that paralyzes its prey. Socrates does this to his dialogue partners: they begin the discussion believing
that they know something and over the course of the dialogue begin to question whether they know anything at
all.

CONNECTIONS
See the introduction to philosophy chapter for more on Socrates as the paradigmatic philosopher.

Gradually, Plato has Socrates give voice to more positive doctrines. These include what comes to be known as
the theory of the forms, a metaphysical doctrine that holds that every particular thing that exists participates
in an immaterial form or essence that gives this thing its identity. The invisible realm of the forms differs
fundamentally from the changing realm we experience in this world. The invisible realm is eternal,
116 4 • The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

unchanging, and perfect. The material things themselves change, but the immaterial forms remain the same.
Consider, for example, the form of a rectangle: four adjacent straight sides that meet at 90-degree angles. You
can draw a rectangle, but it is an imperfect representation. The desk or table you are sitting at might be
rectangular, but are its edges perfectly straight? How perfect was the instrument that cut the sides? If you nick
the edge of a table, then it changes and becomes less like the form of a rectangle. With the doctrine of forms,
Plato may be said to combine the metaphysics of Parmenides with that of Heraclitus into a metaphysical
dualism.

The philosopher’s task is to access the immaterial realm of the forms and try to convince others of its truth.
Plato further believed that if we understand the true nature of virtues like wisdom, justice, and courage, we
cannot avoid acting in accordance with them. Hence, rulers of states should be philosopher-kings who have
the clearest understanding of forms. Yet philosopher-kings never have perfect knowledge because our
understanding is based on a material realm that is always changing. True knowledge is only possible in the
abstract realms, such as math and ethics.

In the dialogues, Socrates claims that he was divinely inspired to question prominent citizens of Athens to
determine whether their claims to know could be verified. These citizens grow annoyed with Socrates after
some years of this treatment, eventually bringing charges against him for corrupting the youth and making the
weaker argument appear the stronger. The proceedings of the resulting trial were immortalized in Plato’s
Apologia, where Socrates presents his defense of his life’s work as a philosopher. The dialogue’s name derives
from the Greek apologia, meaning “defense”—Socrates never apologizes for anything! He is found guilty and
sentenced to death. Socrates becomes a martyr to philosophy, put to death by the democratic government of
Athens.

CONNECTIONS
This text examines Plato’s ideas in greater depth in the chapters on metaphysics, epistemology, value theory,
and political philosophy.

Aristotle
During the Middle Ages, people referred to Plato’s most famous pupil Aristotle as simply “the Philosopher.”
This nickname is a testament to his enduring fame, as well as to the fact that he was driven by philosophical
curiosity to try to understand everything under the sun. The first sentence of his famous work Metaphysics
states, “Philosophy begins in wonder.” He exemplified this claim in his writing. His works ranged widely across
all the main areas of philosophy, including logic, metaphysics, and ethics. In addition, he investigated natural
philosophy, the fields of study that eventually gave rise to science. Aristotle also researched topics that would
today be classified as biology and physics. Stylistically, his work was very different from that of his teacher.
While Plato’s work was literary and even dramatic, Aristotle’s writings are presented as lecture.

CONNECTIONS
Explore Aristotle’s ideas in greater depth in the chapters on metaphysics and epistemology.

Plato and his successors were prone to mysticism. It was easy to translate the philosophical theory of the forms
into a mystical doctrine in which the forms were known by the mind of God. Aristotle resisted this trend. At the
center of Aristotle’s work was his doctrine of the four causes. He believed that the nature of any single thing
could be understood by answering four basic questions: “What’s it made of?” (material cause), “What shape
does it have?” (formal cause), “What agent gave it this form?” (efficient cause), and, finally, “What is its end
goal?” (final cause). Not only can we explain the nature of anything by answering these four basic questions, we
can also understand the nature of the universe. Aristotle’s universe is a closed system that is comprehensible
to humanity because it is composed of these four causes. Each cause leads to another, until we get to the first

Access for free at openstax.org

 4.2 • Classical Philosophy 117

cause or prime mover at the head of it all. Somewhat obscurely, Aristotle claims that this first cause is “thought
thinking itself.”

In addition to the doctrine of the four causes, it is important to understand Aristotle’s account of the soul.
Unlike Plato, who held that the soul is an eternal substance that is reborn in various bodies, Aristotle has a
functional conception of the soul. He defined the soul based upon what the soul does. In Aristotle’s
understanding, all living things have souls. Plants have a vegetative soul that promotes growth and the
exchange of nutrients. The animal soul, in addition to taking in nutrients and growing, experiences the world,
desires things, and can move of its own volition. Added to these various functions in humans is the ability to
reason.

FIGURE 4.5 Aristotle believed that all living beings had souls, but that the souls of various types of creatures
differed in their abilities. The soul of a plant promotes growth and the exchange of nutrients. The animal soul allows
for everything a plant can do, with the additional ability to desire things and move of its own volition. Only the human
soul makes possible the ability to reason. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)

With the four causes and the functional conception of the soul, we can begin to understand Aristotle’s ethics.
Aristotle systematized Plato’s conception of ethics based upon his conception of the self and his four causes.
Since everything that exists has a purpose, one of the basic questions for ethics is “What is the purpose of the
human being?” After considering such candidates as pleasure and power, Aristotle settles on the answer
“happiness” or, more accurately, “eudaimonia.” Rather than a fleeting emotional state, eudaimonia is better
understood as “flourishing.” So the question at the heart of Aristotle’s ethics is “How should humans best
achieve happiness?” His basic answer is that we achieve eudaimonia by cultivating the virtues. Virtues are
habits of character that help us to decide what action is preferable in a particular moment. Cultivating these
virtues will helps us to lead a fulfilling life.

It is generally true to say that Plato tended to be more focused on the transcendental world of the forms while
Aristotle and his followers were more focused on this worldly existence. They shared a belief that the universe
was comprehensible and that reason should serve as a guide to ordering our lives.

CONNECTIONS
Aristotle’s virtue ethics are explored in much greater depth in the chapters on value theory and normative
moral theories.
118 4 • The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

Epicureans
In the wake of the giants of Greek philosophy—Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle—some philosophers turned away
from Plato’s ideal forms and toward materialism. In this, they can be seen as furthering a trend already present
in the thinking of Aristotle. For Aristotle, there can be no immaterial forms—everything that exists has some
material basis, though he allows an exception for his first cause, the unmoved mover.

The Epicureans steadfastly rejected the existence of immaterial forms, unmoved movers, and immaterial
souls. The Epicureans, like Aristotle, embraced empiricism, which means that they believed that all
knowledge was derived from sense experience. This view was the basis of the revival of empiricism in 18th-
century British thought and scientific practice. They espoused an ethical naturalism that held that in order to
live a good life we must properly understand human nature. The ultimate goal of life is to pursue pleasure.
Despite their disagreements with Plato and, to a lesser extent, Aristotle, the Epicureans agreed with their
predecessors that human existence ought to be guided by reason.

The two principal Greek Epicureans were Epicurus himself (341–270 BCE) and his Roman disciple Lucretius
(c. 99–55 BCE). Although Epicurus’s views are characterized as hedonistic, this does not mean that he believed
that we ought to be indiscriminate pleasure-seekers. Instead, he proposed that people could achieve fulfilling
lives if they were self-sufficient and lived free from pain and fear. Of course, complete self-sufficiency is just as
impossible as a life utterly free from pain and fear, but Epicurus believed that we should strive to minimize our
dependence upon others while limiting the pain in our lives. Epicureans thought that the best way to do this
was to retire from society into philosophical communities far from the hustle and bustle of the crowd. Epicurus
and Lucretius saw the fear of death as our most debilitating fear, and they argued that we must overcome this
fear if we were going to live happy lives.

Lucretius developed Epicurean philosophy in a poem called De Rerum Natura (On the nature of things). This
poem discusses ethical ideas, but physics provides its focus. Lucretius adopts a material atomism that holds
that things are composed of atoms in motion. Rejecting religious explanations, he argues that the universe is
governed by chance and exemplified by these atoms in motion. Although the Epicurean philosophers were
critically responding to the work of Plato and Aristotle, it should be evident that they also have antecedents in
Presocratic thought. We can see this in their atomism and their religious skepticism, which hearkens back to
Xenophanes.

Roman Philosophy
Just as Hellenistic philosophy developed in the long shadows cast by Plato and Aristotle, Roman philosophy
also used these two giants of Greek philosophy as reference points. While Roman philosophical traditions were
built upon their Greek forebearers, they developed in a Roman cultural context. Rome began as a republic
before becoming an empire, and Roman philosophy was affected by this political transformation. Still, Roman
philosophical schools were thoroughly grounded in Greek philosophy, with many Roman philosophers even
choosing to write in Greek rather than Latin, since Greek was viewed as the language of scholarship.

Rhetoric and Persuasion in Politics

Recall that Plato defined philosophy in opposition to sophistry. Whereas the philosopher sought the truth in a
dispassionate way using reason as a guide, the Sophist addressing a crowd was indifferent to truth, seeking
power and influence by appealing to the audience’s emotions. This harsh critique of rhetoric, which can be
defined as the art of spoken persuasion, softened with subsequent philosophers. Indeed, Aristotle wrote a text
called Rhetoric in which he sought to analyze rhetoric as the counterpart to philosophy. The tension never
disappears entirely, however, and the relationship between philosophy and rhetoric and, more generally, the
relationship between philosophy and politics remains a perennial question.

Despite the fact that his ideal statesman was a philosopher, Plato generally sought to keep philosophy distinct
from the grubbiness of real politics and was concerned about the messiness of democratic politics in

Access for free at openstax.org

 4.2 • Classical Philosophy 119

particular. In the Roman political context, this ambivalence becomes less apparent. Examples of philosophers
who were also statesmen include Cicero (106–43 BCE) and Marcus Aurelius (121–180 CE). Marcus Aurelius
even served as emperor of Rome from 161 to 180 CE. However, as the Roman Republic gave way to the Roman
Empire, philosophers shifted inward by focusing on things that were in their control.

Stoicism

Aristotle held that eudaimonia is worthwhile at least in part because it helps us to better deal with various
inevitable misfortunes. The Roman Stoics further developed this idea, proposing four core virtues: courage,
justice, temperance, and wisdom. The Stoics were wary of the type of false judgments that might arise from the
emotions. They were also uneasy with the loss of control associated with strong emotions, observing that some
people can become enslaved to their passions. The Stoics prized rational self-control above everything else.
This constant work at maintaining inner freedom epitomizes the Stoic conception of philosophy (Hadot 2002).

WRITE LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Marcus Aurelius was both a Roman emperor and a Stoic philosopher. His writings, which he meant only for himself,
were eventually published in Meditations, a work that serves as one of the major sources of Stoic thought. Although
much of Marcus Aurelius’s reign fell under a period known as the Pax Romana, when the empire enjoyed relative
stability and peace, the end of his reign occurred during a period of major wars and a plague. This famous passage,
taken from Book VII, Section 47 of the Meditations, provides advice about how to deal with pain or grief called by an
external source. Translate it into your own language. Then explain why you agree or disagree with Marcus Aurelius’s
conclusions.

If you are grieved about anything external, ’tis not the thing itself that afflicts you, but your judgment about
it; and it is in your power to correct this judgment and get quit of it. If you are grieved at anything in your
own disposition; who hinders you to correct your maxims of life? If you are grieved, because you have not
accomplished some sound and virtuous design; set about it effectually, rather than be grieving that it is
undone. “But some superior force withstands.” Then you have no cause of sorrow; for, the fault of the
omission lies not in you. “But, life is not worth retaining, if this be not accomplished.” Quit life, then, with
the same serenity, as if you had accomplished it; and with good-will, even toward those who withstand you.

The Stoics were systematic philosophers whose writings focused on ethics, physics, logic, rhetoric, and
grammar. For the Stoics, the world consists of material bodies in motion, causally affecting each other. Real
entities are those capable of causally affecting one another. The Stoic god is a material entity who exists in
nature and meticulously manages it, the material first cause of the universe, Aristotle’s unmoved mover
incarnated as a material entity. In other words, God is an animating reason that gives life to the universe.
Unlike the Christian God who transcends the universe, the Stoic god is found within it, a force immanent to the
universe who combines and recombines the four elements into things we can experience because they act
upon us and we upon them. Stoicism developed at a time when politics in the Roman world was increasingly
seen as something outside individuals’ power to change. So Stoics let politics go. While turning away from
politics may indeed promote a tranquil life, it also promotes passivity. Thus, Stoicism reached a conclusion
similar to that reached by Daoism, as explored in the chapter on early philosophy.

PODCAST
Stoic ideas are enjoying something of a revival, as evidenced by the popularity of Ran Holliday’s Daily Stoic
(https://openstax.org/r/dailystoicpodcast) podcasts.

Academic Skepticism

Academic Skepticism is another aspect of Roman philosophy that developed out of a tendency found in earlier
120 4 • The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

Greek thought. Recall that Socrates questioned whether we could ever know anything at all. The Academic
Skeptics opposed the Stoic claims that sense impressions could yield true knowledge, holding instead that
knowledge is impossible. Instead of knowledge, Academic Skeptics articulated the idea of degrees of belief.
Things are more or less believable based on various criteria, and this degree of believability is the basis for
judgment and action. Disciples of the Greek philosopher Pyrrho (c. 360–270 BCE) held that we had to suspend
judgment when it comes to knowledge claims, going so far as to say that we cannot even reliably claim that we
cannot know anything. Rather than suspending all judgment, Academic Skeptics sought to demonstrate that
knowledge claims lead us to paradoxical conclusions and that one can argue cogently both for and against the
same proposition.

The philosopher, orator, and statesman Cicero (106–43 BCE) was the most prominent of the Academic
Skeptics. His works provide much of the information we have about the school. He had a decisive influence on
Latin style and grammar and was decisive in the introduction of Hellenistic philosophy into Rome. The
rediscovery of his work in the 15th century ushered in the European Renaissance.

FIGURE 4.6 This Flemish illuminated manuscript, dated to approximately 1470, is a French translation of Cicero’s
philosophical treatise De amicitia. The rediscovery of Cicero’s work in the 15th century has been connected to the
European Renaissance. (credit: “Cicero’s De amicitia (French Translation), Presentation of the Book to Its Patron,
Walters Manuscript W.312, Fol. 1r” by Walters Art Museum Illuminated Manuscripts/Flickr, CC0)

Neoplatonism

Plotinus (c. 204–270) led a revival of Plato’s thought in the late Roman Empire that lasted until Emperor
Justinian closed Plato’s Academy in 529. Plotinus believed that he was simply an expositor of Plato’s work, but
the philosophy he developed, known as Neoplatonism, expanded on Plato’s idea. Neoplatonism arose during a
time of cultural ferment in the Roman Empire, incorporating ideas borrowed from sources such as Judaism
and early Christianity. The key metaphysical problem in Neoplatonism was accounting for how a perfect God
could create a universe that was manifestly imperfect. Plotinus solved this problem by applying ideas similar
to Plato’s theory of forms. The perfect, unchanging realm is the one inhabited by God, but creation inhabits the
changing realm, which only mirrors forms imperfectly. Plotinus claims that creation emanates from God, but

Access for free at openstax.org

 4.3 • Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy 121

the further one is from this source the less perfect things become.

4.3 Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Describe what constitutes Jewish, Christian, and Islamic philosophy.
• Outline the historical path of classical ideas up until the early modern era.
• Identify the ideas of key philosophers in Africa and Europe.

Greek and Roman imperialism in the Middle East and North Africa brought Jews—and later, Christians—into
the intellectual sphere of Hellenism. Early on, Jewish and Christian scholars incorporated ideas of classical
Greek and Roman philosophy into their theological studies. As Arab conquerors and traders expanded into the
Middle East and Africa, the Muslim world also came into contact with classical philosophy and the natural
sciences, adopting and advancing many key ideas. At the same time, religious centers of learning were
developing their own philosophies of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Within these institutions, people
engaged in deep and often contentious debate about the nature of humans, of the world, and—more
generally—of being. There were also active epistemological debates attempting to determine the boundaries of
what could and could not be known. These thinkers developed ethical systems that adherents put into practice.
Yet a tension runs through most of these works, as philosophers tried to balance theological revelation with
freedom of intellectual exploration.

Defining Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

The previous chapter on the early history of philosophy examined how and whether organized philosophies
differ from Indigenous belief systems and religions. It was mentioned that the emergence of a philosophy has
been described as a transition from a system of myths (mythos) to a rational system of ideas (logos). If this
distinction appears blurry at times, how much more difficult might it be to untangle theology from
philosophy—or to determine what constitutes Jewish, Christian, or Islamic philosophy?

In a provocative article, 20th-century rabbi and scholar Eliezer Berkovits (1908–1992) tackles the question of
what is Jewish philosophy and who should be considered a Jewish philosopher (Berkovits 1961). Is a Jewish
philosopher anyone who is both a Jew and a philosopher? Consider, for example, the Sephardic Jew Baruch
Spinoza, often cast as a Dutch philosopher. Inspired by the French philosopher René Descartes, Spinoza
developed a metaphysical model of God, humans, and the world that challenged religious orthodoxy and
established a moral philosophy that functions independently of scripture, laying the foundation for a rational,
democratic society. Excommunicated by his own community, Spinoza emerged as one of the most important
thinkers of the early modern era (Nadler 2020). Should Spinoza be considered a Jewish philosopher? Or, even
more on point, should Spinoza’s work be considered Jewish philosophy?

Berkovits did not think so. He argued that unlike Descartes, who created a new philosophy—a modern
epistemology that gave rise to advancements in politics and science—Jewish philosophers have not been
involved in the project of creating something from scratch. They did not have a blank slate to start from. A
Jewish philosopher—and the same could be said for a Christian or Muslim philosopher—always works with a
partner, i.e., the events and facts central to the religion. For example, all three of these monotheistic religions
have foundational texts that claim that God created the world. This is a metaphysical starting point for Jewish,
Christian, and Muslim philosophers—and it runs counter to Aristotle’s supposition that the universe has
always existed, emanating from the unmoved mover.

Whereas each of the three monotheistic religions produced rich bodies of thought that address the nature of
reality (metaphysics) and ethics, this section examines those Jewish, Christian, and Islamic thinkers who
carried the mantle of the Greek philosophical tradition into the early modern age, often in partnership with
their own traditions.
122 4 • The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

Early Jewish Philosophy

After Alexander the Great, a student of Aristotle, conquered Persia in 332 BCE, his generals divided the
empire’s vast lands in Asia, the Levant, northern Africa, and Europe into three states and spread Greek culture
and ideas into these territories, Hellenizing these areas. As a result, wealthier Jews gained exposure to the
Greek classics.

Philo of Alexandria

Born into a wealthy, Hellenized family in the Roman province of Egypt, Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE–50 CE)
published both his philosophical treatises and his personal accounts of his political experiences. Philo served
as ambassador to Emperor Gaius Caligula on behalf of the one million Jews dwelling in Egypt. His work
represents the first systematic attempt to make use of ideas developed by Plato and other Greek philosophers
to explain and justify Jewish scripture. In Plato’s metaphysical vision, true reality is unchanging and eternal,
with the world we experience only a temporary reflection of these eternal forms. But, Philo asked, how can the
creation of a physical world be explained? How can eternal forms express themselves in a physical world? In
reconciling Jewish and Greek doctrines of creation, Philo identifies Plato’s forms as logos, or the thoughts of
God. Separate from the eternal divinity—Aristotle’s unmoved mover—logos serves as the mediator between
God and the physical world. When in the Book of Genesis, God says, “Let there be light,” this is the logos of the
unmoved mover. Philo’s fusion of Greek and Jewish philosophy lays the foundation for early Christian doctrine.
In fact, his scholarship was preserved by the Christian community and only rediscovered by the Jewish
community in the 16th century.

FIGURE 4.7 Philo identified Plato’s forms as logos, or the thoughts of God. In this view, when God says, “Let there
be light,” this is the logos of the unmoved mover. This interpretation is typical of Philo’s blending of Greek and
Jewish philosophy. (credit: “Let There Be Light, and There Was Light” by rippchenmitkraut66/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

Early Jewish Ethics and Metaphysics

At the time of Philo, the Jewish Bible consisted of the five books of Moses, known as the Pentateuch, the
Prophets, and the later books that make up the Tanakh. Much of Jewish theological, legal, and philosophical
thought was passed down orally. Following the Roman Empire’s destruction of Jerusalem and the Kingdom of
Judah in 70 CE, the Sanhedrin, a semiautonomous Jewish legal and judicial body that had been forcibly
relocated to northern Israel, began transcribing the oral traditions so as not to lose them. These writings would
later become the Talmud. Among these writings is the text Ethics of Our Fathers, which provides a moral guide
to everyday life. Later, Jewish scholars also began to explore metaphysics, culminating in the Kabbalah, which
examines the relationship between God—defined as the infinite, unchanging, and eternal—and the finite world

Access for free at openstax.org

 4.3 • Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy 123

we experience. Eventually, the brutal repression of Jews who remained in their homeland led to the collapse of
the Hellenized Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire. As a result, the continuation of Philo’s
work fell to a subgroup of Jews whose new religion, Christianity, would be adopted by Rome.

Early Christian Philosophy

Late antiquity witnessed the gradual demise of the Roman Empire in the West, a political development
accompanied by great social turmoil and uncertainty. The Catholic Church gradually filled this political and
cultural void, as it sought to make itself the legitimate heir of Roman power. Philosophy reflects this
transformation in Western European society, with the uncertainty and turmoil of the period reflected in the
work of philosophers of late antiquity such as Augustine and Boethius. The triumph of Christianity can be seen
in the grand edifice of scholasticism that developed later, reflected in the writings of Thomas Aquinas.

Augustine

Augustine (354–430 CE) was one of the most influential philosophers and theologians of late antiquity. In his
Confessions, he used his own life and the story of his initially reluctant turn to Christianity as an allegory for
understanding God’s universe and humanity’s place within it. His narrative begins with a discussion of his
struggles with faith, particularly with sexual desire. In later books, he turned to considerations of history and
the nature of time. Augustine famously posits a theory of time that holds that we experience the temporal
present in three different ways: the present anticipates the future and bleeds into the recent past.

As Bishop of Hippo, Augustine sought to defend theological orthodoxy against various heresies. He wrote
against the Pelagian heresy, which held that humans could achieve salvation themselves without divine grace,
and the Manichean heresy, which held that the universe was a battlefield between the forces of good and evil
that are equal in power. In contrast, Augustine held that all of creation was good simply by virtue of the fact
that God had created it. Nothing in God’s creation was evil: things that appeared evil to us were all part of God’s
providential plan. Even Satan’s rebellion was part of God’s plan.

Augustine’s ideas raise interesting issues with respect to free will. How can we reconcile individual human
freedom in a world where an all-powerful God knows all? In opposition to the strict determinism of the
Manicheans, Augustine sought to make room for some amount of human freedom. Despite the original sin of
Adam and Eve discussed in the Christian and Jewish Bible and the fall from grace that this entails, Augustine
held that it is within our power to choose the good. Augustine sees this conflict as one between two rival wills,
one that wills the good and one that desires sinfulness. Only divine grace can ultimately resolve this, though it
is within our power to choose whether to sin.

Not only did Augustine articulate Christian doctrine that shaped medieval European philosophy for centuries
to come, but he raised questions that are still being pondered today. Queries about the nature of time and
temporality as well as agency and free will remain relevant for philosophers today, as does Augustine’s
development of possible answers.

Boethius

Like Augustine, Boethius (c. 477–524 CE) was a philosopher who straddled the late Roman and Christian
worlds. Indeed, he serves as one of the most important intermediaries between these two very different
worlds. A Roman statesman and Christian theologian, Boethius is best known for his work The Consolation of
Philosophy. Boethius was imprisoned on conspiracy charges and subsequently executed by the ruler he had
served, the Ostrogothic King Theodoric the Great. Prior to his imprisonment, he had translated and written
commentaries on Aristotle’s work, logic, music theory, astronomy, and mathematics that were influential for
medieval philosophers. However, while imprisoned, he wrote The Consolation of Philosophy, which takes the
form of a dialogue between Boethius and philosophy personified by a beautiful woman who visits him in his
cell. The text starts out with a bitter Boethius complaining of his fall from power to Lady Philosophy. She
consoles him by showing Boethius that happiness remains possible for him even in his wretched state. She
124 4 • The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

argues that Boethius has not lost true happiness, or the true Platonic form of happiness, as these are not found
in material possessions or high stature, but in family, virtuous actions, and wisdom. She then reminds him that
true good—and so true happiness—is found in God. Extremely popular throughout the Middle Ages and
Renaissance (Marenbon 2020), The Consolation never makes mention of Christianity. In facing death, Boethius
turns to Plato. His work and influence exemplify how Catholicism incorporated classical philosophy into its
worldview.

FIGURE 4.8 In this copy of a 15th-century painting, Lady Philosophy consoles Boethius as he faces death. (credit:
“The Figure of Philosophy Appearing to Boethius” by Wellcome Collection/Public Domain)

THINK LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

When Lady Philosophy says that true goodness is God, she is referring to Plato’s idea about the form of goodness.
Read this excerpt from Plato’s The Republic, an exchange between Socrates and Glaucon that begins with a
discussion of what allows us to see beauty. Glaucon initially answers that it is sight that allows us to see beautiful
things but through questioning recognizes that it is both eyes and light—or the sun—that enables us to see. This
leads Socrates toward a discussion of goodness. What do Socrates—and so Plato—believe is the form of goodness?
Is this form of goodness similar to how Christianity or other religions or philosophical approaches that you’ve
encountered view God? Do you agree with Plato’s conclusion? How would you define the form of goodness?

Socrates: You know that, when we turn our eyes to things whose colors are no longer in the light of day but
in the gloom of night, the eyes are dimmed and seem nearly blind, as if clear vision, were no longer in them.

Glaucon: Of course.

Socrates: Yet whenever one turns them on things illuminated by the sun, they see clearly, and vision
appears in those very same eyes.

Glaucon: Indeed.

Access for free at openstax.org

 4.3 • Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy 125

Socrates: Well, understand the soul in the same way: When it focuses on something illuminated by truth
and what is, it understands, knows, and apparently possesses understanding, but when it focuses on what
is mixed with obscurity, on what comes to be and passes away, it opines and is dimmed, changes its
opinions this way and that, and seems bereft of understanding.

Glaucon: It does seem that way.

