Living philosophy by lewis vaughn pdf

Journal

Instructions
Read the assigned reading from the chapter 2.3. Then choose ONE of the questions below to answer. Answer the question you chose in a response that is a minimum of 1-2 paragraphs. Be sure to explain your answers and give reasons for your views

According to Hick, what is the "soul-making process"? Is it, as he says, of such great value that it justifies all the human and animal suffering involved in it?

WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING ABOUT PHILOSOPHY HERE AND NOW:

"Above all, Vaughn's text does ,vhac few ochers are able co do, namely, co show chat ph ilosophy actually matters ,vich respect co ho,v we chink and live in the world. For all its brevity the book 1nanages co run the gamut of critical topics, and to offer real-world (and often hu1norous) examples of each. He does not offer the luxury of viewing d ifficult questions fro1n a position of abstracted detachment and safety. Rather, he hurls readers straight into the teeth of the sconn and allows che1n co feel the raw terror, wonder, and exhilaration chat rightly belong co the study of philosophy."

- Daniel Bramer, Holy Family University

"Vaughn has chosen the most important topics in philosophy. His 1nenu cannot be improved upon. With a beautiful opening chapter on the nature of ph ilosophical chinking and remarkably concise chapters on the 1nosc engaging issues in philosophy, and with a nice 1nix of classic and conce1nporary philosophers, chis is a terri fic text. It is visually appealing as well."

- Paul Herrick, Shoreline Community College

"Philosophy Here and Now is written in a clear, engaging, and lively style. The author does an excellent job of explain ing abstract and conceptually intricate material to novices. The book introduces students to philosophy as a living enterprise, full of intellectual surprises and relevance to everyday hu1nan concerns."

- Phil ip Robbins, University of Missouri

"I can't imagine not using Philosophy Here and Now. My experience with the textbook has been completely posit ive. When students lee you know how much they like reading the text you know you 1nade the right decision in adopting the book."

- Teresa Cantrell, University of Louisville

"This is the best text I have found for my int roductory class. Q uestions and exercises engage the students' lives di rectly and ask chem co explain their own understanding/beliefs about a matter. The appendix on writing philosophy papers can easily stand on its o,vn as the most valuable cool I use in my class. I have yet co find anyth ing at chis price with a comparable content."

- Stephen Orr, Solano Community College

PH L PHY HERE AND NOW

POWERFUL IDEAS IN EVERYDAY LIFE

THIRD EDITJC)~

Lewis Vaughn

NEWYORK [ OXFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Oxford University Press is a departmenr of the University of Oxford. Ir furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and ed ucation by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford U niversity Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press I 98 Madison Avenue, New York, NY I 00 I 6, United States of America.

©2019,2016, 2013 by Oxford University Press

For titles covered by Section I 12 of the US Higher Education Opportuni ty Act, please visit www.oup.com/us/he for the latest in formatio n about pricing and alternate formats.

All rights reserved . No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system} o r transmi tted, in any form o r by any means} w itho ut the prior permissio n in wriring of Oxford University Press, or as expressly pcrmincd

by law, by lice nse, o r under terms agreed with the appropriate reproductio n rights organization. Inquiries concern ing reproduction outside the scope of the

above should be sent to the RighL< Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.

You must not ci rculate this work in any o cher form and you m ust impose this sam e condi tion on any acquirc r.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in -Publication Data

Names: Vaughn, Lewis} autho r.

Title: Philosophy here and now : powerful ideas in everyday li fe I Lewis Vaughn. Description: T H IRD EDITION. J New York : Oxford University Press, 2018. Identifiers: LCCN 2018014409 I IS BN 9780190852344 (pbk.) SubjecLs: LCSH: Philosophy- Textbooks. Classification: LCC 8 031 .V38 2018 I DOC 100-dc23 LC record available ar https://lccn.loc.gov/2018014409