Socrates: So that what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower is the form of
the good. And though it is the cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge. Both
knowledge and truth are beautiful things, but the good is other and more beautiful than they. In the visible
realm, light and sight are rightly considered sunlike, but it is wrong to think that they are the sun, so here it
is right to think of knowledge and truth as good like but wrong to think that either of them is the good—for
the good is yet more prized.

Anselm

Anselm (1033–1109) served as Bishop of Canterbury and sought to extend the reach of Christianity into the
British Isles. Philosophically, he is best known for his formulation of what has come to be known as a proof for
the existence of God, which he elaborated in his written meditation the Proslogion. Anselm is an early
proponent of—and some say the founder of—the philosophical school of Scholasticism, which anticipates the
writings of prominent Scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas. Like later Scholastics, Anselm believed that a
rational system of thought reflects the rationality inherent in the universe and that reason and logic can lead
people to God.

Islamic Philosophy
The rise of Islam is linked to the decline of the Roman and Persian Empires. More specifically, the ruinous wars
that the two once-great powers fought left both weak. In 622 CE, the Prophet Muhammed led his followers out
of Mecca to Medina, which signaled the birth of Islam as a political power (Adamson 2016, 20). In the early
years of Islam, theologians prohibited the teaching of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers on the grounds
that they were contrary to the true Muslim faith. This restriction began to give way in the eighth century CE,
which led to the flourishing of philosophy in the Islamic world.

As the Roman Empire declined, the Muslim world safeguarded ancient philosophical Greek and Latin texts
through major centers of learning in Alexandria, Baghdad, and Cordova. Islamic philosophers published major
works in metaphysics, epistemology, and natural philosophy. Key Islamic scholars who carried classical
philosophy forward include Ibn Sina (whose Latin name became Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (whose name was
Latinized to Averroes), and Al-Gazali. Of these three, Ibn Sina is the linchpin of Muslim philosophy. His genius
inaugurates the shift from an early period focused on the consolidation of Greek learning to a later period of
philosophical and scientific innovation (Adamson 2016).

Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

Abū-ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn-ʿAbdallāh Ibn-Sīnā (c. 970–1037 CE) was a Persian polymath who published works in
philosophy, medicine, astronomy, alchemy, geography, mathematics, Islamic theology, and even poetry.
Because of the vast scope of Ibn Sina’s intellectual endeavors, he is considered the linchpin between Islamic
philosophy’s formative phase and its more creative phase during the Golden Age of Islam, which extends from
roughly the 8th through the 13th centuries. During this period, Islamic culture and learning flourished, and
the Muslim-ruled lands spread from the Middle East, through Northern Africa, and into the Iberian Peninsula.
Taking his cue from Aristotle, Ibn Sina sought to present a complete philosophy that would address both
theoretical and practical philosophy. Some have estimated that Ibn Sina published as many as 450 works,
though others place the figure at under 100 (Namazi 2001).

Ibn Sina’s work was highly influential within both the Muslim and the Christian world. His proof of the
126 4 • The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

existence of God became predominant. Called the Proof of the Truthful, the argument proposed that existence
requires that there be a necessary entity—an entity that cannot not exist. Elements of the material
world—animals, plants, rivers, mountains—are contingent—that is, they come and go. They may have existed in
the past but do not exist now, or they may exist now but will not exist in the future. Therefore, they can not
exist. Therefore, there must be a nonmaterial entity that causes this material world to come into existence.

Much like Aristotle, Ibn Sina believed that the rational order of the universe was comprehensible by our human
minds, and his well-ordered and complete philosophical project demonstrated this (Gutas 2016). Ibn Sina’s
most influential book is the Canon, a five-volume medical encyclopedia that—translated into Latin and
Hebrew—became the textbook for the study of medicine in European universities from the 12th to the 17th
century (Amr and Tbakhi 2007). Ibn Sina’s epistemology—and in particular, his development of an empiricism
that advances far beyond the Epicureans and is, in fact, comparable to that of John Locke—has received less
attention.

Ibn Sina, similar to Locke, proposed that humans are born with a rational soul that is a blank slate. The child
possesses the five external senses associated with the animal soul (sight, smell, sound, taste, and touch) and
two internal senses of the human rational soul, memory and imagination. The child gathers and stores
information from the senses and is able to abstract intelligible concepts about the world from this sensual data
and about the human soul (rationality) through reflection (which Locke later calls experience). So, a child in a
high chair might drop food and observe that it falls to the floor, based on experience, but a child through
reflection also observes a causal relationship. For Ibn Sina, gravity exists both in the materialist realm of the
senses and in the cognitive realm of the mind or soul. Like gravity, numbers exist in both realms, the abstract
concept of the number two and concrete pairs of objects, such as two shoes or two apples. He explains in The
Metaphysics of Healing, “Number has an existence in things and an existence in the soul” (quoted in Tahiri
2016, 41).

The child’s mind organizes this information—making generalizations, separating out the essential from the
nonessential, and affirming or negating relationships. Through this process, the child forms definitions and
propositions that reflect the logical and mathematical modes of rational thought (Gutas 2012).

Ibn Sina stated that all knowledge is a result either of forming concepts or acknowledging the truth of
propositions. He distinguished different types of propositions, each of which have different sources and
therefore different ways to prove or disprove the proposition. Table 4.2 lists 5 of Ibn Sina’s 16 types of
propositions and examples (Gutas 2012).

Type of Proposition Example

Sense data Grass is green.

Data of reflection Humans think.

Tested data Fire burns flesh.

Propositions with a middled term Six is an even number.

Data provided by multiple reports The US Constitution was written in 1787.

TABLE 4.2 Types of Propositions Proposed by Ibn Sina

Some types of propositions, such as sense data and data based on reflection, are knowledge based on the
external or internal senses. Tested data, however, can be accepted as true only after repeated observation and
attribution to a cause. For example, “fire causes burns” would be based on the observations that fire is hot, hot
things burn objects (cause), and flesh is an object. The truth of data provided by multiple reports can only be

Access for free at openstax.org

 4.3 • Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy 127

confirmed if it has been reported by so many sources that it is highly unlikely to be a falsehood.

Building on Aristotle’s idea of induction conveyed in Posterior Analytics, Ibn Sina developed a scientific
methodology of experimentation in his treatise “On Demonstration” within his Book of Healing. Induction
involves making an inference based on observations. Ibn Sina stated that—unlike untested
induction—experimentation provides the basis of certain knowledge. He used the example of the relationship
between consuming the plant scammony and purging (vomiting). He noted that the observation of a positive
correlation does not prove that the relationship exists but rather that the lack of observation of a negative
correlation (cases in which scammony did not cause purging) provides stronger evidence. Ibn Sina’s
experimentation involved a search for falsification of a correlation—just like the scientific method used today,
which, for example incorporates control groups (McGinnis 2003). Furthermore, Ibn Sina insisted that a causal
term be inserted into the relationship that is observed. It is not scammony that causes purging but a property
that scammony has that requires further investigation. So Ibn Sina’s argument is (1) scammony has the power
to purge, (2) scammony causes purging, (3) a power to purge causes purging. Exactly what the power to purge
is remains uncertain until further investigation. In the first example above, the cause is established: (1) fire
burns flesh, (2) fire is hot, (3) heat burns flesh.

As advancement of experimental knowledge challenged Islamic theology, debate emerged over how to
reconcile faith and science.

FIGURE 4.9 This statue of Ibn Sina in Tehran, Iran, honors this highly influential thinker, who published works in
philosophy, medicine, astronomy, alchemy, geography, mathematics, Islamic theology, and poetry. (credit:
“Avicenna - Ibn Sina” by Blondinrikard Fröberg/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

Ibn Rushd (Averroes)

Ibn Rushd (1126–1198), known as Averroes in the Latin world, was born into a family of jurists in Cordova in
Andalusia, or Muslim-ruled Spain. Like Ibn Sina, his philosophy took its inspiration from Aristotle. Like Ibn
Sina and Aristotle, his work ranged across a number of domains, from metaphysics and logic through
medicine and natural philosophy. Much of this work took the form of commentaries on Aristotle. He thought
that the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle had distorted the original meaning of Aristotle’s work and
sought a return to Aristotle’s original works in his commentaries. Ibn Rushd was pivotal to the revival of
Aristotle in Europe. The tradition of commentary on Aristotle’s works that developed among Islamic
philosophers developed Aristotle’s thought in fascinating ways and kept Aristotle scholarship alive.

Ibn Rushd saw demonstration as the key to logic and the condition for philosophical certainty and scientific
reasoning (Ben Ahmed and Pasnau 2021). This had important theological implications and led to
128 4 • The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

confrontations with theologians who believed that philosophical reflection was at odds with the Muslim faith.
He sought to demonstrate the existence of God by showing that his creation was fine-tuned for humans in a
way that could not be simply a matter of chance. In addition, he advanced an argument, taken up today by
intelligent design advocates, that holds that it is not possible to explain the complexity of living beings without
a creator.

Even as philosophy gained ground in the Islamic world, theological traditionalists remained influential. These
traditionalists denied that reason could bring one closer to God. Ibn Rushd was among a number of
philosophers who opposed this traditionalism and sought to show the compatibility of faith and reason. Not
only did Ibn Rushd seek to show that reason was compatible with faith, he went further and cited Quranic
scripture to show that religion required philosophical reflection. He wrote, “Many Quranic verses, such as
‘Reflect, you have a vision’ (59.2) and ‘they give thought to the creation of heaven and earth’ (3:191), command
human intellectual reflection upon God and his creation” (quoted in Hiller 2016).

Al-Ghazali, The Incoherence of the Philosophers

Al-Ghazali (c.1056–1111) was one of the most prominent Sunni Muslim theologians and philosophers. Writing
in a period after the initial establishment of the Sunni sect, he sought to refute various challenges to its
teachings from both Shi’ite religious scholars and philosophers. In his most well-known work, The
Incoherence of the Philosophers, Al-Ghazali sought to refute these challenges while also strengthening the
theological basis for Sunnism. Ibn Rushd wrote a refutation of Al-Ghazali’s The Incoherence of the
Philosophers. In it, he argues against Al-Ghazali’s claim that philosophical reflection must remain distinct
from the Muslim faith and that mystical union with Allah or God is the only true path to religious
enlightenment. This dispute between Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd represents the conflict between faith and
reason that characterized medieval Islam. This same conflict remains relevant in the present.

Late Medieval Philosophy in Christian Europe

Christian philosophy during this period is influenced by the development of two institutions: the university
and the monastery. The development of these institutions influenced the form that philosophy would take
during this period. It was in these institutions that a systematic effort was made to combine philosophy and
theology in the Christian world. The attempt to reconcile challenges posed to theology by philosophy is
illustrated in the voluminous work of Bonaventure (1221–1274) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274).

Bonaventure

Bonaventure, a Franciscan friar from Italy, traveled to the University of Paris in 1235, where he encountered
Aristotle, the Islamic philosophers, and a rigorous course of logic. Bonaventure fused Augustinian ideas with
Aristotle. In his illumination argument, he argued that God is the source of all knowledge but that “knowledge
of the divine truth is impressed on every soul” (quoted in Houser 1999, 98). The acquisition of knowledge
proceeds from effect, the outward world that we observe, to its cause, God. Knowledge is acquired through
reasoning, using abstract ideas, propositions, and observed correlations, but certainty about this knowledge is
only obtained through Augustine’s process of inner reflection or meditation through which we see the
unchangeable divine light.

Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) is the quintessential Scholastic philosopher, whose many works determined the
course of European philosophy for generations. Somewhat like Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) several centuries
later, philosophers after Aquinas knew that they would have to contend with his writings, either by extending
his project or critiquing it. Aquinas saw that Scholastic philosophy needed to be reinvigorated, and he
introduced the work of Jewish and Islamic philosophers to medieval Christian thought, bringing new ideas and
approaches to philosophy (Van Norden 2017).

Aquinas is probably best known for his five ways to demonstrate the existence of God. The five ways are

Access for free at openstax.org

 4.3 • Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy 129

considered natural theology because Aquinas does not depend upon the authority of the church to justify the
existence of God. Instead, he writes that we can define God in five ways: as an unmoved mover, first cause,
necessary being, absolute being, and grand designer. In order to avoid an infinite regress, we must assume an
unmoved mover who put all the entities into motion. Similarly, God is the first cause of everything that exists,
or else we face an infinite causal regress. Everything that exists has contingent existence, save for God. God is
the necessary being upon which every contingent being depends. Contingent beings have qualities that are
relative to one another (bigger and smaller, etc.), which entails an absolute being to whom all these are relative.
Finally, the evidence of design in the world implies a grand designer. All natural bodies act to achieve an end.
For example, an acorn gives rise to a tree. However, not all natural bodies are aware of and able to direct
themselves to achieve this end. Therefore, an intelligent being must exist to guide these natural beings toward
their end.

We can see Aristotle’s influence in the metaphysics and epistemology of Aquinas as well as in his ethics and
political philosophy. Aristotle defined God as the prime mover and “thought thinking itself.” We can discern
the influence of this idea in Aquinas’s Five Ways. Aquinas also adopted Aristotle’s virtue ethics and adapted
them to his Christian context.

Jewish Philosophers in the Christian and Islamic Worlds

Although Jewish people did not enjoy equal status in Europe, Africa, and Asia, they did contribute to medieval
philosophy in both the Christian and Islamic worlds. Perhaps the two most notable Jewish scholars of this
period were Moses Maimonides and Levi ben Gershom.

Moses Maimonides

Moses ben Maimon, or Maimonides (1138–1204), was a physician, Torah scholar, and astronomer in addition
to being a philosopher. Born in Cordova in Muslim-ruled Spain, he served as the personal physician of Saladin,
the political and military leader of Muslim forces during the Second and Third Crusades.

Like many medieval thinkers across the various traditions of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, Maimonides’s
philosophical work begins with the question concerning the relationship between theology and philosophy. His
most well-known work, The Guide for the Perplexed (1190), is addressed to a student trying to decide which
field of inquiry to pursue.

To the ancient Greek philosophers, God is the unmoved mover that sets into motion all other existence in a
universe that has always existed. This conception of God conflicts with both the story of creation and with the
idea of miracles, which necessitate intervention. These conflicts created perplexity in the minds of
Maimonides’s student and other Jews. This conflict came about, Maimonides proposed, because philosophers
developed doctrines that do not follow from objective evidence and reason, whereas theologians erroneously
interpreted religious texts literally (Bokser 1947).

Maimonides claimed that biblical literalism was the main reason people could not get closer to God. Instead,
biblical texts ought to be interpreted figuratively. Typical of medieval thinkers in these traditions, Maimonides
was a systematic thinker who held that ultimate truths akin to Platonic forms remain forever true in the mind
of God, which our finite minds seek to apprehend. Adam and Eve comprehended these truths prior to the Fall,
but in the post-Fall world, we can only approximate them. Literalism and a materialist conception of God are
the two forces keeping us from a fuller knowledge.

Maimonides presents a demythologized conception of the divine that influences later thinkers, Spinoza among
them. Like Xenophanes before him, Maimonides rejects anthropomorphic religious elements, such as God in
human form. Although Maimonides grants that picturing the divine in human terms may be necessary for
young believers, adherents should get over this tendency as they mature, as it obscures the true nature of the
divine. The true nature of the divine is captured in the central prayer of Jewish faith, the Sh’ma: “Hear, oh,
Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” God is one—unity that is expressed in the biblical reference to God as
130 4 • The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

ein sof—without end. Maimonides argued that God cannot be broken into parts or assigned attributes. The
Bible refers to God’s rod and staff, but this is figurative and should not be taken literally (Robinson 2000).
When the Bible refers to God as merciful or gracious, these are not moral attributes of God. Rather,
Maimonides explained, God has performed actions—set into motion events—that if performed by a human, we
would perceive as merciful or gracious (Putnam 1997).

FIGURE 4.10 Although deeply religious, Maimonides opposed both literal interpretations of the Bible and
anthropomorphized images of God, arguing that God cannot be imagined or even assigned attributes. This statue of
Maimonides stands in his birthplace of Cordoba, Spain. (credit: “Maimónides” by Marco Chiesa/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

Just as often we often understand God’s attributes as analogous to human attributes, we often liken God’s
knowledge to human knowledge. This sort of analogical thinking is misguided, Maimonides argued. Human
knowledge is finite and quantifiable, as is human power. God’s knowledge and power are infinite and hence not
the finite knowledge and power familiar to us. We may perceive God as gracious, but what we see as gracious is
not God but an attribute of his action. “Every attribute that is found in the books of the deity . . . is therefore an
attribute of His action and not an attribute of His essence” (Maimonides 1963, 121). This leads Maimonides to
a radical negative theology asserting that human knowledge cannot conceive of what God is but only of what
God is not. Humans can only ascribe attributes to God’s actions and not God’s essence. The role of revelation,
as transmitted through the Jewish Bible, was not to acquaint us with knowledge of God but rather to guide us to
our highest ends—and in doing so, we come as close to God as is possible (Bokser 1947). Maimonides’s
negative theology was radical and was challenged, perhaps most notably, by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides)

Like Maimonides, Gersonides (1288–1344) sought to demonstrate the compatibility between Jewish faith and
reason. His most well-known work, Wars of the Lord, takes up the problem of the relationship between Torah
or Jewish scripture on the one hand and reason on the other. Gersonides also made major contributions to the
scientific study of astronomy. Applying mathematical calculations to data he collected using tools that he
himself created, Gersonides concluded that several principles advanced by the Greek astronomer Ptolemy
were wrong. For Gersonides, reason was both mathematical and empirical. He built upon the work of

Access for free at openstax.org

 4.3 • Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy 131

Maimonides and Averroes, and his work can be read as an effort to understand Aristotle through these
predecessors.

The Rise of Reason in the Early Modern Era

Although scholars agree that the early modern era ended with the 1789 French Revolution, there is still much
debate about when it began. Some mark the beginning as the 1453 Ottoman conquest of Constantinople that
drove scholars of the East into the West, carrying with them knowledge of Islamic intellectual advances. Some
look to the Age of Discovery sparked by the Ottoman victory and the subsequent closing down of European
access to trade routes (Goldstone 2009). Others point to the 1543 publication of Nicolas Copernicus’s text On
the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, refuting the heliocentric theory that proposed the solar system
revolved around the sun. In philosophy, the early modern era is delineated by the rapid advancement of
natural philosophy, which in turn sparked the scientific revolution. This development relied upon the ability of
scholars and clerics to openly question religious orthodoxy as the sole, authoritative source of truth and to
instead seek answers through human reason.

Nicolaus Copernicus

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), born in Poland and raised by his uncle who was a bishop in the Catholic
Church, matriculated from the University of Krakow. Although appointed a canon in the Catholic Church, he
was able to continue his studies in mathematics, astronomy, and medicine at universities in Padua and
Bologna in Italy. At the time, the Catholic Church espoused the ancient Greek astronomer Ptolemy’s geocentric
model of the solar system, in which the sun and the planets revolve around Earth. However, Copernicus’s
mathematical analysis of the astronomical data indicated that Earth and other planets revolved around the
sun. As a canon in the Catholic Church, Copernicus feared to publish this data and sat on his discovery for over
two decades. It was only after his colleague and friend Lutheran professor of mathematics Georg Joachim
Rheticus published Copernican ideas in Narratio Prima in 1540 that Copernicus released On the Revolutions
of the Heavenly Spheres in 1543. In an attempt to shield himself and his work, he dedicated the manuscript to
the pope.

READ LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Read this excerpt from the preface of On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, which was dedicated to Pope
Paul III. How does Copernicus’s use of the word consensus shift the authority for truth from the church to natural
philosophers?

Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth
remains at rest in the middle of the heavens as its center, would, I reflected, regard it as an insane
pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves. . . . Therefore, when I considered
this carefully, the contempt which I had to fear because of the novelty and apparent absurdity of my view,
nearly induced me to abandon utterly the work I had begun.

Therefore, when I considered this carefully, the contempt which I had to fear because of the novelty and
apparent absurdity of my view, nearly induced me to abandon utterly the work I had begun. Not a few other
very eminent and scholarly men made the same request, urging that I should no longer through fear refuse
to give out my work for the common benefit of students of Mathematics. Therefore I would not have it
unknown to Your Holiness, the only thing which induced me to look for another way of reckoning the
movements of the heavenly bodies was that I knew that mathematicians by no means agree in their
investigation thereof.

Zera Yacob

Whereas Copernicus did not directly challenge church authority, the Ethiopian scholar Zera Yacob
132 4 • The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

(1592–1692) did. Yacob, born in the district of Axum within the Ethiopian Empire, studied Christian, Jewish,
and Islamic thought. Ethiopia had adopted Christianity as the state religion in 330 CE. The Christian kingdom
resisted Islamic conquest for hundreds of years. By 1540, however, Ahmed Gragn, supported by the Ottoman
Empire based in Turkey, succeeded in capturing much of the kingdom. The Ethiopian emperor then appealed
to Portugal for support. Portugal sent troops that helped Ethiopia regain its territory. In the years that followed,
Jesuit missionaries from Portugal arrived in Ethiopia and converted Emperor Susenyos from Ethiopian
Orthodox Christianity to Catholicism. When Ethiopian Emperor Susenyos declared Catholicism the state
religion in 1622, a civil war broke out. Yacob was forced to flee to the countryside. There, he composed much of
Hatata (Inquiry), published in 1668 after the emperor’s death.

Although deeply religious, Yacob argued against the supremacy of one religion over another. Rather, he
counseled that we must rely on reason to evaluate religious tracts and traditions—and in this way, reach God.
For Yacob, God is not only the master of all things, but he also understands all things: “He is intelligent who
understands all, for he created us as intelligent from the abundance of his intelligence” (Yacob 1976, 8). God
had a purpose in creating humans as intelligent beings, and that purpose was for humans “to look for him and
to grasp him and his wisdom in the path he has opened for [them] and to worship him as long as [they] live”
(Yacob 1976, 8).

The method of inquiry Yacob proposed echoes the ideas of Augustine and Aquinas. It involves reflection,
observation, and connecting to a God-given light, our reason. Yacob explained that “he who investigates with
the pure intelligence set by the creator in the heart of each man and scrutinizes the order and laws of creation,
will discover the truth” (Yacob 1976, 9). However, using scrutiny and reason, Yacob rejected some religious
doctrine, in a manner that Augustine and Aquinas would have seen as sacrilegious. He discarded all beliefs
that he judged to not agree with the “wisdom of the creator,” which he said we can know by observing “the
order and laws of creation.” While accepting Moses as a prophet, Yacob rejected the stories of the miracles
Moses is said to have performed. Similarly, Yacob called into question Mohammed’s miracles. Yacob believed
that in the beginning, God had established the laws by which the world worked. Why would God violate his own
laws by allowing some individuals to perform miracles? In Yacob’s view, the stories of these miracles arose
instead from false human understanding.

Yacob, Copernicus, and others had to challenge religious authorities in arguing for a truth based on reason,
mathematical logic, and scientific observation. However, by the 18th century, governments began to embrace
these methods and establish schools and institutes to expand knowledge of the natural world. This period of
change is known as the Enlightenment. This process, as well as the rapid development and implementation of
new technologies and the spread of capitalism, is often referred to as modernization.

Much of the remainder of this text examines the ideas of thinkers who lived during the Enlightenment as well
as later in the modern era. They laid out the foundations for scientific inquiry, laid down the arguments for
government based on popular representation rather than divine rule, and proposed economic systems
designed to create wealth, which freed societies from feudal bonds. In doing so, these thinkers studied the
works of classical and medieval philosophy while advancing ideas about metaphysics, epistemology, and
ethics that this text examines in the chapters that are to come.

Access for free at openstax.org

 4 • Summary 133

Summary
4.1 Historiography and the History of Philosophy
Scholars adopt three main approaches to the history of philosophy. The presentist approach to the history of
philosophy examines philosophical texts for the arguments they contain and judges whether their conclusions
remain relevant for philosophical concerns today. While making the wisdom of the past available for present
applications, this approach has been critiqued on two points: 1) in reading philosophical texts too narrowly,
past philosophers are judged by contemporary standards; 2) this approach may also result in anachronistic
errors, as ideas from contemporary philosophy may be inaccurately attributed to historical philosophers. A
contextualist approach interprets philosophy in terms of the historical and cultural contexts in which it was
written. While this approach can yield deep understanding of historical moments and historical ways of
thinking, it can be blind to the lasting value of philosophical inquiry. A hermeneutic approach attempts to take
the best of the presentist and contextualists approaches, viewing the historical context of original texts
seriously but also recognizing that our interpretation of history is connected to and conditioned by our
contemporary context.

4.2 Classical Philosophy

Classical Greek philosophy owes much to Egyptian scholarship emanating from Heliopolis, as both Pythagoras
and Plato are believed to have studied at that center of learning. Indeed, the Plimpton 332 clay tablet reveals
that Babylonian mathematicians knew not only of the Pythagorean theorem of right triangles but also of
trigonometric functions. Classical philosophy emerged in ancient Greece with the Presocratics; the three great
philosophers Socrates (470–399 BCE), Plato (c. 428–347 BCE), and Aristotle (384–322 BCE); and schools of
thought that came after—Epicureans, stoics, and others. From what remains of the works of the Presocratics,
they were primarily interested in questions of metaphysics and natural philosophy. Some Presocratics, such as
Parmenides, were monists while others, such as Heraclitus, were plurists. Plato advanced a theory of the
forms, a metaphysical doctrine that holds that every particular thing that exists participates in an immaterial
form or essence that gives this thing its identity. The invisible realm of the forms differs fundamentally from
the changing realm we experience in this world. The invisible realm is eternal, unchanging, and perfect.
Aristotle’s work centers on his doctrine of the four causes: “What’s it made of?” (material cause), “What shape
does it have?” (formal cause), “What agent gave it this form?” (efficient cause), and, finally, “What is its end
goal?” (final cause). The four causes can explain nature of all things in this universe, including the universe
itself. Aristotle’s universe is a closed system of final causes. Each final cause leads to another, until we get to
the first cause or prime mover.

4.3 Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

Greek and Roman imperialism in the Middle East and North Africa brought Jews—and later, Christians—into
the intellectual sphere of Hellenism. Jewish and later Christian scholars incorporated ideas of classical Greek
and Roman philosophy into their own theological studies. As Arab conquerors and traders expanded into the
Middle East and Africa, the Muslim world adopted and advanced classical philosophy and the natural sciences.
Yet a tension at all times runs through these works as philosophers tried to balance theological revelation and
freedom of intellectual exploration. Unlike the classical Greek and Roman philosophers, the Jewish, Christian,
or Muslim philosopher always works with a partner, the events and facts central to the religion. It is only in the
early modern age that philosophers replace the primacy of God as the source of truth with reason.

Key Terms
Contextualist approach an approach to the philosophy that interprets the ideas of philosophers in terms of
the historical and cultural contexts in which they wrote.
Empiricism a belief that all knowledge is derived inductively from sense experience.
Hermeneutic approach an approach to philosophy that takes the historical context of the original text
134 4 • References

seriously but also recognizes the influence of contemporary issues and perspectives.
Logos the thoughts of God, which according to Philo of Alexandria serve as the means by which God creates
the physical world.
Monism the belief that the universe is made up of one substance.
Natural philosophy the fields of study that eventually gave rise to science.
Plurism the belief that the universe is made up of more than one substance.
Presentist approach an approach to philosophy that examines philosophical texts for the arguments they
contain and judges how and whether they remain relevant today.
Theory of the forms a metaphysical doctrine that holds that every particular thing that exists in our changing,
material world participates in an immaterial form or essence, which is unchanging, invisible, and perfect
and which gives this thing its identity.
Zeno’s paradoxes paradoxes proposed by Zeno that attempt to prove that change and motion are illusory.

References
Adamson, Peter, and Jonardon Ganeri. 2020. Classical Indian Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Adamson, Peter. 2016. A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps: Philosophy in the Islamic World. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Amr, Samir S., and Abdelghani Tbakhi. 2007. “Ibn Sina (Avicenna): The Prince of Physicians.” Annals of Saudi
Medicine, 27 (2): 134–135. https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2007.134.

Assmann, Jan. (1995) 2009. Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom: Re, Amun and the Crisis of
Polytheism. Translated by Anthony Alcock. New York: Routledge.

Assmann, Jan. 2004. “Theological Responses to Amarna.” In Egypt, Israel, and the Ancient Mediterranean
World: Studies in Honor of Donald B. Redford, edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Antoine Hirsch, 179–191.
Leiden: Brill. https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/2354/1/
Assmann_Theological_responses_to_Amarna_2004.pdf.

Augustine. 2008. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Aurelius, Marcus. 2021. Meditations: The Annotated Edition. Translated and edited by Robin Waterfield. New
York: Basic Books.

Ben Ahmed, Fouad, and Robert Pasnau. 2021. “Ibn Rushd [Averroes].” The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. Fall 2021 ed. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/
ibn-rushd/.

Berkovits, Eliezer. 1961. “What Is Jewish Philosophy?” Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought 3 (2):
117–130. https://traditiononline.org/what-is-jewish-philosophy/.

Boas, George. 1948. “Fact and Legend in the Biography of Plato.” The Philosophical Review 57 (5): 439–457.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2181715.

Bokser, Ben Zion. 1947. “Reason and Revelation in the Theology of Maimonides: The Conflict between
Philosophy and the Torah.” Hebrew Union College Annual 20:541–584. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
23506471.

Curd, Patricia, ed. 2011. A Presocratics Reader: Selected Fragments and Testimonia. Translated by Richard D.
McKirahan and Patricia Curd. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Flegel, Peter. 2018. “Does Western Philosophy Have Egyptian Roots?” Philosophy Now, October/November
2018. https://philosophynow.org/issues/128/Does_Western_Philosophy_Have_Egyptian_Roots.

Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. 2007. Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California.

Access for free at openstax.org

 4 • References 135

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Goldstone, Jack A. 2009. Why Europe? The Rise of the West in World History, 1500–1850. Boston: McGraw-Hill
Higher Education.

Graham, Daniel W. 2013. Science before Socrates: Parmenides, Anaxagoras, and the New Astronomy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press

Gutas, Dimitri. 2012. “The Empiricism of Avicenna.” Oriens 40 (2): 391–436. https://doi.org/10.1163/
18778372-00402008.

Gutas, Dimitri. 2016. “Ibn Sina [Avicenna].” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N.
Zalta. Fall 2016 ed. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/ibn-sina/.

Hadot, Pierre. 2002. What Is Ancient Philosophy? Translated by Michael Chase. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Herodotus. 1890. The History of Herodotus. Translated by G. C. Macaulay. Vol. 1. London: Macmillan.

Hiller, James, “Epistemological Foundations of Objectivist and Interpretivist Research” (2016). Books and Book
Chapters by University of Dayton Faculty. 52. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/books/52.

Houser, R. E. 1999. “Bonaventure’s Three-Fold Way to God.” In Medieval Masters: Essays in Memory of Msgr. E.
A. Synan, edited by R. E. Houser, 91–145. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
http://t4.stthom.edu/users/houser/bonaventure1999.pdf.

Inwood, Brad, and L. P. Gerson, trans. 1997. Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings. 2nd ed.
Indianapolis: Hackett.

Kiros, Teodros. 1996. “Claude Sumner’s Classical Ethiopian Philosophy.” Northeast African Studies, n.s., 3 (2):
39–52. Michigan State University Press.

Lamb, Evelyn. 2017. “Don’t Fall for Babylonian Trigonometry Hype.” Roots of Unity (blog), Scientific American.
August 29, 2017. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/dont-fall-for-babylonian-
trigonometry-hype/.

Maimonides, Moses. 1963. The Guide of the Perplexed. Translated by Shlomo Pines. Vol. 1. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Marenbon, John. 2020. “Why Read Boethius Today?” Aeon. October 9, 2020. https://aeon.co/essays/why-we-
should-read-boethiuss-consolation-of-philosophy-today.

Mathias, Thomas R. 1976. “Bonaventurian Ways to God through Reason.” Franciscan Studies 36:192–232.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41974876.

McGinnis, Jon. 2003. “Scientific Methodologies in Medieval Islam.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 41 (3):
307–327. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2003.0033.

Mou, Bo, ed. 2009. History of Chinese Philosophy. New York: Routledge.

Nadler, Steven. 2020. Think Least of Death: Spinoza on How to Live and How to Die. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.

Namazi, Mohammad Reza. 2001. “Avicenna, 980–1037.” American Journal of Psychiatry 158 (11): 1796.
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.11.1796.

Piercey, Robert. 2003. “Doing Philosophy Historically.” The Review of Metaphysics 56 (4): 779–800.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20131899.

Plato. (1888) 2017. The Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press; Project
136 4 • Review Questions

Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55201.

Putnam, Hilary. 1997. “On Negative Theology.” Faith and Philosophy 14 (4): 407–422. https://doi.org/10.5840/
faithphil199714442.

Robinson, George. 2000. Essential Judaism: A Complete Guide to Beliefs, Customs, and Rituals. New York:
Pocket Books.

Sandman, Maj, ed. 1938. Texts from the Time of Akhenaten. Brussels: Édition de la Fondation Égyptologique
Reine Élisabeth.

Seeskin, Kenneth. 2017. Review of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed: A Philosophical Guide, by Alfred L.
Ivry. Journal of the History of Philosophy 55 (2): 345–346. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2017.0034.

Smith, Justin E. H. 2016. The Philosopher: A History in Six Types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sumner, Claude. 1999. “The Significance of Zera Yacob’s Philosophy.” Ultimate Reality and Meaning 22
(3):172–188. https://doi.org/10.3138/uram.22.3.172.

Tahiri, Hassan. 2016. Mathematics and the Mind: An Introduction into Ibn Sīnā’s Theory of Knowledge. Cham:
Springer.

Van Norden, Bryan W. 2017. Taking Back Philosophy: A Multicultural Manifesto. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Wisnovsky, Robert. 2005. “Avicenna and the Avicennian Tradition.” In The Cambridge Companion to Arabic
Philosophy, edited by Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor, 92–136. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521817439.006.

Yacob, Zera. 1976. Hatata. Translated by Claude Sumner. In Ethiopian Philosophy, by Claude Sumner. Vol. 2,
The Treatise of Zar’a Yaeqob and of Walda Heywat: Text and Authorship. Addis Ababa: Commercial Printing
Press.

Review Questions
4.1 Historiography and the History of Philosophy
1. What are the advantage and disadvantages of a presentist approach to the history of philosophy?

2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a contextualist approach to the history of philosophy?

3. What approach to the history of philosophy represents a middle ground between the presentists and the
contextualists?

4.2 Classical Philosophy

4. What evidence suggests that many of the ideas that we attribute to Greek philosophers may have had their
origin in ancient Egypt or Babylonia?

5. How can one justify Parmenides’s claim that the world is unchanging?

6. What are Aristotle’s four causes, and how did he apply them?

7. How can one justify Parmenides’s claim that the world is unchanging?

8. What are Aristotle’s four causes, and how did he apply them?

4.3 Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

9. How is Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy different from classical philosophy?

10. How did Philo of Alexandria develop Plato and Aristotle’s ideas to explain the creation?

Access for free at openstax.org

 4 • Further Reading 137

11. How did Ibn Sina’s scientific approach differ from that of the Aristotle and the Epicureans?

Further Reading
Aurelius, Marcus. 2021. Meditations: The Annotated Edition. Translated and edited by Robin Waterfield. New
York: Basic Books.

Berkovits, Eliezer. 1961. “What Is Jewish Philosophy?” Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought 3 (2):
117–130. https://traditiononline.org/what-is-jewish-philosophy/.

Goldstone, Jack A. 2009. Why Europe? The Rise of the West in World History, 1500–1850. Boston: McGraw-Hill
Higher Education.

Plato. (1888) 2017. The Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press; Project
Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55201.
138 4 • Further Reading

Access for free at openstax.org

Logic and Reasoning 5

FIGURE 5.1 Buddhist monks debating at the Sera Monastery in Mysore, India. (credit: modification of “Monks at
Sera Monastery 24” by Esther Lee/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

CHAPTER OUTLINE
5.1 Philosophical Methods for Discovering Truth
5.2 Logical Statements
5.3 Arguments
5.4 Types of Inferences
5.5 Informal Fallacies

INTRODUCTION Within the philosopher’s toolkit, logic is arguably the most powerful tool, and certainly it gets
the most use. Logic, the study of reasoning, aims to formalize and describe reasoning processes used to arrive
at claims. Logic is a study of both how we do reason and how we ought to reason. Logicians categorize and
explain different forms of successful reasoning along with mistakes in reasoning, with the goal of
understanding what to do right and what to avoid. This chapter seeks to provide you with a general
understanding of the discipline of logic.
140 5 • Logic and Reasoning

5.1 Philosophical Methods for Discovering Truth

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Describe the role that dialectics plays in logic and reasoning.
• Define “argument” and “negation of a argument.”
• Define the laws of noncontradiction and the excluded middle.

Like most academic disciplines, the goal of philosophy is to get closer to the truth. Logic, reasoning, and
argumentation are the predominant methods used. But unlike many other disciplines, philosophy does not
contain a large body of accepted truths or canonical knowledge. Indeed, philosophy is often known for its
uncertainty because it focuses on questions for which we do not yet have ways of definitively answering. The
influential 20th-century philosopher Bertrand Russell explains that “as soon as definite knowledge concerning
any subject becomes possible, the subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science”
(1912, 240).

Because philosophy focuses on questions we do not yet have ways of definitively answering, it is as much a
method of thinking as it is a body of knowledge. And logic is central to this method. Thinking like a philosopher
involves thinking critically about alternative possibilities. To answer the question of whether there is a God (a
question for which we lack a definitive method of answering), we can look at things we believe we know and
then critically work through what those ideas entail about the existence or possible characteristics of God. We
can also imagine God exists or God does not exist and then reason through what either possibility implies
about the world. In imagining alternative possibilities, we must critically work through what each possibility
must entail. Changing one belief can set off a cascade of implications for further beliefs, altering much of what
we accept as true. And so, in studying philosophy, we need to get used to the possibility that our beliefs could
be wrong. We use reason to do philosophy, and logic is the study of reason. Hence, logic helps us get closer to
the truth.

Dialectics and Philosophical Argumentation

Philosophers love to argue. But this love does not mean that philosophy lectures are loud, contentious events.
Most people think of an argument as a verbal disagreement, and the term evokes images of raised voices,
heightened emotions, and possibly bad behavior. However, in philosophy, this word does not have a negative
connotation. An argument in philosophy is a reasoned position—to argue is simply to offer a set of reasons in
support of some conclusion. The goal of an individual argument is to support a conclusion. However, the long-
term goal of argumentation between philosophers is to get closer to the truth. In contemporary academic
philosophy, philosophers are engaged in dialogue with each other where they offer arguments in the
publication of articles. Philosophers also engage in argument at conferences and in paper presentations and
lectures. In this way, contemporary academic philosophers are engaged in a dialectic of sorts.

A traditional dialectic is a debate or discussion between at least two people who hold differing views. But
unlike debate, participants in the discussion do not have the goal of “winning,” or proving that the other view is
wrong. Rather, the goal is to get closer to the truth. Thus, dialectics make use of logic and reason, while debates
often use rhetorical ploys or appeal to the emotions. Because of the tendency of participants to appeal to
emotion and prejudice in many modern popular debates, philosophers often qualify their words and refer to
reasoned debate when discussing proper public discourse between people. But even reasoned debates can
become adversarial, while dialectics are mostly collaborative. The participants in a dialectic, whom
philosophers refer to as “interlocuters,” enter into discourse with the aim of trading their poor or false beliefs
for knowledge.

Dialectics usually start with a question. An interlocuter offers an answer to the question, which is then
scrutinized by all participants. Reasons against the answer are given, and someone may offer a
counterexample to the answer—that is, a case that illustrates that the answer is wrong. The interlocuters will

Access for free at openstax.org

 5.1 • Philosophical Methods for Discovering Truth 141

then analyze why the answer is wrong and try to locate its weakness. The interlocuters may also examine what
made the answer plausible in the first place. Next, someone offers another answer to the question—possibly a
refined version of the previous answer that has been adjusted in light of the weaknesses and strengths
identified in the analysis. This process is repeated over and over, with each iteration theoretically bringing
participants closer to the truth.

While dialectics aims at the truth, the creation of knowledge is not its sole function. For example, a long, deep
conversation with a friend about the meaning of life should not be viewed as a failure if you do not come up
with a satisfactory answer to life’s purpose. In this instance, the process has as much value as the aim (getting
closer to the truth). Contemporary academic philosophers view their practice in the same way.

Indian Dialectics and Debate

Dialectics played an important role in early Indian philosophy. The earliest known philosophical writings
originate in India as sections of the Vedas, which have been dated as far back as 1500 BCE (Mark 2020). The
Vedas are often considered religious texts, but it is more accurate to think of them as religious and
philosophical texts since they explore what it means to be a human being, discuss the purpose and function of
the mind, and attempt to identify the goal of life. The Upanishads, which are the most philosophical of the
Vedic texts, often take the form of dialogues. These dialogues generally occur between two participants—one
who knows a truth and the other who seeks to know and understand the truth. The Vedic dialectics explore
fundamental concepts such as Brahman (the One without a second, which includes the universe as its
manifestation), dharma (an individual’s purpose and duty), and atman (an individual’s higher self). As in many
dialectics, questioning, reasoning, and realizations that arise through the dialogue are the aim of these texts.

Buddhist philosophical texts that were part of early Indian philosophy also contain narrative dialogues (Gillon
2021). Logical argumentation is evident in these, and as time progressed, texts became more focused on
argument, particularly those relying on analogical reasoning, or the use of analogies. Analogies use an object
that is known to draw inferences about other similar objects. Over time, the analogical arguments used in
Buddhist texts took on structure. When arguments have structure, they rely on a form that captures a specific
manner of reasoning, such that the reasoning can be schematized. As an example, consider the following
argument that appears in the Caraka-saṃhitā (CS 3.8.31) (Gillon 2021). The argument has been slightly altered
to aid in understanding.

Soul Analogical Argument

1. The soul is eternal.

2. Space is eternal and it is unproduced.
3. Therefore, the soul is eternal because it is unproduced.

Analogical Argument Form

1. X has property P.
2. Y has property P and property S.
3. Therefore, X has property S because it has property P

As you will see later in the section on deductive argumentation, relying on argumentative structure is a feature
of logical reasoning.

Classical Indian philosophical texts also refer to the occurrence of reasoned public debates. Public debate was
a further method of rational inquiry and likely the main mode of rational inquiry that most people had access
to. One mode of debate took the form of assemblies in which experts considered specific topics, including
those in politics and law (Gillon 2021). Arguments are the public expression of private inferences, and only by
exposing one’s private thoughts through argument can they be tested. Public arguments are a method to
improve one’s reasoning when it is scrutinized by others.
142 5 • Logic and Reasoning

Greek Dialectics and Debate

Ancient Greek philosophy is also known for its use of dialectic and debate. Socrates, perhaps the most famous
ancient Greek philosopher, claimed that knowledge is true opinion backed by argument (Plato, Meno).
“Opinion” here means unjustified belief: your beliefs could be true, but they cannot count as knowledge unless
you have reasons for them and can offer justifications for your beliefs when questioned by others.
Furthermore, Socrates’s method of gaining knowledge was to engage in dialectics with others. All of what we
know about Socrates is through the writings of others—particularly the writings of Plato. Quite appropriately,
Plato uses dialogues in all his works, in which Socrates is almost always a participant.

Socrates never wrote anything down. In the Phaedrus, one of Plato’s dialogues, Socrates criticizes written
works as being a dead discourse of sorts. Books cannot respond to you when you ask questions. He states,
“You’d think they were speaking as if they had some understanding, but if you question anything that has been
said because you want to learn more, it continues to signify just the very same thing forever” (Phaedrus, 275e).
Clearly, dialectics was central to Socrates’s philosophical method.

CONNECTIONS
Learn more about Socrates in the introduction to philosophy chapter.

Plato’s dialogues are a testament to the importance of public discourse as a form of rational inquiry in ancient
Greece. Based on Greek philosophical writings, we can assume reasoned public debate took place and that
Socrates preferred it as a method of teaching and learning. In Plato’s dialogues, many questions are asked, and
Socrates’s interlocuters offer answers to which Socrates asks further clarifying questions. Through the process
of questioning, false beliefs and inadequate understanding are exposed. Socrates’s goal was not simply to offer
people truth. Rather, through questioning, Socrates guides people to discover the truth on their own, provided
they are willing to keep an open mind and admit, when necessary, that they are in the wrong. In Plato’s
dialogues, participants don’t always land on a determinate answer, but they as well as readers are always left
with a clearer understanding of the correct way to reason.

If any ancient Greek philosopher most embodies the tie between dialectic and logic, it is Aristotle (c. 384–322
BCE), who was a student of Plato. Aristotle wrote books on the art of dialectic (Smith 2020). And he probably
participated in gymnastic dialectic—a structured dialectic contest practiced in the Academy (the school
founded by Plato, which Aristotle attended). But more importantly, Aristotle created a complex system of logic
upon which skill in the art of dialectic relied. Aristotle’s logic is the earliest formal systematized account of
inference we know of and was considered the most accurate and complete system until the late 19th century
(Smith 2020). Aristotle’s system is taught in logic classes to this day.

Access for free at openstax.org

 5.1 • Philosophical Methods for Discovering Truth 143

FIGURE 5.2 Roman copy in marble of a Greek bronze bust of Aristotle. (credit: “Vienna 014” by Jeremy Thompson/
Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

The Use of Reason to Discover Truth

Reasoning allows us to hypothesize, work out consequences of our hypotheses, run thought experiments,
assess the coherence of a set of beliefs, and generate plausible explanations of the world around us. As Chapter
1 explained, coherence is the property of consistency in a set of beliefs. Thus, when a set of beliefs is
inconsistent, it is not possible for every belief in the set to be true. We must use reason to determine whether a
set of beliefs is consistent and work out the logical implications of beliefs, given their truth. In this way, reason
can be used to discover truth.

The rules of logic are like the rules of math; you cannot make 1 + 1 = 3. Indeed, math is a form of deductive
reasoning that ensures truth. Answers to problems in math are derived using known functions and rules,
which is also true in logic. Unlike math, however, not all of logic can guarantee correct answers. Nonetheless,
logic supplies means by which to derive better answers—answers that are more likely to be true. Because logic
is the study of proper reasoning, and proper reasoning is an essential tool for discovering truth, logic is
foundational to the pursuit of learning.

Testing Hypotheses
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed process or phenomenon. Human beings formulate
hypotheses because they wish to answer specific questions about the world. Usually, the sciences come to
mind when we think of the word “hypothesis.” However, hypotheses can be created on many subjects, and
chances are that you have created many hypotheses without realizing it. For example, if you often come home
and find that one of your outside potted plants has been knocked over, you might hypothesize that “the wind
must have knocked that one over.” In doing so, you answer the question, “Why is that plant often knocked
over?” Generating and testing hypotheses engages different forms of reasoning— abduction, induction, and
deduction—all of which will be explained in further detail below.

Clearly, simply coming up with a hypothesis isn’t enough for us to gain knowledge; rather, we must use logic to
144 5 • Logic and Reasoning

test the truth of our supposition. Of course, the aim of testing hypotheses is to get to the truth. In testing we
often formulate if–then statements: “If it is windy, then my plant will get knocked over” or “If nitrogen levels
are high in the river, then algae will grow.” If–then statements in logic are called conditionals and are testable.
For example, we can keep a log registering the windy days, cross-checked against the days on which the plant
was found knocked over, to test our if–then hypothesis.

Reasoning is also used to assess the evidence collected for testing and to determine whether the test itself is
good enough for drawing a reliable conclusion. In the example above, if on no windy days is the plant knocked
over, logic demands that the hypothesis be rejected. If the plant is sometimes knocked over on windy days,
then the hypothesis needs refinement (for example, wind direction or wind speed might be a factor in when
the plant goes down). Notice that logic and reasoning play a role in every step of the process: creating
hypotheses, figuring out how to test them, compiling data, analyzing results, and drawing a conclusion.

FIGURE 5.3 “If it is windy, the plant will be knocked over” is a testable hypothesis. If the plant is found knocked
over on days that aren’t windy, another force may be responsible. Hypotheses help philosophers, as well as
scientists, answer specific questions about the world. (credit: “strollin’ with Fräulein Zeiss - 5” by torne (where’s my
lens cap?)/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

We’ve been looking at an inconsequential example—porch plants. But testing hypotheses is serious business in
many fields, such as when pharmaceutical companies test the efficacy of a drug in treating a life-threatening
illness. Good reasoning requires researchers to gather enough data to compare an experimental group and
control group (patients with the illness who received the drug and those who did not). If scientists find a
statistically significant difference in positive outcomes for the experimental group when compared to the
control group, they can draw the reasonable conclusion that the drug could alleviate illness or even save lives
in the future.

Laws of Logic
Logic, like the sciences, has laws. But while the laws of science are meant to accurately describe observed
regularities in the natural world, laws of logic can be thought of as rules of thought. Logical laws are rules that
underlie thinking itself. Some might even argue that it is only by virtue of these laws that we can have reliable
thoughts. To that extent, laws of logic are construed to be laws of reality itself. To see what is meant by this, let’s
consider the law of noncontradiction.

Noncontradiction

To understand the law of noncontradiction, we must first define a few terms. First, a statement is a sentence
with truth value, meaning that the statement must be true or false. Statements are declarative sentences like
“Hawaii is the 50th state to have entered the United States” and “You are reading an online philosophy book.”
Sometimes philosophers use the term “proposition” instead of “statement,” and the latter term has a slightly
different meaning. But for our purposes, we will use these terms as synonyms. Second, a negation of a

Access for free at openstax.org

 5.1 • Philosophical Methods for Discovering Truth 145

statement is the denial of that statement. The easiest way to turn a statement into its negation is to add the
qualifier “not.” For example, the negation of “My dog is on her bed” is “My dog is not on her bed.” Third, a
contradiction is the conjunction of any statement and its negation. We may also say that any statement and its
opposite are contradictory. For example, “My dog is on her bed” and “My dog is not on her bed” are
contradictory because the second is the negation of the first. And when you combine a statement and its
opposite, you get a contradiction: “My dog is on her bed and my dog is not on her bed.”

The law of noncontradiction is a law about truth, stating that contradictory propositions cannot be true in the
same sense, at the same time. While my dog may have been on her bed earlier and now she’s off barking at
squirrels, it cannot be true right now that my dog is both on her bed and not on her bed. However, some of you
may be thinking about dogs who lie half on their beds and half on the floor (Josie, the dog belonging to the
author of this chapter, is one of them). Can it not be true that such a dog is both on and not on their bed? In this
instance, we must return to the phrase in the same sense. If we decide that “lying on the bed” means “at least
50% of your body is on the bed,” then we must maintain that definition when looking at propositions to
determine whether they are contradictory. Thus, if Josie is half out of the bed with her head on the floor, we can
still say “Josie is on the bed.” But notice that “Josie is not on the bed” remains false since we have qualified the
meaning of “on the bed.”

For Aristotle, the law of noncontradiction is so fundamental that he claims that without it, knowledge would
not be possible—the law is foundational for the sciences, reasoning, and language (Gottlieb 2019). Aristotle
thought that the law of noncontradiction was “the most certain of all principles” because it is impossible for
someone to believe that the same thing both is and is not (1989, 1005b).

The Excluded Middle

The law of the excluded middle is related to the law of noncontradiction. The law of the excluded middle
states that for any statement, either that statement is true, or its negation is true. If you accept that all
statements must be either true or false and you also accept the law of noncontradiction, then you must accept
the law of the excluded middle. If the only available options for truth-bearing statements are that they are true
or false, and if a statement and its negation cannot both be true at the same time, then one of the statements
must be true while the other must be false. Either my dog is on her bed or off her bed right now.

Normativity in Logic
What if Lulu claims that she is 5 feet tall and that she is 7 feet tall? You’d think that she was joking or not being
literal because this is tantamount to saying that she is both 5 feet tall and not 5 feet tall (which is implied by
being 7 feet tall). The statement “I’m 5 feet tall and not 5 feet tall” is a contradiction. Surely Lulu does not
believe a contradiction. We might even think, as Aristotle did, that it is impossible to believe a contradiction.
But even if Lulu could believe a contradiction, we think that she should not. Since we generally believe that
inconsistency in reasoning is something that ought to be avoided, we can say that logic is normative.
Normativity is the assumption that certain actions, beliefs, or other mental states are good and ought to be
pursued or realized. Normativity implies a standard (a norm) to which we ought to conform. Ethics is a
normative discipline because it is the study of how we ought to act. And because we believe people ought to be
logical rather than illogical, we label logic as normative.