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I

Printed by LSC Communications, Inc. Printed in the United States of America

• PREFACE XXI

CHAPTER 1 PHILOSOPHY AND YOU 1

CHAPTER 2 GOD AND RELIGION 57

CHAPTER 3 MORALITY AND THE MORAL LIFE 135

CHAPTER 4 MIND AND BODY 205

CHAPTER s FREE WILL AND DETERM INISM 240

CHAPTER 6 KNOWLEDGE AND SKEPTICISM 274

CHAPTER 7 AESTHETICS 332

CHAPTER 8 THE JUST SOCIETY 354

CHAPTER 9 THE MEANING OF LIFE 406

APPENDIX A THE TRUTH ABOUT PHILOSOPHY MAJORS 431

APPENDIX B ANSWERS TO EXERCISES 437

APPENDIX c HOW TO WRITE A PHILOSOPHY PAPER 441

NOTES 451

GLOSSARY 457

CREDITS 461

INDEX of MARGINAL

QUOTATIONS 463

GENERAL INDEX 465

VII

Preface xxi

CHAPTER 1 PHILOSOPHY AND YOU l

1.1 PHILOSOPHY: THE QUEST FOR UNDERSTANDING 2

The Good of Philosophy 2

Philosophical Terrain 4 What Do You Believe? Your Philosophical Beliefs 5 Essay/Discussion Questions 7

1.2 SOCRATES AND THE EXAMINED LIFE 8

Philosophers at Work: Plato 9

PLATO: The Republic 10 Philosophers at Work: The Pre-Socratics 12

Essay/Discussion Questions 14

1.3 THINKING PHILOSOPHICALLY 14

Reasons and Arguments 15 Philosophy Lab 16

Philosophers at Work: Phi losophy Takes on Racism 20

Reading Philosophy 27 Philosophers at Work: Hypatia 29 Philosophers at Work: Early Women

Philosophers: Themistoclea, Arignote,

and Theano 31

Fallacious Reasoning 33 Philosophy Now: Phi losophy in the News 34 Essay/Discussion Questions 40

REVIEW NOTES 40

Writing to Understand: Arguing Your Own Views 42

KEY TERMS 42

ARGUMENT EXERCISES 43 ix

x Contents

NARRATIVE: Plato, The Trial and Death of Socrates 47

PROBING QUESTIONS SS

FOR FURTHER READING SS

CHAPTER 2 GOD AND RELIGION 57

2.1 OVERVIEW: COD AND PHILOSOPHY 58

Why Religion Matters 59

Overview: The Philosopher's Quest 59 Philosophy Now: Who Believes in God? 60 What Do You Believe? Hard-Wired for God? 63

Belief and Disbelief 64

Writing to Understand: Critiquing Phi losophical Views 66

2.2 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF COD 66

Cosmological Arguments 66

AQUINAS: Summa Theologica 67 Philosophers at Work: St. Thomas Aquinas 68 Philosophy Now: Science and the Uncaused

Universe 69

CRAIG: Reasonable Faith 70

Design Arguments 72

PALEY: Natural Theology 72

HUME: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion 74 Philosophy Now: Do Scientists Reject Religion? 78

Onto logical Arguments 79

ANSELM: Proslogium 79 Philosophy Now: Evolution and Intelligent

Design 80

KANT: Critique of Pure Reason 83 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Phi losophical

Views 83

2.3 COD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL 84

Rowe's Argument f rom Evil 84

ROWE: Philosophy of Religion 84

The Free Will Defense 87

SWINBURNE: Is There a God? 87

The Soul-Making Defense 88

HICK: Evil and the God of Love 88 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 91

2.4 THEISM AND RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE 92

ST. TERESA OF AVILA: The Life of Teresa of Jesus 92

MACKIE: The Miracle of Theism 93 Philosophy Lab 94

ROWE: Philosophy of Religion 95 Philosophy Now: Proof of the Power of Prayer? 96

SWINBURNE: The Existence of God 97 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 98

2.5 BELIEF WITHOUT REASON 98

James: Pragmatic Fait h 99

JAMES: "The W ill to Believe" 100

MARTIN: Atheism: A Philosophical

Justification 106

Pascal: Betting on God 106

What Do You Believe? Do You Live by Faith? 107

PASCAL: Pensees and Other Writings 107 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 109

2.6 EASTERN RELIGIONS 109

Buddhism 109

SUMEDHO: Buddha-Nature 112

RAHULA: What the Buddha Taught 112 Philosophy Now: Buddhism and Science 114

H induism 116

Philosophy Now: The Caste System 120

Daoism 123

CHUANG TZU: All Things Are One 123

LAO-TZU: Tao-te ching 124 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 126