While ethics is normative in the realm of actions and behavior, logic is normative in the realm of reasoning.
Some rules of thought, like the law of noncontradiction, seem to be imperative (a command), so logic is a
command of reasoning. Some philosophers argue that logic is what makes reasoning possible (MacFarlane
2002). In their view, logic is a constitutive norm of reasoning—that is, logic constitutes what reasoning is.
Without norms of logic, there would be no reasoning. This view is intuitively plausible: What if your thoughts
proceeded one after the other, with no connection (or ability to detect a connection) between them? Without
logic, you would be unable to even categorize thoughts or reliably attach concepts to the contents of thoughts.
Let’s take a closer look at how philosophers use special logical statements to organize their reasoning.
146 5 • Logic and Reasoning

5.2 Logical Statements

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Identify the necessary and sufficient conditions in conditionals and universal affirmative statements.
• Describe counterexamples for statements.
• Assess the truth of conditionals and universal statements using counterexamples.

Specific types of statements have a particular meaning in logic, and such statements are frequently used by
philosophers in their arguments. Of particular importance is the conditional, which expresses the logical
relations between two propositions. Conditional statements are used to accurately describe the world or
construct a theory. Counterexamples are statements used to disprove a conditional. Universal statements are
statements that assert something about every member of a set of things and are an alternative way to describe
a conditional.

Conditionals
A conditional is most commonly expressed as an if–then statement, similar to the examples we discussed
earlier when considering hypotheses. Additional examples of if–then statements are “If you eat your meat,
then you can have some pudding” and “If that animal is a dog, then it is a mammal.” But there are other ways
to express conditionals, such as “You can have pudding only if you eat your meat” or “All dogs are mammals.”
While these sentences are different, their logical meaning is the same as their correlative if–then sentences
above.

All conditionals include two components—that which follows the “if” and that which follows the “then.” Any
conditional can be rephrased in this format. Here is an example:

Statement 1: You must complete 120 credit hours to earn a bachelor’s degree.

Statement 2: If you expect to graduate, then you must complete 120 credit hours.

Whatever follows “if” is called the antecedent; whatever follows “then” is called the consequent. Ante means
“before,” as in the word “antebellum,” which in the United States refers to anything that occurred or was
produced before the American Civil War. The antecedent is the first part of the conditional, occurring before
the consequent. A consequent is a result, and in a conditional statement, it is the result of the antecedent (if
the antecedent is true).

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

All conditionals express two relations, or conditions: those that are necessary and those that are sufficient. A
relation is a relationship/property that exists between at least two things. If something is sufficient, it is always
sufficient for something else. And if something is necessary, it is always necessary for something else. In the
conditional examples offered above, one part of the relation is required for the other. For example, 120 credit
hours are required for graduation, so 120 credit hours is necessary if you expect to graduate. Whatever is the
consequent—that is, whatever is in the second place of a conditional—is necessary for that particular
antecedent. This is the relation/condition of necessity. Put formally, Y is a necessary condition for X if and
only if X cannot be true without Y being true. In other words, X cannot happen or exist without Y. Here are a
few more examples:

• Being unmarried is a necessary condition for being a bachelor. If you are a bachelor, then you are
unmarried.
• Being a mammal is a necessary condition for being a dog. If a creature is a dog, then it is a mammal.

But notice that the necessary relation of a conditional does not automatically occur in the other direction. Just
because something is a mammal does not mean that it must be a dog. Being a bachelor is not a necessary
feature of being unmarried because you can be unmarried and be an unmarried woman. Thus, the

Access for free at openstax.org

 5.2 • Logical Statements 147

relationship between X and Y in the statement “if X, then Y” is not always symmetrical (it does not
automatically hold in both directions). Y is always necessary for X, but X is not necessary for Y. On the other
hand, X is always sufficient for Y.

Take the example of “If you are a bachelor, then you are unmarried.” If you know that Eric is a bachelor, then
you automatically know that Eric is unmarried. As you can see, the antecedent/first part is the sufficient
condition, while the consequent/second part of the conditional is the necessary condition. X is a sufficient
condition for Y if and only if the truth of X guarantees the truth of Y. Thus, if X is a sufficient condition for Y,
then X automatically implies Y. But the reverse is not true. Oftentimes X is not the only way for something to be
Y. Returning to our example, being a bachelor is not the only way to be unmarried. Being a dog is a sufficient
condition for being a mammal, but it is not necessary to be a dog to be a mammal since there are many other
types of mammals.

FIGURE 5.4 All dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs. Being a dog is a sufficient condition for being a
mammal but it is not necessary to be a dog to be a mammal. (credit: “Sheepdog Trials in California” by SheltieBoy/
Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

The ability to understand and use conditionals increases the clarity of philosophical thinking and the ability to
craft effective arguments. For example, some concepts, such as “innocent” or “good,” must be rigorously
defined when discussing ethics or political philosophy. The standard practice in philosophy is to state the
meaning of words and concepts before using them in arguments. And oftentimes, the best way to create clarity
is by articulating the necessary or sufficient conditions for a term. For example, philosophers may use a
conditional to clarify for their audience what they mean by “innocent”: “If a person has not committed the
crime for which they have been accused, then that person is innocent.”

Counterexamples

Sometimes people disagree with conditionals. Imagine a mother saying, “If you spend all day in the sun, you’ll
get sunburnt.” Mom is claiming that getting sunburnt is a necessary condition for spending all day in the sun.
To argue against Mom, a teenager who wants to go to the beach might offer a counterexample, or an opposing
statement that proves the first statement wrong. The teenager must point out a case in which the claimed
necessary condition does not occur alongside the sufficient one. Regular application of an effective sunblock
with an SPF 30 or above will allow the teenager to avoid sunburn. Thus, getting sunburned is not a necessary
condition for being in the sun all day.

Counterexamples are important for testing the truth of propositions. Often people want to test the truth of
statements to effectively argue against someone else, but it is also important to get into the critical thinking
148 5 • Logic and Reasoning

habit of attempting to come up with counterexamples for our own statements and propositions. Philosophy
teaches us to constantly question the world around us and invites us to test and revise our beliefs. And
generating creative counterexamples is a good method for testing our beliefs.

Universal Statements
Another important type of statement is the universal affirmative statement. Aristotle included universal
affirmative statements in his system of logic, believing they were one of only a few types of meaningful logical
statements (On Interpretation). Universal affirmative statements take two groups of things and claim all
members of the first group are also members of the second group: “All A are B.” These statements are called
universal and affirmative because they assert something about all members of group A. This type of statement
is used when classifying objects and/or the relationships. Universal affirmative statements are, in fact, an
alternative expression of a conditional.

Universal Statements as Conditionals

Universal statements are logically equivalent to conditionals, which means that any conditional can be
translated into a universal statement and vice versa. Notice that universal statements also express the logical
relations of necessity and sufficiency. Because universal affirmative statements can always be rephrased as
conditionals (and vice versa), the ability to translate ordinary language statements into conditionals or
universal statements is helpful for understanding logical meaning. Doing so can also help you identify
necessary and sufficient conditions. Not all statements can be translated into these forms, but many can.

Counterexamples to Universal Statements

Universal affirmative statements also can be disproven using counterexamples. Take the belief that “All living
things deserve moral consideration.” If you wanted to prove this statement false, you would need to find just
one example of a living thing that you believe does not deserve moral consideration. Just one will suffice
because the categorical claim is quite strong—that all living things deserve moral consideration. And someone
might argue that some parasites, like the protozoa that causes malaria, do not deserve moral consideration.

5.3 Arguments
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Define key components of an argument.
• Categorize components of sample arguments.
• Explain the difference between assessing logic and assessing truth.

As explained at the beginning of the chapter, an argument in philosophy is simply a set of reasons offered in
support of some conclusion. So an “arguer” is a person who offers reasons for a specific conclusion. Notice
that the definition does not state that the reasons do support a conclusion (and rather states reasons are
offered or meant to support a conclusion) because there are bad arguments in which reasons do not support a
conclusion.

Arguments have two components: the conclusion and the reasons offered to support it. The conclusion is what
an arguer wants people to believe. The reasons offered are called premises. Often philosophers will craft a
numbered argument to make clear each individual claim (premise) given in support of the conclusion. Here is
an example of a numbered argument:

1. If someone lives in San Francisco, then they live in California.

2. If someone lives in California, then they live in the United States.
3. Hassan lives in San Francisco.
4. Therefore, Hassan lives in the United States.

Access for free at openstax.org

 5.3 • Arguments 149

Getting to the Premises

The first step in understanding an argument is to identify the conclusion. Ask yourself what you think the main
point or main idea is. Can you identify a thesis? Sometimes identifying the conclusion may involve a little bit of
“mind reading.” You may have to ask yourself “What is this person trying to make me accept?” The arguer may
use words that indicate a conclusion—for example, “therefore” or “hence” (see Table 5.1). After you have
identified the conclusion, try to summarize it as well as you can. Then, identify the premises or evidence the
arguer offers in support of that conclusion. Once again, identifying reasons can be tricky and might involve
more mind reading because arguers don’t always explicitly state all of their reasons. Attempt to identify what
you think the arguer wants you to accept as evidence. Sometimes arguers also use words that indicate that
reasons or premises are being offered. In presenting evidence, people might use terms such as “because of” or
“since” (see Table 5.1). Lastly, if it is difficult to first identify the conclusion of an argument, you may have to
begin by parsing the evidence to then figure out the conclusion.

Conclusion indicator therefore, hence, so, thus, consequently, accordingly, as a result, it follows that, it entails
words and phrases that, we can conclude, for this reason, it must be that, it has to be that

Premise indicator given that, since, because, for, in that, for the reason that, in as much as, as indicated by,
words and phrases seeing how, seeing that, it follows from, owing to, it may be inferred from

TABLE 5.1 Navigating an Argument

Understanding evidence types can help you identify the premises being advanced for a conclusion. As
discussed earlier in the chapter, philosophers will often offer definitions or conceptual claims in their
arguments. For example, a premise may contain the conceptual claim that “The idea of God includes
perfection.” Arguments can also contain as premises empirical evidence or information about the world
gleaned through the senses. Principles are also used as premises in arguments. A principle is a general rule or
law. Principles are as varied as fields of study and can exist in any domain. For example, “Do not use people
merely as a means to an end” is an ethical principle.

CONNECTIONS
See the introduction to philosopher chapter to learn more about conceptual analysis.

The Difference between Truth and Logic

Analysis of arguments ought to take place on the levels of both truth and logic. Truth analysis is the
determination of whether statements are correct or accurate. On the other hand, logical analysis ascertains
whether the premises of an argument support the conclusion.

Often, people focus solely on the truth of an argument, but in philosophy logical analysis is often treated as
primary. One reason for this focus is that philosophy deals with subjects in which it is difficult to determine the
truth: the nature of reality, the existence of God, or the demands of morality. Philosophers use logic and
inference to get closer to the truth on these subjects, and they assume that an inconsistency in a position is
evidence against its truth.

Logical Analysis

Because logic is the study of reasoning, logical analysis involves assessing reasoning. Sometimes an argument
with a false conclusion uses good reasoning. Similarly, arguments with true conclusions can use terrible
reasoning. Consider the following absurd argument:
150 5 • Logic and Reasoning

1. The battle of Hastings occurred in 1066.

2. Tamaracks are deciduous conifer trees.
3. Therefore, Paris is the capital of France.

The premises of the above argument are true, as is the conclusion. However, the argument is illogical because
the premises do not support the conclusion. Indeed, the premises are unrelated to each other and to the
conclusion. More specifically, the argument does not contain a clear inference or evidence of reasoning. An
inference is a reasoning process that leads from one idea to another, through which we formulate conclusions.
So in an argument, an inference is the movement from the premises to the conclusion, where the former
provide support for the latter. The above argument does not contain a clear inference because it is uncertain
how we are supposed to cognitively move from the premises to the conclusion. Neither the truth nor the falsity
of the premises helps us reason toward the truth of the conclusion. Here is another absurd argument:

1. If the moon is made of cheese, then mice vacation there.

2. The moon is made of cheese.
3. Therefore, mice vacation on the moon.

The premises of the above argument are false, as is the conclusion. However, the argument has strong
reasoning because it contains a good inference. If the premises are true, then the conclusion does follow.
Indeed, the argument uses a particular kind of inference—deductive inference—and good a deductive
inference guarantees the truth of its conclusion as long as its premises are true.

The important thing to remember is that a good inference involves clear steps by which we can move from
premise to premise to reach a conclusion. The basic method for testing the two common types of
inferences—deductive and inductive—is to provisionally assume that their premises are true. Assuming a
neutral stance in considering an inference is crucial to doing philosophy. You begin by assuming that the
premises are true and then ask whether the conclusion logically follows, given the truth of those premises.

Truth Analysis

If the logic in an argument seems good, you next turn to assessing the truth of the premises. If you disagree
with the conclusion or think it untrue, you must look for weaknesses (untruths) in the premises. If the evidence
is empirical, check the facts. If the evidence is a principle, ask whether there are exceptions to the principle. If
the evidence is a conceptual claim, think critically about whether the conceptual claim can be true, which often
involves thinking critically about possible counterexamples to the claim.

5.4 Types of Inferences

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Define deductive, inductive, and abductive inferences.
• Classify inferences as deductive, inductive, or abductive.
• Explain different explanatory virtues used in abductive reasoning.

Inferences can be deductive, inductive, or abductive. Deductive inferences are the strongest because they can
guarantee the truth of their conclusions. Inductive inferences are the most widely used, but they do not
guarantee the truth and instead deliver conclusions that are probably true. Abductive inferences also deal in
probability.

Deductive Reasoning
Deductive inferences, which are inferences arrived at through deduction (deductive reasoning), can guarantee
truth because they focus on the structure of arguments. Here is an example:

1. Either you can go to the movies tonight, or you can go to the party tomorrow.
2. You cannot go to the movies tonight.

Access for free at openstax.org

 5.4 • Types of Inferences 151

3. So, you can go to the party tomorrow.

This argument is good, and you probably knew it was good even without thinking too much about it. The
argument uses “or,” which means that at least one of the two statements joined by the “or” must be true. If you
find out that one of the two statements joined by “or” is false, you know that the other statement is true by
using deduction. Notice that this inference works no matter what the statements are. Take a look at the
structure of this form of reasoning:

1. X or Y is true.
2. X is not true.
3. Therefore, Y is true.

By replacing the statements with variables, we get to the form of the initial argument above. No matter what
statements you replace X and Y with, if those statements are true, then the conclusion must be true as well.
This common argument form is called a disjunctive syllogism.

Valid Deductive Inferences

A good deductive inference is called a valid inference, meaning its structure guarantees the truth of its
conclusion given the truth of the premises. Pay attention to this definition. The definition does not say that
valid arguments have true conclusions. Validity is a property of the logical forms of arguments, and remember
that logic and truth are distinct. The definition states that valid arguments have a form such that if the
premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. You can test a deductive inference’s validity by testing
whether the premises lead to the conclusion. If it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the
premises are assumed to be true, then the argument is valid.

Deductive reasoning can use a number of valid argument structures:

Disjunctive Syllogism:

1. X or Y.
2. Not Y.
3. Therefore X.

Modus Ponens:

1. If X, then Y.
2. X.
3. Therefore Y.

Modus Tollens:

1. If X, then Y.
2. Not Y.
3. Therefore, not X.

You saw the first form, disjunctive syllogism, in the previous example. The second form, modus ponens, uses a
conditional, and if you think about necessary and sufficient conditions already discussed, then the validity of
this inference becomes apparent. The conditional in premise 1 expresses that X is sufficient for Y. So if X is
true, then Y must be true. And premise 2 states that X is true. So the conclusion (the truth of Y) necessarily
follows. You can also use your knowledge of necessary and sufficient conditions to understand the last form,
modus tollens. Remember, in a conditional, the consequent is the necessary condition. So Y is necessary for X.
But premise 2 states that Y is not true. Because Y must be the case if X is the case, and we are told that Y is
false, then we know that X is also false. These three examples are only a few of the numerous possible valid
inferences.
152 5 • Logic and Reasoning

Invalid Deductive Inferences

A bad deductive inference is called an invalid inference. In invalid inferences, their structure does not
guarantee the truth of the conclusion—that is to say, even if the premises are true, the conclusion may be false.
This does not mean that the conclusion must be false, but that we simply cannot know whether the conclusion
is true or false. Here is an example of an invalid inference:

1. If it snows more than three inches, the schools are mandated to close.
2. The schools closed.
3. Therefore, it snowed more than three inches.

If the premises of this argument are true (and we assume they are), it may or may not have snowed more than
three inches. Schools close for many reasons besides snow. Perhaps the school district experienced a power
outage or a hurricane warning was issued for the area. Again, you can use your knowledge of necessary and
sufficient conditions to understand why this form is invalid. Premise 2 claims that the necessary condition is
the case. But the truth of the necessary condition does not guarantee that the sufficient condition is true. The
conditional states that the closing of schools is guaranteed when it has snowed more than 3 inches, not that
snow of more than 3 inches is guaranteed if the schools are closed.

Invalid deductive inferences can also take general forms. Here are two common invalid inference forms:

Affirming the Consequent:

1. If X, then Y.
2. Y.
3. Therefore, X.

Denying the Antecedent:

1. If X, then Y.
2. Not X.
3. Therefore, not Y.

You saw the first form, affirming the consequent, in the previous example concerning school closures. The
fallacy is so called because the truth of the consequent (the necessary condition) is affirmed to infer the truth
of the antecedent statement. The second form, denying the antecedent, occurs when the truth of the
antecedent statement is denied to infer that the consequent is false. Your knowledge of sufficiency will help
you understand why this inference is invalid. The truth of the antecedent (the sufficient condition) is only
enough to know the truth of the consequent. But there may be more than one way for the consequent to be
true, which means that the falsity of the sufficient condition does not guarantee that the consequent is false.
Going back to an earlier example, that a creature is not a dog does not let you infer that it is not a mammal,
even though being a dog is sufficient for being a mammal. Watch the video below for further examples of
conditional reasoning. See if you can figure out which incorrect selection is structurally identical to affirming
the consequent or denying the antecedent.

VIDEO
The Wason Selection Task
Click to view content (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/5-4-types-of-inferences)

Testing Deductive Inferences

Earlier it was explained that logical analysis involves assuming the premises of an argument are true and then
determining whether the conclusion logically follows, given the truth of those premises. For deductive
arguments, if you can come up with a scenario where the premises are true but the conclusion is false, you
have proven that the argument is invalid. An instance of a deductive argument where the premises are all true

Access for free at openstax.org

 5.4 • Types of Inferences 153

but the conclusion false is called a counterexample. As with counterexamples to statements, counterexamples
to arguments are simply instances that run counter to the argument. Counterexamples to statements show
that the statement is false, while counterexamples to deductive arguments show that the argument is invalid.
Complete the exercise below to get a better understanding of coming up with counterexamples to prove
invalidity.

THINK LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Using the sample arguments given, come up with a counterexample to prove that the argument is invalid. A
counterexample is a scenario in which the premises are true but the conclusion is false. Solutions are provided
below.

Argument 1:

1. If an animal is a dog, then it is a mammal.

2. Charlie is not a dog.
3. Therefore, Charlie is not a mammal.

Argument 2:

1. All desserts are sweet foods.

2. Some sweet foods are low fat.
3. So all desserts are low fat.

Argument 3:

1. If Jad doesn’t finish his homework on time, he won’t go to the party.

2. Jad doesn’t go to the party.
3. Jad didn’t finish his homework on time.

When you have completed your work on the three arguments, check your answers against the solutions below.

Solution 1: Invalid. If you imagine that Charlie is a cat (or other animal that is not a dog but is a mammal), then both
the premises are true, while the conclusion is false. Charlie is not a dog, but Charlie is a mammal.

Solution 2: Invalid. Buttercream cake is a counterexample. Buttercream cake is a dessert and is sweet, which
shows that not all desserts are low fat.

Solution3: Invalid. Assuming the first two premises are true, you can still imagine that Jad is too tired after finishing
his homework and decides not to go to the party, thus making the conclusion false.

Inductive Inferences
When we reason inductively, we gather evidence using our experience of the world and draw general
conclusions based on that experience. Inductive reasoning (induction) is also the process by which we use
general beliefs we have about the world to create beliefs about our particular experiences or about what to
expect in the future. Someone can use their past experiences of eating beets and absolutely hating them to
conclude that they do not like beets of any kind, cooked in any manner. They can then use this conclusion to
avoid ordering a beet salad at a restaurant because they have good reason to believe they will not like it.
Because of the nature of experience and inductive inference, this method can never guarantee the truth of our
beliefs. At best, inductive inference generates only probable true conclusions because it goes beyond the
information contained in the premises. In the example, past experience with beets is concrete information, but
the person goes beyond that information when making the general claim that they will dislike all beets (even
those varieties they’ve never tasted and even methods of preparing beets they’ve never tried).
154 5 • Logic and Reasoning

Consider a belief as certain as “the sun will rise tomorrow.” The Scottish philosopher David Hume famously
argued against the certainty of this belief nearly three centuries ago ([1748, 1777] 2011, IV, i). Yes, the sun has
risen every morning of recorded history (in truth, we have witnessed what appears to be the sun rising, which
is a result of the earth spinning on its axis and creating the phenomenon of night and day). We have the
science to explain why the sun will continue to rise (because the earth’s rotation is a stable phenomenon).
Based on the current science, we can reasonably conclude that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. But is this
proposition certain? To answer this question, you have to think like a philosopher, which involves thinking
critically about alternative possibilities. Say the earth gets hit by a massive asteroid that destroys it, or the sun
explodes into a supernova that encompasses the inner planets and incinerates them. These events are
extremely unlikely to occur, although no contradiction arises in imagining that they could take place. We
believe the sun will rise tomorrow, and we have good reason for this belief, but the sun’s rising is still only
probable (even if it is nearly certain).

While inductive inferences are not always a sure thing, they can still be quite reliable. In fact, a good deal of
what we think we know is known through induction. Moreover, while deductive reasoning can guarantee the
truth of conclusions if the premises are true, many times the premises themselves of deductive arguments are
inductively known. In studying philosophy, we need to get used to the possibility that our inductively derived
beliefs could be wrong.

There are several types of inductive inferences, but for the sake of brevity, this section will cover the three most
common types: reasoning from specific instances to generalities, reasoning from generalities to specific
instances, and reasoning from the past to the future.

Reasoning from Specific Instances to Generalities

Perhaps I experience several instances of some phenomenon, and I notice that all instances share a similar
feature. For example, I have noticed that every year, around the second week of March, the red-winged
blackbirds return from wherever they’ve wintering. So I can conclude that generally the red-winged blackbirds
return to the area where I live (and observe them) in the second week of March. All my evidence is gathered
from particular instances, but my conclusion is a general one. Here is the pattern:

Instance1, Instance2, Instance3 . . . Instancen --> Generalization

And because each instance serves as a reason in support of the generalization, the instances are premises in
the argument form of this type of inductive inference:

Specific to General Inductive Argument Form:

1. Instance1
2. Instance2
3. Instance3
4. General Conclusion

Reasoning from Generalities to Specific Instances

Induction can work in the opposite direction as well: reasoning from accepted generalizations to specific
instances. This feature of induction relies on the fact that we are learners and that we learn from past
experiences and from one another. Much of what we learn is captured in generalizations. You have probably
accepted many generalizations from your parents, teachers, and peers. You probably believe that a red “STOP”
sign on the road means that when you are driving and see this sign, you must bring your car to a full stop. You
also probably believe that water freezes at 32° Fahrenheit and that smoking cigarettes is bad for you. When you
use accepted generalizations to predict or explain things about the world, you are using induction. For
example, when you see that the nighttime low is predicted to be 30°F, you may surmise that the water in your
birdbath will be frozen when you get up in the morning.

Some thought processes use more than one type of inductive inference. Take the following example:

Access for free at openstax.org

 5.4 • Types of Inferences 155

Every cat I have ever petted doesn’t tolerate its tail being pulled.

So this cat probably will not tolerate having its tail pulled.

Notice that this reasoner has gone through a series of instances to make an inference about one additional
instance. In doing so, the reasoner implicitly assumed a generalization along the way. The reasoner’s implicit
generalization is that no cat likes its tail being pulled. They then use that generalization to determine that they
shouldn’t pull the tail of the cat in front of them now. A reasoner can use several instances in their experience
as premises to draw a general conclusion and then use that generalization as a premise to draw a conclusion
about a specific new instance.

Inductive reasoning finds its way into everyday expressions, such as “Where there is smoke, there is fire.”
When people see smoke, they intuitively come to believe that there is fire. This is the result of inductive
reasoning. Consider your own thought process as you examine Figure 5.5.

FIGURE 5.5 “Where there is smoke, there is fire” is an example of inductive reasoning. (credit: “20140803-FS-
UNK-0017” by US Department of Agriculture/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

Reasoning from Past to Future

We often use inductive reasoning to predict what will happen in the future. Based on our ample experience of
the past, we have a basis for prediction. Reasoning from the past to the future is similar to reasoning from
specific instances to generalities. We have experience of events across time, we notice patterns concerning the
occurrence of those events at particular times, and then we reason that the event will happen again in the
future. For example:

I see my neighbor walking her dog every morning. So my neighbor will probably walk her dog this
morning.

Could the person reasoning this way be wrong? Yes—the neighbor could be sick, or the dog could be at the vet.
But depending upon the regularity of the morning dog walks and on the number of instances (say the neighbor
has walked the dog every morning for the past year), the inference could be strong in spite of the fact that it is
possible for it to be wrong.

Strong Inductive Inferences

The strength of inductive inferences depends upon the reliability of premises given as evidence and their
relation to the conclusions drawn. A strong inductive inference is one where, if the evidence offered is true,
then the conclusion is probably true. A weak inductive inference is one where, if the evidence offered is true,
156 5 • Logic and Reasoning

the conclusion is not probably true. But just how strong an inference needs to be to be considered good is
context dependent. The word “probably” is vague. If something is more probable than not, then it needs at
least a 51 percent chance of happening. However, in most instances, we would expect to have a much higher
probability bar to consider an inference to be strong. As an example of this context dependence, compare the
probability accepted as strong in gambling to the much higher probability of accuracy we expect in
determining guilt in a court of law.

Figure 5.6 illustrates three forms of reasoning are used in the scientific method. Induction is used to glean
patterns and generalizations, from which hypotheses are made. Hypotheses are tested, and if they remain
unfalsified, induction is used again to assume support for the hypothesis.

FIGURE 5.6 Induction in the Scientific Method (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0
license)

Abductive Reasoning
Abductive reasoning is similar to inductive reasoning in that both forms of inference are probabilistic.
However, they differ in the relationship of the premises to the conclusion. In inductive argumentation, the
evidence in the premises is used to justify the conclusion. In abductive reasoning, the conclusion is meant to
explain the evidence offered in the premises. In induction the premises explain the conclusion, but in
abduction the conclusion explains the premises.

Inference to the Best Explanation

Because abduction reasons from evidence to the most likely explanation for that evidence, it is often called
“inference to the best explanation.” We start with a set of data and attempt to come up with some unifying
hypothesis that can best explain the existence of those data. Given this structure, the evidence to be explained
is usually accepted as true by all parties involved. The focus is not the truth of the evidence, but rather what the
evidence means.

Although you may not be aware, you regularly use this form of reasoning. Let us say your car won’t start, and
the engine won’t even turn over. Furthermore, you notice that the radio and display lights are not on, even
when the key is in and turned to the ON position. Given this evidence, you conclude that the best explanation is
that there is a problem with the battery (either it is not connected or is dead). Or perhaps you made pumpkin
bread in the morning, but it is not on the counter where you left it when you get home. There are crumbs on
the floor, and the bag it was in is also on the floor, torn to shreds. You own a dog who was inside all day. The dog
in question is on the couch, head hanging low, ears back, avoiding eye contact. Given the evidence, you
conclude that the best explanation for the missing bread is that the dog ate it.

Detectives and forensic investigators use abduction to come up with the best explanation for how a crime was
committed and by whom. This form of reasoning is also indispensable to scientists who use observations
(evidence) along with accepted hypotheses to create new hypotheses for testing. You may also recognize
abduction as a form of reasoning used in medical diagnoses. A doctor considers all your symptoms and any

Access for free at openstax.org

 5.4 • Types of Inferences 157

further evidence gathered from preliminarily tests and reasons to the best possible conclusion (a diagnosis)
for your illness.

Explanatory Virtues

Good abductive inferences share certain features. Explanatory virtues are aspects of an explanation that
generally make it strong. There are many explanatory virtues, but we will focus on four. A good hypothesis
should be explanatory, simple, and conservative and must have depth.

To say that a hypothesis must be explanatory simply means that it must explain all the available evidence. The
word “explanatory” for our purposes is being used in a narrower sense than used in everyday language. Take
the pumpkin bread example: a person might reason that perhaps their roommate ate the loaf of pumpkin
bread. However, such an explanation would not explain why the crumbs and bag were on the floor, nor the
guilty posture of the dog. People do not normally eat an entire loaf of pumpkin bread, and if they do, they don’t
eviscerate the bag while doing so, and even if they did, they’d probably hide the evidence. Thus, the
explanation that your roommate ate the bread isn’t as explanatory as the one that pinpoints your dog as the
culprit.

But what if you reason that a different dog got into the house and ate the bread, then got out again, and your
dog looks guilty because he did nothing to stop the intruder? This explanation seems to explain the missing
bread, but it is not as good as the simpler explanation that your dog is the perpetrator. A good explanation is
often simple. You may have heard of Occam’s razor, formulated by William of Ockham (1287–1347), which
says that the simplest explanation is the best explanation. Ockham said that “entities should not be multiplied
beyond necessity” (Spade & Panaccio 2019). By “entities,” Ockham meant concepts or mechanisms or moving
parts.

Examples of explanations that lack simplicity abound. For example, conspiracy theories present the very
opposite of simplicity since such explanations are by their very nature complex. Conspiracy theories must
posit plots, underhanded dealings, cover-ups (to explain the existence of alternative evidence), and maniacal
people to explain phenomena and to further explain away the simpler explanation for those phenomena.
Conspiracy theories are never simple, but that is not the only reason they are suspect. Conspiracy theories also
generally lack the virtues of being conservative and having depth.

A conservative explanation maintains or conserves much of what we already believe. Conservativeness in

science is when a theory or hypothesis fits with other established scientific theories and explanations. For
example, a theory that accounts for some physical phenomenon but also does not violate Newton’s first law of
motion is an example of a conservative theory. On the other hand, consider the conspiracy theory that we
never landed on the moon. Someone might posit that the televised Apollo 11 space landing was filmed in a
secret studio somewhere. But the reality of the first televised moon landing is not the only belief we must get
rid of to maintain the theory. Five more manned moon landings occurred. Furthermore, the reality of the
moon landings fits into beliefs about technological advancement over the next five decades. Many of the
technologies developed were later adopted by the military and private sector (NASA, n.d.). Moreover, the Apollo
missions are a key factor in understanding the space race of the Cold War era. Accepting the conspiracy theory
requires rejecting a wide range of beliefs, and so the theory is not conservative.

A conspiracy theorist may offer alternative explanations to account for the tension between their explanation
and established beliefs. However, for each explanation the conspiracist offers, more questions are raised. And
a good explanation should not raise more questions than it answers. This characteristic is the virtue of depth.
A deep explanation avoids unexplained explainers, or an explanation that itself is in need of explanation. For
example, the theorist might claim that John Glenn and the other astronauts were brainwashed to explain the
astronauts’ firsthand accounts. But this claim raises a question about how brainwashing works. Furthermore,
what about the accounts of the thousands of other personnel who worked on the project? Were they all
brainwashed? And if so, how? The conspiracy theorist’s explanation raises more questions than it answers.
158 5 • Logic and Reasoning

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

Is it possible that our established beliefs (or scientific theories) could be wrong? Why give precedence to an
explanation because it upholds our beliefs? Scientific thought would never have advanced if we deferred to
conservative explanations all the time. In fact, the explanatory virtues are not laws but rules of thumb, none of
which are supreme or necessary. Sometimes the correct explanation is more complicated, and sometimes the
correct explanation will require that we give up long-held beliefs. Novel and revolutionary explanations can be
strong if they have evidence to back them up. In the sciences, this approach is expressed in the following
principle: Extraordinary claims will require extraordinary evidence. In other words, a novel claim that disrupts
accepted knowledge will need more evidence to make it credible than a claim that already aligns with accepted
knowledge.

Table 5.2 summarizes the three types of inferences just discussed.

Type of
Description Considerations
inference

Provides valid inferences Provides invalid inferences

when its structure when, even if the premises
Deductive Focuses on the structure of arguments
guarantees the truth of are true, the conclusion may
its conclusion be false

Uses general beliefs about the world to

Strong if the conclusion is Weak if the conclusion is
create beliefs about specific experiences
Inductive probably true, assuming probably not true, even if the
or to make predictions about future
that the evidence is true evidence offered is true
experiences

Strong if it is explanatory,
An explanation is offered to justify and Extraordinary claims require
Abductive simple, conservative, and
explain evidence extraordinary evidence
has depth

TABLE 5.2 Three Types of Inferences

5.5 Informal Fallacies

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Explain the four general categories of informal fallacies.
• Classify fallacies by general category.
• Identify fallacies in ordinary language.

Reasoning can go wrong in many ways. When the form of an argument is problematic, it is called a formal
fallacy. Mistakes in reasoning are not usually caused by the structure of the argument. Rather, there is usually
a problem in the relationship between the evidence given in the premises and the conclusion. Take the
following example:

I don’t think Ms. Timmons will make a good mayor. I’ve got a bad feeling about her. And I’ve heard
she’s not a Christian. Furthermore, the last time we had a female mayor, the city nearly went
bankrupt. Don’t vote for Ms. Timmons.

Notice that to assess the above argument, you have must think about whether the reasons offered function as
evidence for the conclusion that Ms. Timmons would be a bad mayor. This assessment requires background
knowledge about the world. Does belonging to a specific religion have any bearing on one’s qualification for
mayor? Is there any credible connection between a mayor’s gender and the likelihood that person will cause a

Access for free at openstax.org

 5.5 • Informal Fallacies 159

bankruptcy? If the reasons are not adequate support for the conclusion, then the reasoner commits an
informal fallacy. In the above argument, none of the reasons offered support for the conclusion. In fact, each
reason commits a different fallacy. The first reason is based on an appeal to emotion, which is not relevant.
The second reason points to a characteristic (religion) that is irrelevant in judging competency, and the third
reason creates a spurious connection between the candidate and a previous female mayor, putting them both
in the same failed category based solely on the fact that they share the same gender.

There are many specific types of informal fallacies, but most can be sorted into four general categories
according to how the reasoning fails. These categories show how reasoning can go wrong and serve as
warnings for what to watch out for in arguments. They are (1) fallacies of relevance, (2) fallacies of weak
induction, (3) fallacies of unwarranted assumption, and (4) fallacies of diversion.

CONNECTIONS
See the chapter on critical thinking, research, reading, and writing to learn more about overcoming biases.

Fallacies of Relevance
In fallacies of relevance, the arguer presents evidence that is not relevant for logically establishing their
conclusion. The reason why fallacies of relevance stick around is because the evidence seems
relevant—meaning it feels relevant. Fallacies of relevance prey on our likes and dislikes. Indeed, the very first
fallacy of relevance is called “appeal to emotion.”

Appeal to Emotion

Emotional appeals can target any number of emotions—from fear to pity and from love and compassion to
hate and aversion. For the most part, appeals to emotion of any kind are not relevant for establishing the
conclusion. Here’s an example:

I know the allegations against the governor seem serious. However, he’s in his 80s now, and he fought
for our country in the Korean War, earning a Purple Heart. We don’t want to put an elderly veteran
through the ordeal of a trial. I urge you to drop the charges.

In this example, the arguer appeals to our feelings of pity and compassion and to our positive feelings about
the governor. We might admire the governor for his military service and feel sympathy for his advanced age.
But are our feelings relevant in making the decision about whether to drop criminal charges? Notice that the
arguer says nothing about the content of the charges or about whether the governor is innocent or guilty.
Indeed, the arguer says absolutely nothing that’s relevant to the conclusion. How we feel about somebody is
not a logical determinant to use in judging guilt or innocence.

Ad Hominem Attacks

The ad hominem attack is most often committed by a person who is arguing against some other person’s
position. “Ad hominem” in Latin means “toward the man.” It is so named because when someone commits this
fallacy, the reasons they give for their conclusion concern the characteristics of the person they are arguing
against rather than that person’s position. For example, the arguer may verbally attack the person by making
fun of their appearance, intelligence, or character; they can highlight something about the person’s
circumstances like their job or past; or they can insinuate that the person is a hypocrite.

You may wonder why such arguments are effective, and one reason is sloppy associative reasoning, wherein
we problematically assume that characteristics held by an arguer will be transferred to their argument.
Another related reason is that too often we allow ourselves to be ruled by emotion rather than reason. If we are
made to feel negatively toward a person, those feelings can cloud assessment of their arguments. Consider the
following example:

My fellow councilwoman has argued for the city solar project. But what she failed to mention was that
160 5 • Logic and Reasoning

she has been arrested twice—once for protesting during the Vietnam War and another time for
protesting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She’s a traitor and a liar. Any project she espouses is bad for the
city.

This is clearly an ad hominem attack. The arguer wants to undermine the councilwoman’s position by making
us feel negatively toward her. The fact that a person engaged in protests in the past has no bearing on their
arguments for an energy project. Furthermore, the arguer goes on to call the councilwoman a traitor and a liar
and offers no evidence. Attaching negative labels to people is one way to manipulate an audience’s emotions.

There are other types of ad hominem attacks, and the most successful is probably the one called tu quoque,
which means “you too” in Latin. When someone commits a tu quoque ad hominem fallacy, they attempt to
undermine a person’s argument by pointing to real or perceived hypocrisy on the part of the person. They
assert or imply that their opponent, in the past or currently, has done or said things that are inconsistent with
their current argument. Often tu quoque is used as a defensive maneuver. Take the example of a teenager
whose father just caught her smoking cigarettes and reprimanded her. If she knows that her father smoked
when he was her age, her defensive response will be “You did it too!” She is likely to think he is a hypocrite who
should not be heeded. However, the daughter reasons poorly. First, a person’s actions have no bearing on the
strength of their arguments or the truth of their claims (unless, of course, the person’s arguments are about
their own actions). That her father smoked in the past (or smokes currently) has no bearing on whether
smoking is in fact dangerous. Smoking does not suddenly cease to be dangerous because the person
explaining the dangers of smoking is a smoker.

You might think, however, that we should not trust the reasoning of hypocrites because hypocrisy is a sign of
untrustworthiness, and untrustworthy people often say false things. But remember that there is a difference
between a truth analysis and a logical analysis. If smoking has bad consequences on health and development,
then that counts as a good reason for the father to not allow his daughter to smoke. But interestingly, some
cases of perceived hypocrisy make the supposed hypocrite more trustworthy rather than less. And the
smoking example is one such case. Of all the people who might be able to speak of the dangers of picking up a
smoking habit at a young age, the father, who became addicted to cigarettes in his teenage years, is a good
source. He speaks from experience, which is a second reason the daughter reasons incorrectly in thinking she
should not listen to him because he was or is a smoker.

Let’s take a different scenario. Suppose a married person argues that it is immoral to cheat on one’s spouse,
but you know he has a mistress. As much as you may hate it, his status as a cheater is not relevant to assessing
his argument. You might infer from his hypocrisy that he does not believe his own arguments or perhaps that
he suffers guilt about his actions but cannot control his cheating behavior. Nonetheless, whatever the cheater
believes or feels is simply not relevant to determining whether his argument is good. To think that whether a
person believes an argument affects the truth of that argument is tantamount to thinking that if you believe X,
the belief itself is more likely to make X happen or make X true. But such an approach is magical thinking, not
logic or reason.

Fallacies of Weak Induction

The fallacies of weak induction are mistakes in reasoning in which a person’s evidence or reasons are too
weak to firmly establish a conclusion. The reasoner uses relevant premises, but the evidence contained
therein is weak or defective in some way. These errors are errors of induction. When we inductively reason, we
gather evidence using our experience in the world and draw conclusions based on that experience. Earlier in
the chapter I used a generalization about the return of the red-winged blackbirds in March. But what if I based
my generalization on just two years of experience? Now my conclusion—that the blackbirds return every mid-
March—seems much weaker. In such cases, the reasoner uses induction properly by using relevant evidence,
but her evidence is simply too weak to support the generalization she makes. An inductive inference may also
be weak because it too narrowly focuses on one type of evidence, or the inference may apply to a
generalization in the wrong way.

Access for free at openstax.org

 5.5 • Informal Fallacies 161

Hasty Generalization

A hasty generalization is a fallacy of weak induction in which a person draws a conclusion using too little
evidence to support the conclusion. A hasty generalization was made in the red-winged blackbird case above.
Here is another example:

Don’t eat at the restaurant. It’s bad. I had lunch there once, and it was awful. Another time I had
dinner, and the portions were too small.

This person draws the conclusion that the restaurant is bad from two instances of eating there. But two
instances are not enough to support such a robust conclusion. Consider another example:

Sixty-five percent of a random poll of 50 registered voters in the state said they would vote for the
amendment. We conclude that the state amendment will pass.

Fifty voters is not a large enough sample size to draw predictive conclusions about an election. So to say the
amendment will pass based on such limited evidence is a hasty generalization. Just how much evidence we
need to support a generalization depends upon the conclusion being made. If we already have good reason to
believe that the class of entities that is the subject of our generalization are all very similar, then we will not
need a very large sample size to make a reliable generalization. For instance, physics tells us that electrons are
very similar, so a study drawn from observing just a few electrons may be reasonable. Humans (particularly
their political beliefs and behaviors) are not the same, so a much larger sample size is needed to determine
political behavior. The fallacy of hasty generalization highlights the empirical nature of induction—we need a
basic understanding of the world to know exactly how much evidence is needed to support many of our claims.

Biased Sample

A biased sample has some things in common with a hasty generalization. Consider the following:

Don’t eat dinner at that restaurant. It’s bad. My book club has met there once a week for breakfast for
the past year, and they overcook their eggs.

This seems much better than the restaurant example offered above. If the book club has gone to the restaurant
once per week for a year, the arguer has more than 50 instances as data. However, notice that the arguer’s
evidence concerns breakfast, not dinner, and focuses on the eggs. Suppose the restaurant has an entirely
different, more expensive dinner menu; then we cannot draw reliable conclusions about the restaurant’s
success at dinner. This is an example of a biased sample. With a hasty generalization, the problem is that not
enough evidence is used. In a biased sample, the problem is that the evidence used is biased in some way.

Appeal to Ignorance

Appeal to ignorance is another type of fallacy of weak induction. Consider the following line of reasoning:

In my philosophy class, we reviewed all the traditional arguments for the existence of God. All of them
have problems. Because no one can prove that God exists, we can only conclude that God doesn’t exist.

Notice that the arguer wants to conclude that because we do not have evidence or sufficient arguments for
God’s existence, then God cannot exist. In an appeal to ignorance, the reasoner relies on the lack of knowledge
or evidence for a thing (our ignorance of it) to draw a definite conclusion about that thing. But in many cases,
this simply does not work. The same reasoning can be used to assert that God must exist:

In my philosophy class, we reviewed different arguments against the existence of God. All of them
have problems. Because no one can prove that God doesn’t exist, we can only conclude that God exists.

Any form of reasoning that allows you to draw contradictory conclusions ought to be suspect. Appeals to
ignorance ignore the idea that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that we lack evidence
for X should not always function as evidence that X is false or does not exist.
162 5 • Logic and Reasoning

False Cause Attribution

The fallacy of false cause occurs when a causal relation is assumed to exist between two events or things when
it is unlikely that such a causal relationship exists. People often make this mistake when the two events occur
together. The phrase “correlation does not equal causation” captures a common critique of this form of false
cause reasoning. For example, a person may think that swimsuits cause sunburns because people often get
sunburned when wearing swimsuits. There is a correlation between sunburn and swimsuits, but the suits are
not a cause of sunburns.

False cause fallacies also occur when a person believes that just because one event occurs after another, the
first event is the cause of the second one. This poor form of reasoning, in tandem with confirmation bias, leads
to many superstitious beliefs. Confirmation bias is the natural tendency to look for, interpret, or recall
information that confirms already-established beliefs or values. For example, some sports fans may notice that
their team won sometimes on days when they were wearing a specific item of clothing. They may come to
believe that this clothing item is “lucky.” Furthermore, because of confirmation bias, they may remember only
instances when the team won when they were wearing that item (and not remember when the team lost when
they were also wearing the item). The resulting superstition amounts to believing that wearing a special team
jersey somehow causes the team to win.

FIGURE 5.7 Correlation Is Not the Same as Causation (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC
BY 4.0 license)

In short, as emphasized by Figure 5.7, just because two things are often correlated (connected in that they
occur together in time or place) does not mean that a cause-and-effect relationship exists between them.

CONNECTIONS
See the chapter on critical thinking, research, reading, and writing to learn more about confirmation bias.

Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption

Fallacies of unwarranted assumption occur when an argument relies on a piece of information or belief that
requires further justification. The category gets its name from the fact that a person assumes something
unwarranted to draw their conclusion. Often the unjustified assumption is only implicit, which can make these
types of fallacies difficult to identify.

False Dichotomy

False dichotomy, or “false dilemma,” occurs in an argument when a limited number of possibilities are
assumed to be the only available options. In the classic variation, the arguer offers two possibilities, shows that
the one cannot be true, and then deduces that the other possibility must be true. Here is the form:

1. Either A or B must be true.

2. A is not true.
3. Therefore, B is true.

Access for free at openstax.org

 5.5 • Informal Fallacies 163

The form itself looks like a good argument—a form of disjunctive syllogism. But a false dichotomy is an
informal fallacy, and such errors depend upon the content of arguments (their meaning and relation to the
world) rather than the form. The problematic assumption occurs in premise 1, where it is assumed that A and
B are the only options. Here is a concrete example:

A citizen of the United States either loves their country, or they are a traitor. Since you don’t love your
country, you are a traitor.

The above argument assumes that loving the United States or being a traitor are the only two possible options
for American citizens. The argument assumes these options are mutually exclusive (you cannot be both) and
jointly exhaustive (you must be one or the other). But this position requires justification. For example, a person
can have mixed emotions about their country and not be a traitor. False dichotomy is poor reasoning because
it artificially limits the available options and then uses this artificial limitation to attempt to prove some
conclusion. A false dichotomy may include more than two options. The important thing to remember is a false
dichotomy limits options in an argument without justification when there is reason to think there are more
options.

Begging the Question

Begging the question occurs when an arguer either assumes the truth of the conclusion they aim to prove in
the course of trying to prove it or when an arguer assumes the truth of a contentious claim in their argument.
When the former happens, it is sometimes called circular reasoning. Here is an example:

1. The Bible states that God exists.

2. The Bible is true because it is divinely inspired.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The problematic assumption occurs in premise 2. To say the Bible is “divinely inspired” is to say that it is the
word of God. But the argument aims to prove that God exists. So premise 2 assumes that God exists in order to
prove God exists. This is patently circular reasoning. The name “begging the question” is confusing to some
students. One way to think about this fallacy is that the question is whatever is at issue in a debate or
argument. Here the question is “Does God exist?” To “beg” the question means to assume you already know
the answer. The above argument assumes the answer to the question it is supposed to answer.

The name “begging the question” makes more sense for the second form of the fallacy. When a person begs the
question in the second sense, they assume the truth of something controversial while trying to prove their
conclusion. Here is an example you might be familiar with:

1. The intentional killing of an innocent person is murder.

2. Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent person.
3. Therefore, abortion is murder.

This is a valid argument. Structurally, it uses good logic. However, the argument is an example of begging the
question because of premise 2. Much of the debate over abortion revolves around the question of whether a
fetus is a person. But premise 2 simply assumes that a fetus is a person, so the argument begs the question “Is
a fetus a person?”

Fallacies of Diversion
The final class of informal fallacies is the fallacy of diversion, which usually occurs in contexts where there is
an opponent or an audience. In this instance, the arguer attempts to distract the attention of the audience away
from the argument at hand. Clearly, the tactic of diverting attention implies that there is someone whose
attention can be diverted: either an audience, an opponent, or both.

Strawman

Men made of straw can easily be knocked over. Hence, a strawman occurs when an arguer presents a weaker
164 5 • Logic and Reasoning

version of the position they are arguing against to make the position easier to defeat. The arguer takes their
opponent’s argument, repackages it, and defeats this new version of the argument rather than their
opponent’s actual position. If the audience listening to or reading the argument is not careful, they won’t notice
this move and believe that the opponent’s original position has been defeated. Usually when a strawman is
created, the misrepresented position is made more extreme. Here is an example:

Senator: It is important that the path to citizenship be governed by established legal procedure.
Granting citizenship to undocumented immigrants who came to this country illegally sets up a
dangerous and unfair precedent. It could encourage others to illegally enter the country in hopes that
they too can be granted clemency at a later date. We must only reward the status of citizenship to
those who followed the laws in coming here.

Opponent: Clearly, we can reject the Senator’s position, which is obviously anti-immigrant. If he had it
his way, we’d never allow any immigration into the country. We are a nation of immigrants, and
disallowing people from other countries to join our nation is against everything this nation has stood
for historically.

The opponent misrepresents the senator as being wholly anti-immigration and then argues against that
manufactured position—a classic strawman move. The senator’s original argument focuses narrowly on the
question of whether to create a pathway to citizenship for people already in the country who came here
illegally. The repackaged argument is much easier to defeat than the senator’s actual argument since few
people are in favor of not allowing any immigration into the country.

Red Herring

A red herring fallacy is like a strawman, except the arguer completely ignores their opponent’s position and
simply changes the subject. The arguer diverts the attention of the audience to a new subject. A red herring is a
smelly smoked fish that was used to train hunting dogs to track smells by dragging this fish along a path as
practice. So the fallacy gets its name because it means to trick people into following a different path of
reasoning than the one at hand. You may wonder how a person can get away with simply changing the subject.
Successful use of the red herring usually involves shifting the subject to something tangentially related. Here is
an example:

My daughter wants me to exercise more. She said she is worried about my health. She showed me
research about cardiovascular fitness and its impact on quality of life for people my age and older. She
suggested I start biking with her. But bicycles are expensive. And it is dangerous to ride bicycles on a
busy road. Furthermore, I do not have a place to store a bicycle.

This arguer first summarizes the daughter’s position that they ought to exercise more. But then they take the
suggestion of bicycling and veer off topic (getting more exercise) to the feasibility of cycling instead. The
comments on bicycling in no way address the daughter’s general conclusion that the arguer needs to exercise
more. Because the argument changes the subject, it is a red herring.

Table 5.3 summaries these many types of informal fallacies.

Access for free at openstax.org

 5.5 • Informal Fallacies 165

General Category Specific Type Description

Fallacies of relevance—rely on evidence

that is not relevant for logically
establishing a conclusion

Appeals to feelings (whether positive or negative)

Appeal to
rather than discussing the merits of an idea or
emotion
proposal

Argues against someone’s idea or suggestion by

Ad hominem
attacking the individual personally, rather than
attack
pointing out problems with the idea or suggestion

Fallacies of weak induction—rely on

evidence or reasons that are too weak to
firmly establish a conclusion

Hasty Draws a conclusion using too little evidence to

generalization support the conclusion

Biased Draws a conclusion using evidence that is biased in

sample some way

Relies on the lack of knowledge or evidence for a

Appeal to
thing (our ignorance of it) to draw a definite
ignorance
conclusion about that thing

A causal relation is assumed to exist between two

False cause
events or things that are not causally connected;
attribution
“correlation does not equal causation”

Fallacies of unwarranted
assumption—rely on information or
beliefs that require further justification

False A limited number of possibilities are assumed to be

dichotomy the only available options

Either assumes the truth of a conclusion in the

Begging the
course of trying to prove it or assumes the truth of a
question
contentious claim

Fallacies of diversion—rely on attempts

to distract the attention of the audience
away from the argument at hand

Utilizes a weaker version of the position being argued

Strawman
against in order to make the position easier to defeat

Ignores the opponent’s position and simply changes

Red Herring
the subject

TABLE 5.3 Types of Informal Fallacies

166 5 • Summary

Summary
5.1 Philosophical Methods for Discovering Truth
Logic is the study of reasoning and is a key tool for discovering truth in philosophy and other disciplines. Early
philosophers used dialectics—reasoned debates with the goal of getting closer to the truth—to practice and
develop reason. Dialectics usually start with a question. An interlocuter offers an answer to the question,
which is then scrutinized by all participants. Early forms of arguments are evident in written dialogues.
Arguments are reasons offered in support of a conclusion. We use logic to test hypotheses in philosophy and
other domains. There are laws of logic—the law of noncontradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Laws
of logic can be thought of as rules of thought. Logical laws are rules that underlie thinking itself. The rules or
laws of logic are normative—they describe how we ought to reason.