Contents x1

x i i Contents

REVIEW NOTES 126

Writing to Understand: Arguing Your Own Views 129

KEY TERMS 129

FICTION: Arthur C. Clarke, "The Star" 131

PROBING QUESTIONS 133

FOR FURTHER READING 134

CHAPTER 3 MORALITY AND THE MORAL LIFE 135

3.1 OVERVIEW: ETHICS AND THE MORAL DOMAIN 136

Eth ics and Morality 136

Moral Theories 139

Philosophy Now: Morality and the Low 141 Philosophy Now: The Morality of Human

Cloning 144

Religion and Morality 146

SHAFER-LANDAU: Whatever Happened

to Good and Evil? 147 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 148

3.2 MORAL RELATIVISM 148

Subjective Relativism 149

Cultural Relativism 151

What Do You Believe? Cultural Relativism

and Women's Rights 152

Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 155

3.3 MORALITY BASED ON CONSEQUENCES 155

Utilitar ianism 156

MILL: "What Uti litarianism Is" 158 Philosophy Now: Util itarianism and the Death

Penalty 160

Philosophy Lab 164

Eth ical Egoism 165

Philosophers at Work: John Stuart Mill 165 Philosophy Now: Torture and the Ticking Bomb

Terrorist 166

Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical Views 169

3.4 M ORALITY BASED ON DUTY AND RIGHTS 169

KANT: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals 170 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 175

3.5 MORALITY BASED ON CHARACTER 175

ARISTOTLE: Nicomachean Ethics 176

SHAFER-LANDAU: The Fundamentals of Ethics 180

Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical Views 181

3.6 FEMINIST ETHICS AND THE ETHICS OF CARE 181

JAGGAR: "Feminist Ethics" 182

CROSTHWAITE: "Gender and Bioethics" 182

HELD: The Ethics of Care 184

Philosophers at Work: Mary Wollstonecraft 186

BAIER: "The Need for More Than Justice" 188 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 188

3.7 ALBERT CAMUS: AN EXISTENTIALIST VOICE 188

CAMUS: The Myth of Sisyphus 190 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 192

3.8 CONFUCIANISM 192

CONFUCIUS: Analects 193

NOSS: A History of the World's Religions 195 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 195

REVIEW NOTES 196

Writing to Understand: Arguing Your Own Views 198

KEY TERMS 198

FICTION: Ursula K. Le Guin, " The Ones Who Walk Away

from Ornelas" 200

PROBING QUESTIONS 203

FOR FURTHER READING 203

Contents xiii

xiv Contents

CHAPTER 4 MIND AND BODY 205

4.1 OVERVIEW: THE M IND-BODY PROBLEM 206

Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 211

4.2 SUBSTANCE DUALISM 211

DESCARTES: Discourse on the Method of Rightly

Conducting the Reason 2 12

SCHICK: Doing Philosophy 212

DESCARTES: Meditations on First Philosophy 213 What Do You Believe? The Immortal Soul 2 14

SEARLE: Mind 216

Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical Views 217

4.3 MIND-BODY IDENTITY 217

SMART: "Sensations and Brain Processes" 217

CHALMERS: The Conscious Mind 2 18

NAGEL: "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" 220 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 221

4.4 THE M IND AS SOFTWARE 222

FODOR: "The Mind-Body Problem" 222

BLOCK: "Troubles with Functionalism" 223

What Do You Believe? Al and Human Rights 224

SEARLE: Mind 226

Philosophers at Work: Alan Turing 227 Philosophers at Work: John R. Searle 228 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 229

Philosophy Now: Al, Ethics, and War 230

4.5 THE MIND AS PROPERTIES 230

CHALMERS: The Conscious Mind 232 Philosophy Lab 233 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 234

REVIEW NOTES 234

Writing to Understand: Arguing Your Own Views 235

KEY TERMS 236

FICTION: Terry Bisson, "They're Made out of Meat" 237

PROBING QUESTIONS 238

FOR FURTHER READING 238

CHAPTER 5 FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM 240

5.1 OVERVIEW: THE FREE WILL PROBLEM 241

What Do You Believe? Fate 245 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Phi losophical