5.2 Logical Statements

Logical statements can be conditionals or universal affirmative statements. Both are important since they
express the important logical relations (also called “conditions”) of necessity and sufficiency. If something is
sufficient, it is always sufficient for something else. And if something is necessary, it is always necessary for
something else. If you want to prove that a conditional or universal affirmative statement is false (which is to
also prove that the necessary and sufficient conditions they express do not hold), then you must offer a
counterexample.

5.3 Arguments
An argument is a set of reasons offered in support of a conclusion. The reasons are called premises, and they
are meant to logically support the conclusion. Identifying the premises involves critically identifying what is
meant to be evidence for the conclusion. Both the premises and conclusion can be indicated by phrases and
words. Evaluations of arguments take place on two levels: assessing truth and assessing logic. Logic and truth
are separate features of arguments. Logical assessment involves determining whether the truth of the
premises do support the conclusion. Logically good arguments contain inferences—a reasoning process that
leads from one idea to another, through which we formulate conclusions—where the inference does support
the conclusion.

5.4 Types of Inferences

There are three different types of inferences: deductive, inductive, and abductive. Deductive inferences, when
valid, guarantee the truth of their conclusions. Inductive inferences, when strong, offer probable support for
the conclusion. And good abductive inferences offer probable support for their conclusions. Deductive
inferences that cannot guarantee the truth of their conclusions are called invalid. A counterexample can be
offered to prove that a deductive inference is invalid. Inductive inferences involve using observations based on
experience to draw general conclusions about the world. Abductive inferences involve offering explanations
for accepted evidence. Abduction is sometimes called “inference to the best explanation.”

5.5 Informal Fallacies

A fallacy is a poor form of reasoning. Fallacies that cannot be reduced to the structure of an argument are
called informal fallacies. There are many types of informal fallacies, which can be sorted into four general
categories according to how the reasoning fails. These categories are fallacies of relevance, fallacies of weak
induction, fallacies of unwarranted assumption, and fallacies of diversion. A fallacy of relevance occurs when
the arguer presents evidence that is not relevant for logically establishing their conclusion. The fallacies of
weak induction occur when the evidence used is relevant but is too weak to support the desired conclusion.
The fallacies of unwarranted assumption occur when an argument assumes, as evidence, some reason that
requires further justification. The fallacies of diversion occur when the arguer attempts to distract the
attention of the audience from the argument at hand.

Access for free at openstax.org

 5 • Key Terms 167

Key Terms
Abductive having to do with abduction/abductive reasoning. Abduction is probabilistic form of inference in
which an explanation is offered to justify and explain evidence.
Ad hominin attack fallacy of relevance that argues against someone’s idea or suggestion by attacking the
individual personally, rather than pointing out problems with the idea or suggestion.
Appeal to ignorance a fallacy of weak induction that relies on the lack of knowledge or evidence for a thing
(our ignorance of it) to draw a definite conclusion about that thing.
Argument a set of reasons offered in support of a conclusion.
Begging the question a fallacy of unwarranted assumption that either assumes the truth of a conclusion in
the course of trying to prove it or assumes the truth of a contentious claim.
Biased sample a fallacy of weak induction that draws a conclusion using evidence that is biased in some way.
Conclusion the result of an argument. A conclusion is that which is meant to be proved by the reasoning and
premises used in an argument.
Conditional a logical statement that expresses a necessary and a sufficient condition. Conditionals are usually
formulated as if–then statements.
Contradiction a statement that is always false. A contradiction is the conjunction of any statement and its
negation.
Counterexample an example that proves that either a statement is false or an argument is invalid.
Deductive having to do with deduction/deductive reasoning. Deduction is a form of inference that can
guarantee the truth of its conclusions, given the truth of the premises.
Emotional appeal fallacy of relevance that appeals to feelings (whether positive or negative) rather than
discussing the merits of an idea or proposal.
Explanatory virtues aspects of an explanation that generally make it strong; four such virtues are that a good
hypothesis should be explanatory, simple, and conservative, and have depth.
Fallacy a poor form of reasoning.
Fallacy of diversion a general category of informal fallacies in which an arguer presents evidence that
functions to divert the attention of the audience from the current subject of argument.
Fallacy of relevance a general category of informal fallacies in which an arguer relies on reasons that are not
relevant for establishing a conclusion.
Fallacy of unwarranted assumption a general category of informal fallacies in which an arguer implicitly or
explicitly relies on reasons that require further justification.
Fallacy of weak induction a general category of informal fallacies in which an arguer’s evidence or reasons
are too weak to firmly establish their conclusion.
False cause fallacy of weak induction in which a causal relation is assumed to exist between two events or
things that are not causally connected; “correlation does not equal causation”.
False dichotomy a fallacy of unwarranted assumption in which a limited number of possibilities are assumed
to be the only available options.
Hasty generalization fallacy of weak induction that draws a conclusion using too little evidence to support the
conclusion.
Hypothesis a proposed explanation for an observed process or phenomenon.
Inductive having to do with induction/inductive reasoning. Induction is a probabilistic form of inference in
which observation or experience is used to draw conclusions about the world.
Inference a reasoning process that moves from one idea to another, resulting in conclusions.
Invalidity a property of bad deductive inferences. An invalid inference/argument is one in which the truth of
the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Law of noncontradiction a logical law that states that contradictory statements/propositions can never be
true in the same sense at the same time.
Law of the excluded middle a logical law that states that for any statement, either that statement or its
negation is true.
168 5 • References

Logical analysis the process of determining whether the logical inferences made in an argument are good. A
logical analysis determines whether the premises in an argument logically support the conclusion.
Necessary condition X is a necessary condition for Y if and only if X must be true given the truth of Y. If X is
necessary for Y, then X is guaranteed by Y—without the truth of X, Y cannot be true.
Premise evidence or a reason offered in support of a conclusion.
Red herring fallacy of diversion that ignores the opponent’s position and simply changes the subject.
Statement a sentence with a truth value—a sentence that must be either true or false.
Strawman fallacy of diversion that utilizes a weaker version of the position being argued against in order to
make the position easier to defeat.
Sufficient condition X is a sufficient condition for Y if and only if the truth of X guarantees the truth of Y. If X is
sufficient for Y, then the truth of X is enough to prove the truth of Y.
Truth analysis the process of determining whether statements made in an argument are either true or false.
Universal affirmative statement statements that take two groups of things and claim all members of the first
group are also members of the second groups.
Validity a property of deductive arguments where the structure of an argument is such that if the premises are
true, then the conclusion is guaranteed to be true. A valid inference is a logically good inference.

References
Aristotle. Metaphysics. In Aristotle in 23 Volumes. Translated by Hugh Tredennick. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1933, 1989. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/
text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D4%3Asection%3D1005b

Aristotle. On Interpretation. Translated by Jean T. Oesterle. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/On_Interpretation/vXbkAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

Gillon, Brendan. “Logic in Classical Indian Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Updated
March 10, 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/logic-india/

Gottlieb, Paula. “Aristotle on Non-contradiction.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Updated March 6,
2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/

Hume, David. (1748, 1777) 2011. An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and Concerning the
Principles of Morals. Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/9662/9662-h/9662-h.htm

MacFarlane, John Gordon. 2002. “Frege, Kant, and the Logic in Logicism.” The Philosophical Review 111, no. 1:
25–65. doi:10.1215/00318108-111-1-25

Mark, Joshua J. “The Vedas.” World History Encyclopedia. June 9, 2020. https://www.worldhistory.org/
The_Vedas/

NASA. n.d. “NASA Spinoff.” NASA Technology Transfer Program. Accessed June 24, 2021.
https://spinoff.nasa.gov/

Plato. Meno. In Plato Complete Works. Edited by John M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company,
1997.

Plato. Phaedrus. In Plato Complete Works. Edited by John M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing
Company, 1997.

Russell, Bertrand. 1912. The Problems of Philosophy. London: Williams and Norgate. https://www.google.com/
books/edition/The_Problems_of_Philosophy/F3CABBiwm6wC?hl=en&gbpv=1

Smith, Robin. “Aristotle’s Logic.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Updated February 17, 2017.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/aristotle-logic/

Spade, Paul Vincent, and Claude Panaccio. “William of Ockham.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Access for free at openstax.org

 5 • Review Questions 169

Updated March 5, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/ockham/

Review Questions
5.1 Philosophical Methods for Discovering Truth
1. What is the general structure of a dialectic?

2. What is a statement?

3. Offer an example of a statement and its negation.

4. How does the law of noncontradiction logically imply the law of the excluded middle?

5.2 Logical Statements

5. Offer an example of a conditional, then identify the necessary and sufficient conditions expressed by it.

6. What is a counterexample?

7. Consider the following conditional: “If you walk in the rain, your shirt will get wet.” What is a possible
counterexample to this statement?

8. Consider the following universal affirmative statement: “All games involve a winner and a loser.” What is a
counterexample to this statement?

5.3 Arguments
9. What is an argument?

10. What are the key components of an argument?

11. Consider the following argument: “Since Jori is allergic to cats and her apartment complex does not allow
dogs, it must be the case that Jori does not have a pet.” What are the premises of this argument, and what
is the conclusion? What words in the argument indicate the premises and conclusion?

12. Explain the difference between a logical analysis and a truth analysis of an argument.

5.4 Types of Inferences

13. What makes a deductive argument valid, and how can you test for validity?

14. Explain inductive inference, and describe how it is different from an abductive inference.

15. How is reasoning from specific instances to generalizations similar to reasoning from the past to the
future?

16. Explain abductive inference and describe how it is similar to an inductive inference.

5.5 Informal Fallacies

17. What are the four general categories of informal fallacies?

18. What is the difference between fallacies of relevance and fallacies of weak induction?

19. What is problematic with appealing to emotion in an argument, and how does this qualify it as a fallacy of
relevance?

20. Explain what a fallacy of unwarranted assumption is, and offer an example of one.

Further Reading
Russell, Bertrand. 1912. “The Value of Philosophy.” In The Problems of Philosophy, 237–250. London: Williams
and Norgate. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Problems_of_Philosophy/
170 5 • Further Reading

F3CABBiwm6wC?hl=en&gbpv=1

Access for free at openstax.org

Metaphysics 6

FIGURE 6.1 Being and Becoming. The acorn and the oak allow us to frame several metaphysical questions. Are
there first causes? Do things have essences? Do things develop along a predetermined path? (credit: “Acorn” by
Shaun Fisher/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

CHAPTER OUTLINE
6.1 Substance
6.2 Self and Identity
6.3 Cosmology and the Existence of God
6.4 Free Will

INTRODUCTION Defining metaphysics is difficult. On a summary level, one possible definition is that
metaphysics is the field of philosophy concerned with identifying that which is real. You may wonder why any
reasonable person would invest time pursuing an answer to that which, at first glance, seems obvious. But on
deeper inspection of the world around you, it can be challenging to identify what is real.

Consider the acorn. As you probably learned through life science, an acorn is destined to become an oak. If you
were to look at the acorn and compare it to the oak, you would see two radically different things. How can a
thing change and remain the same thing?

Aristotle offers insight into how the acorn and the oak represent change but within the same being. Within
Aristotle’s thinking, each being has a specific end or purpose. As telos is Greek for “end” (end as target or goal),
this view is known as teleological. In addition, each being is described as having a specific function (ergon) by
172 6 • Metaphysics

which that being seeks the proper end.

In the case of an oak tree, the oak tree works from its acorn to the fullness of the oak. Aristotle describes the
becoming as movement from a state of potentiality to actuality. You might say that which is most real
concerning the oak stands beneath the movement from acorn to oak. The movement from potentiality toward
actuality is one method to make sense of change while maintaining a constant or underlying sense of true
being.

As you will discover, the topic of metaphysics is far-reaching and broaches many questions.

• What is real?
• What is being?
• Is there a purpose to our being?
• What is the self?
• Is there a God?
• Do human beings (however defined) possess free will?

Metaphysical questions tend not to be resting points but starting points. This chapter begins to explore many
simple yet interrelated questions as part of seeking the real.

FIGURE 6.2 The term metaphysics comes from Aristotle’s book of the same name. The opening sentence translates
as “All men by nature desire to know.” Our desire to lay bare the deepest and most discrete understanding of reality
is at the heart of metaphysics. (credit: “Aristotle: Metaphysica, first page in Immanuel Bekker’s edition, 1837.” by
Wikimedia, Public Doman)

Access for free at openstax.org

 6.1 • Substance 173

6.1 Substance
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Identify what constitutes a substance.
• Articulate the difference between monism and pluralism.
• Contrast Aristotle’s and Plato’s views of form and substance.
• Compare theories of substance in Greek and Indian philosophy.

The Latin term substantia, translated as substance, is often used to refer to the basic reality of a thing. The
notion that reason could lay bare the secrets of the cosmos if properly applied was widespread throughout the
ancient world. One of the early questions that philosophers in ancient Greece and India approached was that of
fundamentality, or simply, What is the foundation of reality? What is the independent base for that which we
consider to be real?

Fundamentality: The One and the Many

A reasonable starting point in the philosophical pursuit of the “really real” is to consider just how many real
things exist. Is the real one, or is it many? You are probably puzzled by the question. Every day, you see and
experience a plurality of beings. Common sense suggests that if you were to take a moment to observe the
many different and ostensibly non-related things in your presence right now, you would most likely support a
pluralistic view (there are many real things). Yet the framing of the real as one (the view known as monism) is
also compelling.

Monism

One of the earliest metaphysical positions taken was monism. At its simplest form, monism is the belief that
the most discrete or fundamental reality (i.e., “the really real”) is singular. This idea was held by the so-called
pre-Socratics, a disparate group of philosophers who lived somewhat near each other and were born prior to
Socrates but whose metaphysical positions, even if monistic, were wildly different. For example, they had
different views of what the one “really real” is (see Table 6.1).

Date Philosopher The One Is:

c. 624–547 BCE Thales of Miletus water

c. 610–546 BCE Anaximander of Miletus the unbounded

c. 586–526 BCE Anaximenes air

c. 535–475 BCE Heraclitus of Ephesus fire

c. 515–445 BCE Parmenides of Elea Being

TABLE 6.1 Pre-Socratic Monists

It is tempting to look at the list of monistic answers and dismiss the thought quickly. Water, for example, is not
the “really real.” Yet, as we see below, philosophers such as Thales of Miletus made a consistent, rational
argument for monism. In his case, he argued in support of water as the fundamental substance.

Thales of Miletus

Studying the philosophers who predate Socrates is challenging, as in many cases their primary works did not
survive. But there are transcribed fragments and the characterization of other philosophers from which to gain
insights. There are also historians to give glimpses of what these thinkers posited. In the case of Thales,
174 6 • Metaphysics

Aristotle is a useful source. Aristotle noted, “Thales, the founder of this school of philosophy, says the
permanent entity is water (which is why he also propounded that the earth floats on water)” (Metaphysics
983b20). Why would anyone draw this conclusion? Aristotle suggested that Thales’s belief reflected the
observations that all things are nourished through water, that heat itself is generated through the absence or
removal of water, and that all things require water to live. The observations inherent to the position itself are
understandable. How long can a person live without water? What happens to plants during drought? Water is,
indeed, essential for any being.

The intellectual assumptions supporting the position are intriguing. First, Thales is working from the
assumption that all things that are must be conceived as having only a material principle. Given how these
thinkers made sense of the world around them, assuming only material causes (e.g. fire, water, air, etc.) is
understandable. A second assumption informing the position is the notion that being either is or it is not. For
these thinkers, there is no becoming (for example, change or evolving) from one fundamental substance, such
as water, to another, such as fire. There is no state somewhere in between being and not being. By extension,
being (once it is) cannot be generated or destroyed. Thus, primary being (the most real of reals) must be and
must not be capable of not being (Aristotle, Metaphysics 983b).

Thales’s account of water as the most real is internally consistent, meaning the argument uses the evidence
presented in such a way as to avoid asserting contradictory and potentially competing claims. However, his
approach itself prioritizes reason over the overwhelming empirical evidence. As a result, he draws a
conclusion that denies the reality of change, motion, and plurality that is experienced so readily.

Pluralism

Pluralism asserts that fundamental reality consists of many types of being. The pluralists viewed the “really
real” as “many,” but like the pre-Socratic monists, they did not hold a uniform view concerning how to define
the many or basic realities (see Table 6.2).

Date Philosopher The Many Is:

c. 500–428 BCE Anaxagoras moving bits of matter

c. 494–434 BCE Empedocles fire, air, water, earth

c. 5th century BCE Leucippus atoms (indivisible eternal bits of matter)

c. 460–370 BCE Democritus atoms (indivisible eternal bits of matter)

TABLE 6.2 Pre-Socratic Pluralists

One of the views that resonates with the contemporary reader is that of atomism. Note that the atomism
alluded to here is different from what is referred to as atomic theory. The atom within the thinking of
Leucippus and Democritus refers to atomos as meaning “uncuttable” or “that which cannot be divided.” The
plurality we experience is the result of atoms in motion. As these indivisible and eternal bits of true being
collide and either join or separate, the beings we experience are formed. But underneath or supporting the
being we experience is that being which is eternal and unchanging—in other words, the atoms. Atoms are the
true being, and the visible objects are not!

Although it might appear that they have broken all philosophical ties with the monists, both the monists and
pluralists agreed that true being was eternal. Anything real stayed as it was. Change happened to things that
were not real. This assertion, however, leads to the unsatisfactory conclusion that neither the acorn nor the
oak is real.

Access for free at openstax.org

 6.1 • Substance 175

Atomism in Indian Philosophy

Indian atomism provides for foundational immutable substances while going further toward accounting for
change and explaining the transformation of the acorn into the oak. One of the earliest of all atomic models
was pioneered in the sixth centurty BCE by a philosopher named Acharya Kanad. According to legend, he was
inspired by watching pilgrims scatter rice and grains at a temple. As he began to examine the rice, he realized
that the grains, left alone, were without value. But once the grains were assembled into a meal, the collection of
“anu” (atom) made a meal. So too were the beings we observe collections of indivisible particles.

Another tradition, the Nyāya-VaiśeṢika, proposed an atomic theory built upon two elements: 1) The presence
of change within things or wholes, and 2) The doctrine of five elements (pañca mahābhūtas). Unlike the Greek
atomistic view explored earlier, each atom was thought to have a specific attribute. As noted by Chatterjee
(2017), “An earth atom has odour, a water atom taste, a fire atom colour and an air atom has touch as specific
attribute.”

The reasoning supporting the atomistic views described above is a priori. Using an appeal to reason (and not
experience), it was asserted that all things were composed of parts, and therefore it was necessary to assert
that all things were reducible to eternal, spherical, and indivisible building blocks. The potential of an infinite
regress (anavasthā) suggested that parts could always be divided into smaller parts. However, reason dictated
that there must be a logical starting point at which no smaller part could be admitted (Chatterjee, 2017).

Unlike the random bumping and grinding used by Democritus to explain how atoms combined to form wholes,
the Nyāya-VaiśeṢika framework explained composition through the joining of similar atomic types to first
form a dyad (dyaṇuka) and then a triad (tryaṇuka). Triads joined in varying permutations in order to build the
objects, or “wholes,” we experience.

Ontological Perspectives on Substance

Up until now, this chapter has examined substance from a materialistic perspective—the concrete substances
(water, fire, atoms) that make up the physical world that we see around us. As such, the discussion has been
located squarely within a physicalism, an approach that equates the real world with the physical world. The
study of existence, of being, of what is real—a discipline known as ontology—is broader. Ontos is the Greek
participle from the verb “to be” and means “being.” What qualifies as being? How should we categorize being?

Naturalism

Naturalism, in its simplest form, is the view that meaningful inquiry includes only the physical and the laws
governing physical entities and rejects the priority placed on reason assumed within metaphysics. For
example, naturalism asserts that the inventory of beings allowed should include beings that are found within
the physical realm. If we can see a thing or if we can test a thing within a laboratory environment, then a
naturalist would include the being within their inventory. Naturalists also weed out the assumptions, theories,
and questions that are introduced but are not capable of empirical proof.
176 6 • Metaphysics

FIGURE 6.3 Aristotle initiated the classification of living things that continues today. (attribution: Copyright Rice
University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)

The debate between supernaturalism (that accepts the existence of beings beyond or above our natural realm)
and naturalism is as old as philosophical inquiry itself. But the tension became particularly relevant during the
modern period. During modernity, scholars made advances across many disciplines based upon a turn to a
scientific method and a rejection of a priori reasoning.

CONNECTIONS
The chapter on logic and reasoning covers the topic of logic in greater detail.

The Allegory of the Cave

In Book VII of The Republic, Plato offered his allegory of the cave, which depicts prisoners who have mistaken
shadows cast on the wall of the cave for real beings and therefore have mistaken illusion for truth. The
prisoners have been imprisoned throughout their lives. They are chained in place and have been positioned so
that they can only see shadows that are cast upon the wall in front of them. They have come to treat the
shadows not as the reflections that they are, but as something real. In an unexpected plot twist, one prisoner
escapes and reaches the cave entrance. There, for the first time, he sees the sun—the true source of light
(knowledge). After adjusting to the overpowering light emanating from the sun, the prisoner realizes that a fire
was causing objects to cast shadows on the cave wall. The shadows cast by the fire within the cave were

Access for free at openstax.org

 6.1 • Substance 177

reflections. He realized that the shadows are not actual being or truth—they were merely fading facsimiles of
reality. The escaped prisoner, freed from the chains of his earlier captivity (metaphorically speaking),
understands the true nature of being and truth. He returns to the cave to “free” his fellow captives, but his
claim is rejected by those in chains.

FIGURE 6.4 The Allegory of the Cave (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)

Plato’s Notion of Substance and Form

The prisoners were mistaking shadows for that which was real. But shadows do not last. As soon as the source
of light fades, the shadows too disappear. If we want to identify the really real, Plato argued, we need to go
beyond mere shadows and try to find those beings whose reality is not temporary. The idea or form of a thing,
unlike the material “shadow,” was not subject to atrophy and change.

The Latin term substantia, translated as “substance,” describes the basic reality or essence of a thing that
supports or stands under features that are incidental to the substance itself. While the so-called incidental
features (e.g., quantity, time, place, etc.) can change, the essence of the entity endures. To account for the
fundamental whatness of a thing, Plato posited an unchanging form or idea as the underlying and unchanging
substance. As all things within a person’s reality are subject to change, Plato reasoned that the forms or
unchanging basic realities concerning all things must not be located within this world. He therefore posited a
realm in which change did not occur.

There is an intuitive appeal to Plato’s accounting of the real to forms. How else could we explain our ability to
recognize a type of being given the sheer number of differences we will observe in the instances of a thing? We
can make sense of dog, for example, because beyond the differences found among spaniels, poodles, and
retrievers, there is a form of dog that accounts for knowing dog and being as dog.

Aristotle on Matter and Form

Aristotle, a student of Plato, disagreed with his teacher. If forms did exist, he challenged, then how could forms
influence things? How could an immaterial form–which lacks matter—cause change to material entities?

In addition, what about concepts that are not easily reducible to a simple meaning or idea? Aristotle noted that
“good was said in many ways” (Ethics 1096a–b as found in Adamson 2016, 232). The reduction to a single form
to identify the whatness for something works when the concept is simple but does not work when a wide-
ranging concept (such as “the good”) is considered. Aristotle agreed with the approach of isolating dogness as
the essence, but through the study of specific instances or particulars. He encouraged natural observation of
the entity in question and introduced the categories of species and genera.

Unlike Plato, Aristotle does not posit an otherworldly form or collection of forms. In his middle and later works,
178 6 • Metaphysics

Aristotle explained substance through a composite of matter and form. Form, much like an idea a sculptor has
in mind, is the unchanging purpose or whatness informing each particular or individual instance. In this case
of a sculpture, the sculptor’s vision or idea was referred to as the formal cause. The marble would be the
material cause. The ability and artistic skill of the sculptor was termed the efficient cause. The final cause
reflected the purpose of the being, or the reason why the sculpture was made in the first place.

The idea of substance being a composite of form within matter became known as hylomorphism. The Greek
word hyle translates as “wood.” Here wood is figurative, a symbol of basic building material that is shaped by
the form within a particular instance. The form does not reside in the Platonic heavens but, through purpose
and efficiency, moves a particular thing from its beginning state (potentiality) along a continuum toward its
final goal (actuality). The acorn is driven by its form and purpose to become the mighty oak. The movement
from potentiality to actuality requires material and the efficient (proper) application of these materials such
that the acorn can become!

FIGURE 6.5 School of Athens (credit: modification of work “The School of Athens by Raphael” by Bradley Weber/
Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

The attitudes of Plato and Aristotle are reflected in Figure 6.5. The School of Athens was discussed in the
introduction to philosophy chapter. This section details the interaction between the two central characters in
the oil-on-canvas painting. Plato is the subject displayed to the left of center, and Aristotle is the subject
depicted to the right of center. Plato’s gesture toward the heavens with his right hand was the artist’s way of
recognizing Plato’s theory of forms. For Plato, forms were immutable and the ultimate reality. Forms were
supposed to exist outside of our earthly realm as the things we observe are subject to change. Aristotle’s
gesture with his right hand was the artist’s representation of Aristotle’s stressing of the form embedded within
particular matter. The ultimate reality was supposed to be within each instance of matter observed. The
material components were subject to change, but the form was not.

What do you think? The crucial difference introduced at this historical point was the emphasis placed upon
particulars—individual instances of an entity—by Aristotle. While Plato stressed forms and asserted that there
could be no individual instance without the form, Aristotle stressed particulars and asserted that without
individual instances, there could be no knowledge of the form. Whereas Plato holds that beauty itself causes
the beauty we see in flowers or faces, Aristotle asserts that there is no such thing as beauty without beautiful
things, such as flowers and faces (Adamson, 2016, p. 231).

PODCAST
Listen to the podcast “Aristotle on Substance (https://openstax.org/r/aristotle-substance)” in the series The
History of Philosophy without Any Gaps.

Access for free at openstax.org

 6.2 • Self and Identity 179

6.2 Self and Identity

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Apply the dilemma of persistence to self and identity.
• Outline Western and Eastern theological views of self.
• Describe secular views of the self.
• Describe the mind-body problem.

Today, some might think that atomism and Aristotle’s teleological view have evolved into a theory of cells that
resolves the acorn-oak tree identity problem. The purpose, or ergon, of both the acorn and the oak tree are
present in the zygote, the cell that forms when male and female sex cells combine. This zygote cell contains the
genetic material, or the instructions, for how the organism will develop to carry out its intended purpose.

But not all identity problems are so easily solved today. What if the author of this chapter lived in a house as a
child, and years later, after traveling in the highly glamorous life that comes with being a philosopher, returned
to find the house had burned down and been rebuilt exactly as it had been. Is it the same home? The generic
questions that center on how we should understand the tension between identity and persistence include:

• Can a thing change without losing its identity?

• If so, how much change can occur without a loss of identity for the thing itself?

This section begins to broach these questions of identity and self.

FIGURE 6.6 As we age, the cells in our body continually die and are replaced, and our appearance can change a
great deal, particularly in childhood. In what way can we be said to be the same being as we were 10 or 20 years
ago? This is a perennial philosophical question. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0
license)
180 6 • Metaphysics

The Ship of Theseus

Consider the following thought experiment. Imagine a wooden ship owned by the hero Theseus. Within
months of launching, the need to replace decking would be evident. The salt content of sea water is highly
corrosive. Accidents can also happen. Within a common version of the thought experiment, the span of one
thousand years is supposed. Throughout the span, it is supposed that the entire decking and wooden content
of the ship will have been replaced. The name of the ship remains constant. But given the complete change of
materials over the assumed time span, in what sense can we assert that the ship is the same ship? We are
tempted to conceptualize identity in terms of persistence, but the Ship of Theseus challenges the commonly
held intuition regarding how to make sense of identity.

Similarly, as our bodies develop from zygote to adult, cells die and are replaced using new building materials
we obtain though food, water, and our environment. Given this, are we the same being as we were 10 or 20
years ago? How can we identify what defines ourselves? What is our essence? This section examines answers
proposed by secular and religious systems of belief.

WRITE LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Watch the video “Metaphysics: Ship of Theseus (https://openstax.org/r/ship-of-theseus)” in the series Wi-Phi
Philosophy. You will find five possible solutions for making sense of the thought experiment. Pick one solution and
explain why the chosen solution is the most salient. Can you explain how the strengths outweigh the stated
objections—without ignoring the objections?

Judeo-Christian Views of Self

The common view concerning identity in Judeo-Christian as well as other spiritual traditions is that the self is
a soul. In Western thought, the origin of this view can be traced to Plato and his theory of forms. This soul as
the real self solves the ship of Theseus dilemma, as the soul continuously exists from zygote or infant and is
not replaced by basic building materials. The soul provides permanence and even persists into the afterlife.

Much of the Christian perspective on soul and identity rested on Aristotle’s theory of being, as a result of the
work of St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas, a medieval philosopher, followed the Aristotelian composite of form and
matter but modified the concept to fit within a Christianized cosmology. Drawing upon portions of Aristotle’s
works reintroduced to the West as a result of the Crusades, Aquinas offered an alternative philosophical model
to the largely Platonic Christian view that was dominant in his day. From an intellectual historical perspective,
the reintroduction of the Aristotelian perspective into Western thought owes much to the thought of Aquinas.

In Being and Essence, Aquinas noted that there was a type of existence that was necessary and uncaused and a
type of being that was contingent and was therefore dependent upon the former to be brought into existence.
While the concept of a first cause or unmoved mover was present within Aristotle’s works, Aquinas identified
the Christian idea of God as the “unmoved mover.” God, as necessary being, was understood as the cause of
contingent being. God, as the unmoved mover, as the essence from which other contingent beings derived
existence, also determined the nature and purpose driving all contingent beings. In addition, God was
conceived of as a being beyond change, as perfection realized. Using Aristotelian terms, we could say that God
as Being lacked potentiality and was best thought of as that being that attained complete actuality or
perfection—in other words, necessary being.

God, as the ultimate Good and Truth, will typically be understood as assigning purpose to the self. The
cosmology involved is typically teleological—in other words, there is a design and order and ultimately an end
to the story (the eschaton). Members of this tradition will assert that the Divine is personal and caring and that
God has entered the narrative of our history to realize God’s purpose through humanity. With some doctrinal
exception, if the self lives the good life (a life according to God’s will), then the possibility of sharing eternity

Access for free at openstax.org

 6.2 • Self and Identity 181

with the Divine is promised.

THINK LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Watch this discussion with Timothy Pawl on the question of eternal life, part of the PBS series Closer to the Truth,
“Imagining Eternal Life (https://openstax.org/r/imagining-eternal-life)”.

Is eternal life an appealing prospect? If change is not possible within heaven, then heaven (the final resting place for
immortal souls) should be outside of time. What exactly would existence within an eternal now be like? In the video,
Pawl claimed that time has to be present within eternity. He argued that there must be movement from potentiality
to actuality. How can that happen in an eternity?

Hindu and Buddhist Views of Self

Within Hindu traditions, atman is the term associated with the self. The term, with its roots in ancient
Sanskrit, is typically translated as the eternal self, spirit, essence, soul, and breath (Rudy, 2019). Western faith
traditions speak of an individual soul and its movement toward the Divine. That is, a strong principle of
individuation is applied to the soul. A soul is born, and from that time forward, the soul is eternal. Hinduism,
on the other hand, frames atman as eternal; atman has always been. Although atman is eternal, atman is
reincarnated. The spiritual goal is to “know atman” such that liberation from reincarnation (moksha) occurs.

Brahman

Hindu traditions vary in the meaning of brahman. Some will speak of a force supporting all things, while other
traditions might invoke specific deities as manifestations of brahman. Escaping the cycle of reincarnation
requires the individual to realize that atman is brahman and to live well or in accordance with dharma,
observing the code of conduct as prescribed by scripture, and karma, actions and deeds. Union of the atman
with brahman can be reach though yoga, meditation, rituals, and other practices.

FIGURE 6.7 The Upanishads are Hindu scripture. (credit: “upanishads” by Dr Umm/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)
182 6 • Metaphysics

Buddha rejected the concept of brahman and proposed an alternate view of the world and the path to
liberation. The next sections consider the interaction between the concepts of Atman (the self) and Brahman
(reality).

The Doctrine of Dependent Origination

Buddhist philosophy rejects the concept of an eternal soul. The doctrine of dependent origination, a central
tenet within Buddhism, is built on the claim that there is a causal link between events in the past, the present,
and the future. What we did in the past is part of what happened previously and is part of what will be.

The doctrine of dependent origination (also known as interdependent arising) is the starting point for
Buddhist cosmology. The doctrine here asserts that not only are all people joined, but all phenomena are
joined with all other phenomena. All things are caused by all other things, and in turn, all things are dependent
upon other things. Being is a nexus of interdependencies. There is no first cause or prime mover in this
system. There is no self—at least in the Western sense of self—in this system (O’Brien 2019a).

The Buddhist Doctrine of No Self (Anatman)

One of many distinct features of Buddhism is the notion of anatman as the denial of the self. What is being
denied here is the sense of self expressed through metaphysical terms such as substance or universal being.
Western traditions want to assert an autonomous being who is strongly individuated from other beings. Within
Buddhism, the “me” is ephemeral.

PODCAST
Listen to the podcast “Graham Priest on Buddhism and Philosophy (https://openstax.org/r/buddhism-and-
philosophy)” in the series Philosophy Bites.

Suffering and Liberation

Within Buddhism, there are four noble truths that are used to guide the self toward liberation. An often-quoted
sentiment from Buddhism is the first of the four noble truths. The first noble truth states that “life is suffering”
(dukkha).

But there are different types of suffering that need to be addressed in order to understand more fully how
suffering is being used here. The first meaning (dukkha-dukkha) is commensurate with the ordinary use of
suffering as pain. This sort of suffering can be experienced physically and/or emotionally. A metaphysical
sense of dukkha is viparinama-dukkha. Suffering in this sense relates to the impermanence of all objects. It is
our tendency to impose permanence upon that which by nature is not, or our craving for ontological
persistence, that best captures this sense of dukkha. Finally, there is samkhara-dukkha, or suffering brought
about through the interdependency of all things.

Building on an understanding of “suffering” informed only by the first sense, some characterize Buddhism as
“life is suffering; suffering is caused by greed; suffering ends when we stop being greedy; the way to do that is
to follow something called the Eightfold Path” (O’Brien 2019b). A more accurate understanding of dukkha
within this context must include all three senses of suffering.

The second of the noble truths is that the cause of suffering is our thirst or craving (tanha) for things that lack
the ability to satisfy our craving. We attach our self to material things, concepts, ideas, and so on. This
attachment, although born of a desire to fulfill our internal cravings, only heightens the craving. The problem
is that attachment separates the self from the other. Through our attachments, we lose sight of the
impermanence not only of the self but of all things.

The third noble truth teaches that the way to awakening (nirvana) is through a letting go of the cravings.
Letting go of the cravings entails the cessation of suffering (dukkha).

Access for free at openstax.org

 6.2 • Self and Identity 183

The fourth truth is founded in the realization that living a good life requires doing, not just thinking. By living
in accordance with the Eightfold Path, a person may live such that “every action of body, mind, and speech” are
geared toward the promotion of dharma.

VIDEO
Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths
Part of the BBC Radio 4 series A History of Ideas, this clip is narrated by Steven Fry and scripted by Nigel
Warburton.

Click to view content (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/6-2-self-and-identity)

The Five Aggregates

How might the self (atman) experience the world and follow a path toward liberation? Buddhist philosophy
posits five aggregates (skandhas), which are the thoughtful and iterative processes, through which the self
interacts with the world.

1. Form (rupa): the aggregate of matter, or the body.

2. Sensation (vedana): emotional and physical feelings.
3. Perception (samjna): thinking, the processing of sense data; “knowledge that puts together.”
4. Mental formation (samskara): how thoughts are processed into habits, predispositions, moods, volitions,
biases, interests, etc. The fourth skandhas is related to karma, as much of our actions flow from these
elements.
5. Consciousness (vijnana): awareness and sensitivity concerning a thing that does not include
conceptualization.

Although the self uses the aggregates, the self is not thought of as a static and enduring substance underlying
the processes. These aggregates are collections that are very much subject to change in an interdependent
world.

Secular Notions of Self

In theology, continuity of the self is achieved through the soul. Secular scholars reject this idea, defining self in
different ways, some of which are explored in the next sections.

Bundle Theory

One of the first and most influential scholars in the Western tradition to propose a secular concept of self was
Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776). Hume formed his thoughts in response to empiricist thinkers’
views on substance and knowledge. British philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) offered a definition of
substance in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In Book XXIII, Locke described substance as “a
something, I know not what.” He asserted that although we cannot know exactly what substance is, we can
reason from experience that there must be a substance “standing under or upholding” the qualities that exist
within a thing itself. The meaning of substance is taken from the Latin substantia, or “that which supports.”

If we return to the acorn and oak example, the reality of what it means to be an oak is rooted in the ultimate
reality of what it means to be an oak tree. The ultimate reality, like the oak’s root system, stands beneath every
particular instance of an oak tree. While not every tree is exactly the same, all oak trees do share a something,
a shared whatness, that makes an oak an oak. Philosophers call this whatness that is shared among oaks a
substance.

Arguments against a static and enduring substance ensued. David Hume’s answer to the related question of
“What is the self?” illustrates how a singular thing may not require an equally singular substance. According to
Hume, the self was not a Platonic form or an Aristotelian composite of matter and form. Hume articulated the
self as a changing bundle of perceptions. In his Treatise of Human Nature (Book 1, Part IV), Hume described
184 6 • Metaphysics

the self as “a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with inconceivable
rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement.”

Hume noted that what has been mistaken for a static and enduring self was nothing more than a constantly
changing set of impressions that were tied together through their resemblance to one another, the order or
predictable pattern (succession) of the impressions, and the appearance of causation lent through the
resemblance and succession. The continuity we experience was not due to an enduring self but due to the
mind’s ability to act as a sort of theater: “The mind is a kind of theatre, where several perceptions successively
make their appearance; pass, re-pass, glide away, and mingle in an infinite variety of postures and situations”
(Hume 1739, 252).

FIGURE 6.8 David Hume (1711–1776) took British empiricism to its logical extreme. Immanuel Kant credited
Hume as awakening him from his “dogmatic slumbers.” (credit: “M. David Hume, 1764” by Simon Charles Miger
after Charles-Nicolas Cochin II/National Gallery of Art, Public Domain)

Which theories of self—and substance—should we accept? The Greek theories of substance and the theological
theories of a soul offer advantages. Substance allows us to explain what we observe. For example, an apple,
through its substance, allows us to make sense of the qualities of color, taste, the nearness of the object, etc.
Without a substance, it could be objected that the qualities are merely unintelligible and unrelated qualities
without a reference frame. But bundle theory allows us to make sense of a thing without presupposing a
mythical form, or “something I know not what!” Yet, without the mythical form of a soul, how do we explain our
own identities?

Anthropological Views

Anthropological views of the self question the cultural and social constructs upon which views of the self are
erected. For example, within Western thought, it is supposed that the self is distinct from the “other.” In fact,
throughout this section, we have assumed the need for a separate and distinct self and have used a principle of
continuity based on the assumption that a self must persist over time. Yet, non-Western cultures blur or negate
this distinction. The African notion of ubuntu, for example, posits a humanity that cannot be divided. The
Nguni proverb that best describes this concept is “umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu” sometimes translated as “a

Access for free at openstax.org

 6.2 • Self and Identity 185

person is a person through other persons” (Gade 2011). The word ubuntu is from the Zulu language, but
cultures from southern Africa to Tanzania, Kenya, and Democratic Republic of the Congo all have words for
this concept. Anthropological approaches attempt to make clear how the self and the culture share in making
meaning.

The Mind as Self

Many philosophers, Western and non-Western, have equated the self to the mind. But what is the mind? A
monist response is the mind is the brain. Yet, if the mind is the brain, a purely biological entity, then how do we
explain consciousness? Moreover, if we take the position that the mind is immaterial but the body is material,
we are left with the question of how two very different types of things can causally affect the other. The
question of “How do the two nonidentical and dissimilar entities experience a causal relationship?” is known
as the mind-body problem. This section explores some alternative philosophical responses to these questions.

Physicalism

Reducing the mind to the brain seems intuitive given advances in neuroscience and other related sciences that
deepen our understanding of cognition. As a doctrine, physicalism is committed to the assumption that
everything is physical. Exactly how to define the physical is a matter of contention. Driving this view is the
assertion that nothing that is nonphysical has physical effects.

THINK LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Listen to the podcast “David Papineau on Physicalism (https://openstax.org/r/david-papineau)” in the series
Philosophy Bites.

Focus on the thought experiment concerning what Mary knows. Here is a summary of the thought experiment:

Mary is a scientist and specializes in the neurophysiology of color. Strangely, her world has black, white, and shades
of gray but lacks color (weird, but go with it!). Due to her expertise, she knows every physical fact concerning colors.
What if Mary found herself in a room in which color as we experience it is present? Would she learn anything? A
physicalist must respond “no”! Do you agree? How would you respond?

John Locke and Identity

In place of the biological, Locke defined identity as the continuity lent through what we refer to as
consciousness. His approach is often referred to as the psychological continuity approach, as our memories
and our ability to reflect upon our memories constitute identity for Locke. In his Essay on Human
Understanding, Locke (as cited by Gordon-Roth 2019) observed, “We must consider what Person stands for . . .
which, I think, is a thinking intelligent Being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider it self as itself,
the same thinking thing in different times and places.” He offered a thought experiment to illustrate his point.
Imagine a prince and cobbler whose memories (we might say consciousness) were swapped. The notion is far-
fetched, but if this were to happen, we would assert that the prince was now the cobbler and the cobbler was
now the prince. Therefore, what individuates us cannot be the body (or the biological).

VIDEO
John Locke on Personal Identity
Part of the BBC Radio 4 series A History of Ideas, this clip is narrated by Gillian Anderson and scripted by Nigel
Warburton.

Click to view content (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/6-2-self-and-identity)

186 6 • Metaphysics

The Problem of Consciousness

Christof Koch (2018) has said that “consciousness is everything you experience.” Koch offered examples, such
as “a tune stuck in your head,” the “throbbing pain from a toothache,” and “a parent’s love for a child” to
illustrate the experience of consciousness. Our first-person experiences are what we think of intuitively when
we try to describe what consciousness is. If we were to focus on the throbbing pain of a toothache as listed
above, we can see that there is the experiencing of the toothache. Curiously, there is also the experiencing of
the experiencing of the toothache. Introspection and theorizing built upon first-person inspections affords
vivid and moving accounts of the things experienced, referred to as qualia.

An optimal accounting of consciousness, however, should not only explain what consciousness is but should
also offer an explanation concerning how consciousness came to be and why consciousness is present. What
difference or differences does consciousness introduce?

PODCAST
Listen to the podcast “Ted Honderich on What It Is to Be Conscious (https://openstax.org/r/what-it-is-to-be-
conscious),” in the series Philosophy Bites.

Rene Descartes and Dualism

Dualism, as the name suggests, attempts to account for the mind through the introduction of two entities. The
dualist split was addressed earlier in the discussion of substance. Plato argued for the reality of immaterial
forms but admitted another type of thing—the material. Aristotle disagreed with his teacher Plato and insisted
on the location of the immaterial within the material realm. How might the mind and consciousness be
explained through dualism?

VIDEO
Mind Body Dualism
Click to view content (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/6-2-self-and-identity)

A substance dualist, in reference to the mind problem, asserts that there are two fundamental and irreducible
realities that are needed to fully explain the self. The mind is nonidentical to the body, and the body is
nonidentical to the mind. The French philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650) offered a very influential
version of substance dualism in his 1641 work Meditations on First Philosophy. In that work, Descartes
referred to the mind as a thinking thing (res cogitans) and the body as an extended nonthinking thing (res
extensa). Descartes associated identity with the thinking thing. He introduced a model in which the self and
the mind were eternal.

Access for free at openstax.org

 6.3 • Cosmology and the Existence of God 187

FIGURE 6.9 Alas Poor Yorick. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the character of Hamlet holds the skull of a court jester, his
departed childhood companion, and laments his passing. Hamlet contemplates the fleetingness of existence
through the moment. But what exactly is it that experiences existence? What is the self? (credit: “Hamlet with
Yorick’s skull” by Henry Courtney Selous/Wikimedia, Public Domain)

Behaviorism

There is a response that rejects the idea of an independent mind. Within this approach, what is important is
not mental states or the existence of a mind as a sort of central processor, but activity that can be translated
into statements concerning observable behavior (Palmer 2016, 122). As within most philosophical
perspectives, there are many different “takes” on the most correct understanding. Behaviorism is no
exception. The “hard” behaviorist asserts that there are no mental states. You might consider this perspective
the purist or “die-hard” perspective. The “soft” behaviorist, the moderate position, does not deny the
possibility of minds and mental events but believes that theorizing concerning human activity should be based
on behavior.

Before dismissing the view, pause and consider the plausibility of the position. Do we ever really know
another’s mind? There is some validity to the notion that we ought to rely on behavior when trying to know or
to make sense of the “other.” But if you have a toothache, and you experience myself being aware of the qualia
associated with a toothache (e.g., pain, swelling, irritability, etc.), are these sensations more than activities?
What of the experience that accompanies the experience?

6.3 Cosmology and the Existence of God

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Describe teleological and moral arguments for the existence of God.
• Outline Hindu cosmology and arguments for and against the divine.
• Explain Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God.
• Articulate the distinction between the logical and evidential problems of evil.
188 6 • Metaphysics

Another major question in metaphysics relates to cosmology. Cosmology is the study of how reality is ordered.
How can we account for the ordering, built upon many different elements such as causation, contingency,
motion, and change, that we experience within our reality? The primary focus of cosmological arguments will
be on proving a logically necessary first cause to explain the order observed. As discussed in earlier sections,
for millennia, peoples have equated the idea of a first mover or cause with the divine that exists in another
realm. This section cosmological arguments for the existence of God as well as how philosophers have
reconciled the existence of God with the presence of evil in the world.

Teleological Arguments for God

Teleological arguments examine the inherent design within reality and attempt to infer the existence of an
entity responsible for the design observed. Teleological arguments consider the level of design found in living
organisms, the order displayed on a cosmological scale, and even how the presence of order in general is
significant.

Aquinas’s Design Argument

Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways is known as a teleological argument for the existence of God from the presence of
design in experience. Here is one possible formulation of Aquinas’s design argument:

1. Things that lack knowledge tend to act toward an end/goal.

2. These things act toward an end either by chance or by design.
A. It is obvious that it is not by chance.
B. Things that lack knowledge act toward an end by design.

3. If a thing is being directed toward an end, it requires direction by some being endowed with intelligence
(e.g. the arrow being directed by the archer).
4. Therefore, some intelligent being exists that directs all natural things toward their end. This being is
known as God.

FIGURE 6.10 Thomas Aquinas proposed a teleological argument for the existence of God, basing God’s existence
on what he viewed as the inherent design within reality. (credit: “Saint Thomas Aquinas, c. 1450” by Rosenwald

Access for free at openstax.org

 6.3 • Cosmology and the Existence of God 189

Collection/National Gallery of Art, Public Domain)

Design Arguments in Biology

Though Aquinas died long ago, his arguments still live on in today’s discourse, exciting passionate argument.
Such is the case with design arguments in biology. William Paley (1743–1805) proposed a teleological
argument, sometimes called the design argument, that there exists so much intricate detail, design, and
purpose in the world that we must suppose a creator. The sophistication and incredible detail we observe in
nature could not have occurred by chance.

Paley employs an analogy between design as found within a watch and design as found within the universe to
advance his position. Suppose you were walking down a beach and you happened to find a watch. Maybe you
were feeling inquisitive, and you opened the watch (it was an old-fashioned pocket watch). You would see all
the gears and coils and springs. Maybe you would wind up the watch and observe the design of the watch at
work. Considering the way that all the mechanical parts worked together toward the end/goal of telling time,
you would be reluctant to say that the watch was not created by a designer.

Now consider another object—say, the complexity of the inner workings of the human eye. If we can suppose a
watchmaker for the watch (due to the design of the watch), we must be able to suppose a designer for the eye.
For that matter, we must suppose a designer for all the things we observe in nature that exhibit order.
Considering the complexity and grandeur of design found in the world around us, the designer must be a
Divine designer. That is, there must be a God.

Often, the design argument is formulated as an induction:

1. In all things we have experienced that exhibit design, we have experienced a designer of that artifact.
2. The universe exhibits order and design.
3. Given #1, the universe must have a designer.
4. The designer of the universe is God.

THINK LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Read “The Fine-Tuning Argument for the Existence of God (https://openstax.org/r/the-existence-of-god)” by
Thomas Metcalf.

Evaluate the arguments and counterarguments presented in this short article. Which are the most cogent, and why?

Moral Arguments for God

Another type of argument for the existence of God is built upon metaethics and normative ethics. Consider
subjective and objective values. Subjective values are those beliefs that guide and drive behaviors deemed
permissible as determined by either an individual or an individual’s culture. Objective values govern morally
permissible and desired outcomes that apply to all moral agents. Moral arguments for the existence of God
depend upon the existence of objective values.

If there are objective values, then the question of “Whence do these values come?” must be raised. One
possible answer used to explain the presence of objective values is that the basis of the values is found in God.
Here is one premise/conclusion form of the argument:

1. If objective values exist, there must be a source for their objective validity.
2. The source of all value (including the validity held by objective values) is God.
3. Objective values do exist.
4. Therefore, God exists.

This argument, however, raises questions. Does moral permissibility (i.e., right and wrong) depend upon God?
190 6 • Metaphysics

Are ethics an expression of the divine, or are ethics better understood separate from divine authority?

WRITE LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Watch “God & Morality: Part 2 (https://openstax.org/r/god-and-morality-part-2)” by Steven Darwall.

Darwall’s argument for the autonomy of ethics may be restated as follows:

1. God knows morality best (1:44).

2. God knows what is best for us (2:12).
3. God has authority over us (2:48).

How does Darwall refute the conclusion? What is the evidence offered, and at what point within the argument is the
evidence introduced? What does his approach suggest about refutational strategies? Can you refute Darwall’s
argument?

As you write, begin by defining the conclusion. Remember that in philosophy, conclusions are not resting points but
mere starting points. Next, present the evidence, both stated and unstated, and explain how it supports the
conclusion.

The Ontological Argument for God

An ontological argument for God was proposed by the Italian philosopher, monk, and Archbishop of
Canterbury Anselm (1033–1109). Anselm lived in a time where belief in a deity was often assumed. He, as a
person and as a prior of an abbey, had experienced and witnessed doubt. To assuage this doubt, Anselm
endeavored to prove the existence of God in such an irrefutable way that even the staunchest of nonbelievers
would be forced, by reason, to admit the existence of a God.

Anselm’s proof is a priori and does not appeal to empirical or sense data as its basis. Much like a proof in
geometry, Anselm is working from a set of “givens” to a set of demonstrable concepts. Anselm begins by
defining the most central term in his argument—God. For the purpose of this argument, Anselm suggests, let
“God” = “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.” He makes two key points:

1. When we speak of God (whether we are asserting God is or God is not), we are contemplating an entity who
can be defined as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.”
2. When we speak of God (either as believer or nonbeliever), we have an intramental understanding of that
concept—in other words, the idea is within our understanding.

Anselm continues by examining the difference between that which exists in the mind and that which exists
both in the mind and outside of the mind. The question is: Is it greater to exist in the mind alone or in the mind
and in reality (or outside of the mind)? Anselm asks you to consider the painter—for example, define which is
greater: the reality of a painting as it exists in the mind of an artist or that same painting existing in the mind of
that same artist and as a physical piece of art. Anselm contends that the painting, existing both within the
mind of the artist and as a real piece of art, is greater than the mere intramental conception of the work.

At this point, a third key point is established:

3. It is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than to exist in the mind alone.
Have you figured out where Anselm is going with this argument?

A. If God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived (established in #1 above);
B. And since it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone (established in #3
above);
C. Then God must exist both in the mind (established in #2 above) and in reality;
D. In short, God must be. God is not merely an intramental concept but an extra-mental reality as well.

Access for free at openstax.org

 6.3 • Cosmology and the Existence of God 191

FIGURE 6.11 Anselm’s proof for the existence of God is structured like a mathematical proof, working from a
definition of the term “God” to the conclusion that God must exist. (credit: “S. Anselme, évêque de Cantorbéry (St.
Anslem, Bishop of Canterbury), April 21st, from Les Images De Tous Les Saincts et Saintes de L'Année (Images of All
of the Saints and Religious Events of the Year)” by Jacques Callot/The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Public Domain)

Hindu Cosmology
One of the primary arguments for the existence of God as found within Hindu traditions is based on
cosmological conditions necessary to explain the reality of karma. As explained in the introduction to
philosophy chapter and earlier in this chapter, karma may be thought of as the causal law that links causes to
effects. Assuming the doctrine of interdependence, karma asserts that if we act in such a way to cause harm to
others, we increase the amount of negativity in nature. We therefore hurt ourself by harming others. As the self
moves through rebirth (samsara), the karmic debt incurred is retained. Note that positive actions also are
retained. The goal is liberation of the soul from the cycle of rebirth.

Maintenance of the Law of Karma

While one can understand karmic causality without an appeal to divinity, how the causal karmic chain is so
well-ordered and capable of realizing just results is not as easily explainable without an appeal to divinity. One
possible presentation of the argument for the existence of God from karma could therefore read as follows:

1. If karma is, there must be some force/entity that accounts for the appropriateness (justice) of the karmic
debt or karmic reward earned.
2. The source responsible for the appropriateness (justice) of the debt or reward earned must be a conscious
agent capable of lending order to all karmic interactions (past, present, and future).
3. Karmic appropriateness (justice) does exist.
4. Therefore, a conscious agent capable of lending order to all karmic interactions (past, present, and future)
must exist.
5. Therefore, God exists.
192 6 • Metaphysics

Physical World as Manifestation of Divine Consciousness

The cosmology built upon the religious doctrines allows for an argument within Hindu thought that joins a
version of the moral argument and the design argument. Unless a divine designer were assumed, the moral
and cosmological fabric assumed within the perspective could not be asserted.

Hindu Arguments Against the Existence of God

One of the primary arguments against the existence of God is found in the Mīmāmsā tradition. This ancient
school suggests that the Vedas were eternal but without authors. The cosmological and teleological evidence as
examined above was deemed inconclusive. The focus of this tradition and its several subtraditions was on
living properly.

Problem of Evil
The problem of evil poses a philosophical challenge to the traditional arguments (in particular the design
argument) because it implies that the design of the cosmos and the designer of the cosmos are flawed. How can
we assert the existence of a caring and benevolent God when there exists so much evil in the world? The glib
answer to this question is to say that human moral agents, not God, are the cause of evil. Some philosophers
reframe the problem of evil as the problem of suffering to place the stress of the question on the reality of
suffering versus moral agency.

The Logical Problem of Evil

David Hume raised arguments not only against the traditional arguments for the existence of God but against
most of the foundational ideas of philosophy. Hume, the great skeptic, starts by proposing that if God knows
about the suffering and would stop it but cannot stop it, God is not omnipotent. If God is able to stop the
suffering and would want to but does not know about it, then God is not omniscient. If God knows about the
suffering and is able to stop it but does not wish to assuage the pain, God is not omnibenevolent. At the very
least, Hume argues, the existence of evil does not justify a belief in a caring Creator.

The Evidential Problem of Evil

The evidential problem considers the reality of suffering and the probability that if an omnibenevolent divine
being existed, then the divine being would not allow such extreme suffering. One of the most formidable
presentations of the argument was formulated by William Rowe:

1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have
prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could,
unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad
or worse.
3. (Therefore) there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. (Rowe 1979, 336)

Western Theistic Responses to the Problem of Evil

Many theists (those who assert the existence of god/s) have argued against both the logical and evidential
formulations of the problem of evil. One of the earliest Christian defenses was authored by Saint Augustine.
Based upon a highly Neo-Platonic methodology and ontology, Augustine argued that as God was
omnibenevolent (all good), God would not introduce evil into our existence. Evil, observed Augustine, was not
real. It was a privation or negation of the good. Evil therefore did not argue against the reality or being of God
but was a reflection for the necessity of God. Here we see the application of a set of working principles and the
stressing of a priori resulting in what could be labeled (prima facie) a counterintuitive result.

An African Perspective on the Problem of Evil

In the above sections, the problem of evil was centered in a conception of a god as all-powerful, all-loving, and

Access for free at openstax.org

 6.4 • Free Will 193

all-knowing. Evil, from this perspective, reflects a god doing evil (we might say reflecting the moral agency of a
god) and thus results in the aforementioned problem—how could a “good” god do evil or perhaps allow evil to
happen? The rich diversity of African thought helps us examine evil and agency from different starting points.
What if, for example, the lifting of the agency (the doing of evil) was removed entirely from the supernatural? In
much of Western thought, God was understood as the creator. Given the philosophical role and responsibilities
that follow from the assignment of “the entity that made all things,” reconciling evil and creation and God as
good becomes a problem. But if we were to remove the concept of God from the creator role, the agency of evil
(and reconciling evil with the creator) is no longer present.

Within the Yoruba-African perspective, the agency of evil is not put upon human agency, as might be expected
in the West, but upon “spiritual beings other than God” (Dasaolu and Oyelakun 2015). These multiple spiritual
beings, known as “Ajogun,” are “scattered around the cosmos” and have specific types of wrongdoing
associated specifically with each being (Dasaolu and Oyelakun 2015). Moving the framework (or cosmology)
upon which goodness and evil is understood results in a significant philosophical shift. The meaning of evil,
instead of being packed with religious or supernatural connotations, has a more down-to-earth sense. Evil is
not so much sin as a destruction of life. It is not an offense against an eternal Creator, but an action conducted
by one human moral agent that harms another human moral agent.

Unlike Augustine’s attempt to explain evil as the negation of good (as not real), the Yoruban metaphysics
asserts the necessity of evil. Our ability to contrast good and evil are required logically so that we can make
sense of both concepts.

6.4 Free Will

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Define free will.
• Explain how determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism are different.

Though the presence of evil in the world suggests that we have free will, the idea of a first mover or an all-
powerful divine being challenges the idea that we might have free will in the material world. Throughout most
of our experiences, it seems as if we are free. When we complete a task, we seem very capable of marking this
experience as different from being free. But what if the sensation of freedom does not demonstrate the
presence of freedom?

Amusement parks often have rides that consist of a car on a track that has safety features forcing the car to
stay within predetermined paths. In most cases, there is an accelerator, a brake, and a steering wheel. Some
rides have strategically placed rubber boundaries guiding the vehicle, while others have a steel post hidden
underneath the car that guides the car by means of a predetermined tract. While “driving” the car, the young
driver feels free to choose the direction. As vivid as the experience for the driver may be, the thrill and
phenomenon does not prove the presence or existence of freedom! Similarly, does the feeling of being free
demonstrate the presence of freedom in our actions?

Defining Freedom
To begin to answer these questions, this section first explores two competing definitions of freedom.

The Ability to Do Otherwise

Perhaps the most intuitive definition of freedom can be expressed as “A moral agent is free if and only if the
moral agent could have done otherwise.” Philosophers refer to this expression as the Principle of Alternative
Possibilities (PAP). A person is typically thought of as performing a free action if that same person could have
taken a different action or decided to take no action. Within many legal systems, a person is not considered
culpable if the action taken was forced.
194 6 • Metaphysics

One objection against the PAP is based on how we define our being. What if we as physical objects are governed
by the laws of nature? We do not set our rate of velocity when diving into a pool, nor are we able to determine
the force of gravity if we choose to enter the water “belly first”! Those outcomes are determined by the laws of
nature. We, as objects, are governed by such forces. Does this mean, like the driver in the ride depicted above,
that we never actually experience alternative possibilities? If so, then the possibility of freedom—a
precondition for responsibility—seems absent.

What about socialization and the conditioning that follows from living in a society? Does the constructed set of
norms and values lessen our ability to do otherwise? Given the external conditioning we all endure, can we
assert that the PAP is a possibility?

The Ability to Do as One Wants

One possible objection to defining freedom through PAP was offered by Harry G. Frankfurt. Frankfurt argued
that freedom was better understood not as the ability to do otherwise but as the ability to do what one wants
(1971). Imagine that a deranged space alien barges into your room and produces a sinister-looking button. You
are informed that the button will annihilate Earth if pressed. The alien laughs manically and demands that you
eat a delicious pizza brought from your favorite pizzeria or the alien will press the button. You can feel and
smell the freshness! In this case, most of us would argue that you are not free to do otherwise. But you could
say that you not only want the pizza, a first-order volition, but given what is at stake, you want to want the
pizza. You could be described as acting freely, as you are satisfying your first- and second-order volitions. You
are free, as you are doing what you want to do.

Libertarianism
Within the free will debate, libertarianism denotes freedom in the metaphysical sense and not in the political
sense. A libertarian believes that actions are free—that is, not caused by external forces. We are free to plot our
course through our actions. Existentialists further argue that our essence is the product of our choices.

FIGURE 6.12 Condemned to Be Free. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) was a leader in the existential movement. He
once characterized the reality of freedom as condemnation, as through the existence of free will, a human being was

Access for free at openstax.org

 6.4 • Free Will 195

therefore responsible for all actions taken. (credit: “Jean Paul Sartre for PIFAL” by Arturo Espinosa/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

Many proponents of the libertarian view assume the definition of freedom inherent to the Principle of
Alternative Possibilities (PAP). We are free if and only if we could have done otherwise at a specific time.

There are many challenges to this assertion. One objection, based on Benjamin Libet’s neuroscience-based
experiments, suggest that many of the actions we perceive as free are, in fact, caused and determined by the
brain.

VIDEO
The Libet Experiment: Is Free Will Just an Illusion?
This video, from the BBC Radio 4 series A History of Ideas, is narrated by Harry Shearer and scripted by Nigel
Warburton.

Click to view content (https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/6-4-free-will)

Determinism
The contrary view to metaphysical libertarianism is determinism. The determinist holds that human moral
agents are not free from external forces. Our actions could not have been otherwise. Thus, action X at time T
must occur.

Causal Closure of the Physical World

One argument used to support determinism is built upon the observation of causality. Baron D’Holbach
(1723–1789), in his System of Nature, observed that we, like all other natural entities, are subject to and
governed by natural laws of the universe. His so-called “hard determinism” posited that all our actions are
outside of our control. Humans cannot escape the cause-and-effect relationships that are part and parcel of
being in the world.

Causal Determinacy of the Past

Another argument used to support determinism is built upon the consideration of past experiences. Perhaps
the simplest way to express the causal force the past holds on future events is to reflect on your first-person
experience. How influential has the past been in shaping the decisions you make in the present? We use
expressions that reflect this causal power—for example, I will not get fooled again, I guess I will have to learn
from my mistakes, etc. What has happened in the past can, in the least, limit the event horizon of the present.

The power of the past is not limited to first-person experience. Our socio-economic status, for example, can be
a powerful force in determining the actions we deem permissible. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once quipped, we
tend to “don the knapsack of custom” without questioning the contents of the knapsack.

Another important distinction when discussing determinism is that of compatibilism. Some determinists will
assume that free will is not compatible with determinism. An incompatibilist position asserts that due to the
nature of freedom and our lack of control concerning our actions, we cannot be held culpable for our actions. A
soft determinist will assume that free will is compatible with determinism. In order to salvage a sense of moral
culpability, an incompatibility might challenge the definition of freedom in terms of the PAP. For example, if
you consider Frankfurt’s framing of freedom of fulfilling higher-order volitions, then even when forced to take
an action, it may have very well been the action you would have chosen if not forced to do so.

William James (1842–1910) offers a view called indeterminism in which the notion is that all events are rigidly
controlled. What if there is the possibility that one small effect might be uncaused somewhere out there in the
grand series of cause-and-effect sequences? Given the possibility that such an uncaused effect might occur,
there is the chance that not all events are falling dominoes or events that must happen. Thus, even in a
deterministic setting, an indeterminist can argue that the possibility of an uncaused act is a genuine one. By
extension, your choices, your hopes, and the actions for which you should be praised or criticized cannot be
196 6 • Metaphysics

treated without doubt as caused externally. These actions could be your own!

THINK LIKE A PHILOSOPHER

Watch the video “Language: Contrastivism #2 (Free Will) (https://openstax.org/r/contrastivism-2-free-will)” by
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.

Metaphysicians are concerned with freedom from causation. By contrast, ethicists are concerned with freedom from
constraint. Contrastivism allows enough space for philosophers to contrast the different focuses and to appreciate
the differences that these differences introduce. According to Sinnott-Armstrong, the net result is a cease-fire. How
can you support or refute the contrastivist solution to the problem of free will?

Access for free at openstax.org

 6 • Summary 197

Summary
6.1 Substance
The Latin term substantia, translated as “substance,” is often used to refer to the basic reality supporting or
standing under features that are incidental to that same thing. Ancient Greek philosophers were both monists
and dualists. Indian philosophers developed the idea of atomism. The challenge of persistence (i.e., whether a
thing could be said to retain identity despite changes introduced through time) can be explored through the
Ship of Theseus thought experiment.

6.2 Self and Identity

There are different answers to the question “What is the self?” The Judeo-Christian view tends to posit the
“really real,” or the true self, in terms of a soul. Hindu and Buddhist views identify the self with the “atman.”
Atman is an ancient term and has many meanings, but typically the term is translated as eternal self, soul, or
even breath. Unlike in the Judeo-Christian view, the soul is reincarnated until the self attains release from
reincarnation (moksha). The Buddhist doctrine of No Self (anatman) challenged the Western view in which the
self is understood as enduring. There is no persistent self; within Buddhism, the “me” is ephemeral.

A second issue addressed within this subsection is the reality of the mind. Many people identify the mind as
the brain. Perhaps the attempts to reduce thinking to an independent mind are relics of an outdated view. The
hard problem of consciousness is identified as the inability to explain one’s awareness of being aware.
Behaviorism, the understanding of the self in terms of behavior, is one possible explanation for the ultimate
reality of the self.

6.3 Cosmology and the Existence of God

The attempt to demonstrate the existence of God has taken many forms and occurred across multiple cultures.
Cosmological arguments consider that which is found in experience—that is, they are a posteriori and move
from observed effects to cause. Ontological arguments are not based in experience but call upon people as
thinkers to apply reason in order to reach a conclusion (i.e., they are a priori arguments). These arguments,
much as a geometer might consider the nature of a triangle and then prove a theorem concerning triangularity,
do not appeal to experience. Rather, they pose that the basic attributes of God are known through reason.
Moral theorists argue for the existence of a divine being through a consideration of the possibility of objective
values.

How might the existence of evil support or argue against the existence of a god? The evidential problem of evil
considers the reality of suffering and challenges the attributes we might apply to God given the existence of
suffering. As not all traditions assume the same cosmology, some traditions (such as the African or Yoruban
view) do not have this particular issue. Augustine, working within a Christian cosmology, attempted to answer
the challenge by positing evil as the absence of good. Thus, a god could not be challenged as being good if evil
existed as evil was merely the privation (absence) of good.

6.4 Free Will

Does the sensation of freedom prove the existence of freedom? The metaphysical libertarian response declares
that human action are free and outside of the causality observed governing natural objects. Because free
choices exist, we are culpable for our decisions. The determinist response, in its so-called hard form, states
that all actions are governed by the laws and principles observed in nature. According to this view, people’s
actions, although accompanied by a feeling of freedom, are not in fact free. This section considers the soft
determinist position, in which, as long as the moral agent did not face internal constraints concerning the
choice at hand, the action could be free. Soft determinism is considered a compatibilist position, as the lack of
alternative possibilities was considered compatible with freedom. Indeterminism, observing the inability of
human reason to capture reality and all cause-and-effect chains in totality, asserts that the possibility of one
event being outside of a cause-and-effect sequence is enough to assert the possibility of human freedom.
198 6 • Key Terms

Key Terms
Actuality in Aristotelian thought, the level to which a being has realized its purpose.
Anatman a Buddhist concept of the self as no-self (as not retaining identity through time).
Compatibilism the view that a lack of freedom for the human moral agent is compatible with moral culpability
for that same agent.
Cosmological argument a type of argument for the existence of God based upon consideration of cosmic
causality.
Determinism the belief that human actions are governed by the laws of nature.
Dualism a view that posits two types of being in order to account fully for the nature of the thing under
scrutiny.
Libertarianism within the problem of freedom, the view that human actions are freely chosen and outside of
the causality that governs natural objects.
Metaphysics the field of philosophy concerned with identifying that which is real.
Monism the view that reality is comprised of one fundamental type of being.
Naturalism the rejection of any non-natural or appeal to supernatural explanatory concepts within
philosophy.
Ontological argument an argument for the existence of God built upon a consideration of the attribute of
God’s existence.
Ontology a field within metaphysics dedicated to the study of being.
Particular when discussing being, the instance of a specific being.
Physicalism the notion that being is material or physical.
Pluralism asserts that fundamental reality consists of many types of being.
Potentiality in Aristotelian thought, the level to which a being’s purpose might reach.
Substance the most enduring and underlying reality of a thing; from the Latin substantiaI or that which
supports a thing.
Teleological argument an argument for the existence of God based upon the presence of ends (goals or
purpose) as observed within nature.
Universal when discussing being, a reality or concept that accounts for the shared whatness of a specific type
of being.

References
———. 2015a. “Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths.” BBC Radio 4: A History of Ideas. BBC, March 25, 2015.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02mrlbg.

———. 2015b. “John Locke on Personal Identity.” BBC Radio 4: A History of Ideas. BBC, January 19, 2015.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02h73cx.

———. 2016. Classical Philosophy: A History of Philosophy without Any Gaps. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.

———. 2018b. “The Five Skandhas: An Introduction to the Aggregates.” Learn Religions. Updated December 18,
2018. https://www.learnreligions.com/the-skandhas-450192.

———. 2019a. “The Principle of Dependent Origination in Buddhism.” Learn Religions. Updated June 25, 2019.
https://www.learnreligions.com/dependent-origination-meaning-449723.

———. 2019b. “What Are the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism?” Learn Religions. Updated April 23, 2019.
https://www.learnreligions.com/the-four-noble-truths-450095.

Adamson, Peter. 2011. “Down to Earth: Aristotle on Substance.” History of Philosophy without any Gaps, June
18, 2011. https://historyofphilosophy.net/aristotle-substance.

Aristotle. (350 BCE) 1994–2000. Metaphysics. Translated by W. D. Ross. The Internet Classics Archive.

Access for free at openstax.org

 6 • References 199

Accessed May 21, 2021. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.html.

Blatti, Stephan. 2019. “Animalism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta,
Fall 2020 ed. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Philosophy Department. https://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/animalism/.

Bobro, Marc. 2018. “Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason.” 1000-Word Philosophy, March 27, 2018.
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/03/27/leibnizs-principle-of-sufficient-reason/.

Byrne, Alex. 2014. “Mind Body Dualism.” Wi-Phi Philosophy, September 19, 2014. https://www.wi-phi.com/
videos/mind-body-dualism/.

Camp, Elisabeth. 2016. “Mind: Personal Identity (The Narrative Self).” Wi-Phi Philosophy, February 5, 2016.
https://www.wi-phi.com/videos/personal-identity-the-narrative-self/.

Chatterjee, Amita. 2021. “Naturalism in Classical Indian Philosophy.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Winter 2021 ed. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Philosophy
Department. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-india/.

Churchland, Pat. 2010. “Pat Churchland on Eliminative Materialism,” interview by Nigel Warburton.
Philosophy Bites, June 19, 2010. https://philosophybites.com/2010/06/pat-churchland-on-eliminative-
materialism.html.

Darwall, Stephen. 2013. “God and Morality: Part 2.” Wi-Phi Philosophy, June 20, 2013. https://www.wi-phi.com/
videos/god-and-morality-part-2/.

Dasaolu,B.O. and Oyelakun, D. 2015. “The Concept of Evil in Yoruba and Igbo Thoughts: Some Comparisons.”
Philosophia: E-Journal of Philosophy and Culture 10 (1), 22-33.

Fischer, Robert. 2018. “Modal Epistemology: Knowledge of Possibility & Necessity.” 1000-Word Philosophy,
February 13, 2018. https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/13/modal-epistemology/.

Frankfurt, Harry G. 1971. “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person.” The Journal of Philosophy 68 (1):
5–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024717.

Frankish, Keith. 2014. “Keith Frankish on the Hard Problem and the Illusion of Qualia.” Philosophy Bites,
October 11, 2014. https://philosophybites.com/2014/10/keith-frankish-on-the-hard-problem-and-the-
illusion-of-qualia.html.

Gade, C. B. N. 2011. “The Historical Development of the Written Discourses on Ubuntu.” South African Journal
of Philosophy 30 (3).

Gordon-Roth, Jessica. 2019. “Locke on Personal Identity.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited
by Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2020 ed. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Philosophy Department.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-personal-identity/.

Honderich, Ted. 2014. “Ted Honderich on What It Is to Be Conscious.” Philosophy Bites, October 11, 2014.
https://philosophybites.com/2014/10/ted-honderich-on-what-it-is-to-be-conscious.html.

Hume, David. 1739. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/
bigge-a-treatise-of-human-nature.

Kind, Amy. 2015. Persons and Personal Identity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Kment, Boris. 2021. “Varieties of Modality.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N.
Zalta, Spring 2021 ed. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Philosophy Department.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-varieties/.

Koch, Christof. 2018. “What Is Consciousness?” Scientific American, June 1, 2018.

200 6 • Review Questions

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness/.

Metcalf, Thomas. 2018. “The Fine-Tuning Argument for the Existence of God.” 1000-Word Philosophy, May 9,
2018. https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/05/03/the-fine-tuning-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/.

O’Brien, Barbara. 2018a. “Buddhist Teachings on the Self.” Learn Religions. Updated June 11, 2018.
https://www.learnreligions.com/self-no-self-whats-a-self-450190.

Olsen, Eric. 2003. “An Argument for Animalism.” In Personal Identity, edited by Raymond Martin and John
Barresi, 318–34. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Palmer, Donald. 2016. Does the Center Hold? An Introduction to Western Philosophy. 7th ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill Education.

Papineau, David. 2007. “David Papineau on Physicalism.” Philosophy Bites. August 7, 2007.
https://philosophybites.com/2007/08/david-papineau-.html.

Rowe, William L. 1979. “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.” American Philosophical
Quarterly 16: 335–41.

Rudy, Lisa Jo. “What Is Atman in Hinduism?” Learn Religions, June 29, 2019. https://www.learnreligions.com/
what-is-atman-in-hinduism-4691403.

Trakakis, Nicholas. n.d. “The Evidential Problem of Evil.” In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by
James Fieser and Bradley Dowden. Accessed May 15, 2021. https://iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/.

Van Gulick, Robert. 2014. “Consciousness.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N.
Zalta, Winter 2021 ed. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Philosophy Department. Stanford
University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/.

Vance, Chad. 2014. “Personal Identity: How We Exist Over Time.” 1000-Word Philosophy, February 10, 2014.
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/02/10/personal-identity/.

Wang, Jennifer. 2013. “How Do Objects Survive Change?” Wi-Phi Philosophy, July 19, 2013. https://www.wi-
phi.com/videos/ship-of-theseus/.

Warburton, Nigel. 2014. “The Libet Experiment: Is Free Will Just an Illusion?” BBC Radio 4: A History of Ideas.
BBC, November 7, 2014. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02b8y3f.

Weisberg, J. n.d. “The Hard Problem of Consciousness.” In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by
James Fieser and Bradley Dowden. Accessed May 21, 2021. https://iep.utm.edu/hard-con.

Whaley, Kristin Seemuth. 2021. “Are We Animals? Animalism and Personal Identity.” 1000-Word Philosophy,
May 3, 2021. https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/03/11/are-we-animals-animalism-and-personal-
identity/.

Review Questions
6.1 Substance
1. Why does Thales believe that water is the most basic reality?

2. The Pre-Socratics were wrong in their various metaphysical explanations. Yet they are considered to have
contributed significantly to the history of philosophy and metaphysics. How could they have contributed if
they were wrong?

3. What inspired Kanad and his atomistic understanding of reality?

4. What does the Sun represent within Plato’s Allegory of the Cave?

Access for free at openstax.org

 6 • Further Reading 201

5. How does Aristotle connect the acorn and the oak? What do they share?

6.2 Self and Identity

6. Why does the “Ship of Theseus” present a problem for identity?

7. What does the term “Anatman” mean? What are the implications for the self?

8. What is the so-called “mind-body problem”?

9. What is the so-called “hard problem of consciousness?”

10. After reading Locke’s “The Prince and the Pauper” thought experiment, do you agree that two have
switched identities? Why or why not?

6.3 Cosmology and the Existence of God

11. The moral arguments for the existence of God rest upon the reality of objective values. Can a shared
human interest preserve a sense of objective good (without needing a reference to a God)?

12. Anselm’s argument posits a distinction between necessary being and contingent being. What is the
difference and how did he argue in support of the reality of the distinction?

13. In Aquinas’ arguments offered in this section, motion was not movement from one place to another but
rather movement from potentiality to actuality, i.e, becoming. Using the acorn and the oak, describe what
happens as a being moves from becoming to actuality within Aquinas’s metaphysics. What role does
purpose play in motion? What role does God play?

14. Why is the existence of suffering a problem for those who posit a God?

6.4 Free Will

15. What is determinism?

16. What is the difference between hard and soft determinism?

17. What is libertarianism?

18. Is determinism compatible with moral culpability? Why or why not?

19. Who was Jean Paul Sartre and what was his position concerning the free will problem?

Further Reading
Adamson, Peter, and Jonardon Ganeri. 2020. Classical Indian Philosophy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Blackmore, Susan. 2017. Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Borghini, Andrea. 2016. A Critical Introduction to the Metaphysics of Modality. New York: Bloomsbury
Academic.

Campbell, Joseph K. 2013. Free Will. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Carroll, John W., and Ned Markosian. 2015. An Introduction to Metaphysics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Coulmas, Florian. 2019. Identity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kind, Amy. 2015. Persons and Personal Identity. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Lear, Jonathan. 1988. Aristotle: The Desire to Understand. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Loux, Michael J., and Thomas M. Crisp. 2017. Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction. New York:
Routledge.
202 6 • Further Reading

Mumford, Stephen. 2012. Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

“1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology.” Accessed May 21, 2021.

https://1000wordphilosophy.com/.

Pink, Thomas. 2004. Free Will: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

“Visualizing SEP.” Visualizing SEP: An Interactive Visualization and Search Engine for the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed May 21, 2021. https://www.visualizingsep.com/#.

“Wi-Phi Philosophy.” Accessed May 21, 2021. https://www.wi-phi.com/.

Access for free at openstax.org