Views 246

5.2 DETERMINISM AND INDETERMINISM 246

D'HOLBACH: "Of the System of Man's Free Agency" 246

Philosophers at Work: Will iam James 248

JAMES: "The Dilemma of Determinism" 249 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Phi losophical

Views 250

5.3 COMPATIBILISM 250

LOCKE: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding 251

STACE: Religion and the Modern Mind 251 Philosophy Now: Does Belief in Free Will Matter? 252

ROWE: "Two Concepts of Freedom" 254 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Phi losophical

Views 255

5.4 LIBERTARIANISM 255

Philosophy Now: Science and Free Will 256

VAN INWAGEN: An Essay on Free Will 257 Philosophy Lab 258

TAYLOR: Metaphysics 258 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Phi losophical

Views 261

5.5 SARTRE'S PROFOUND FREEDOM 261

SARTRE: "Existentialism Is a Humanism" 262

Writing to Understand: Critiquing Phi losophical Views 266

Contents xv

xvi Contents

REVIEW NOTES 266

Writing to Understand: Arguing Your Own Views 268

KEY TERMS 268

FICTION: Thomas D. Davis, "A Little Omniscience Goes

a Long Way" 270

PROBING QUESTIONS 273

FOR FURTHER READING 273

CHAPTER 6 KNOWLEDGE AND SKEPTICISM 274

6.1 OVERVIEW: THE PROBLEM OF KNOWLEDGE 275

What Do You Believe? Cognitive Relativism Undone 277

Writing to Understand: Critiquing Phi losophical

Views 280

6.2 THE RATIONALIST ROAD 281

Plato's Rationalism 281

PLATO: Meno 283

Descartes' Doubt 284

DESCARTES: Meditations on First Philosophy 285 Philosophy Now: Living in The Matrix 287 Philosophy Lab 288

Descartes' Certainty 288

DESCARTES: Meditations on First Philosophy 288

Philosophers at Work: Rene Descartes 290 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Phi losophical

Views 292

6.3 THE EMPIRICIST TURN 293

Locke 293

LOCKE: An Essay Concerning Human

Understanding 293

Berkeley 299

BERKELEY: Of the Principles of Human Knowledge 300

Hume 303 Philosophers at Work: David Hume 304

HUME: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding 305

Writing to Understand: Crit iquing Philosophical Views 310

6.4 THE KANTIAN COMPROMISE 311

KANT: Critique of Pure Reason 312 Philosophers at Work: Immanuel Kant 313 Philosophy Now: Conceptualizing the World 316 Writing to Understand: Crit iquing Philosophical

Views 319

6.5 A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE ON KNOWLEDGE 319

AINLEY: "Feminist Philosophy" 320

ANTONY: " Embodiment and Epistemology" 320

ANDERSON: "Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science" 321

COLE: Philosophy and Feminist Criticism 321 Writing to Understand: Crit iquing Philosophical

Views 325

REVIEW NOTES 325

Writing to Understand: Arguing Your Own Views 328

KEY TERMS 329

FICTION: Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking-Glass" 330

PROBING QUESTIONS 330

FOR FURTHER READING 331

CHAPTER 7 AESTHETICS 332

7.1 OVERVIEW: PHILOSOPHY OF BEAUTY 333

Writing to Understand: Crit iquing Philosophical

Views 333

7.2 WHAT IS ART? 333

Philosophy Now: Is It Art? 334

BELL: Art 335 Writing to Understand: Crit iquing Philosophical

Views 335

Philosophy Now: Controversial Ar t 336

Contents xv ii

xvii i Contents

7.3 AESTHETIC VALUE 338

Philosophers at Work: Arthur C. Dante 339 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 340

7.4 PLATO, ARISTOTLE, AND HUME 340

ARISTOTLE: The Poetics 340 Philosophy Lab 341

HUME: Of the Standard of Taste 343 Philosophy Now: Feminist Art 344 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 348

REVIEW NOTES 349

Writing to Understand: Arguing Your Own

Views 350

KEY TERMS 350

FICTION: Edgar Allan Poe, "The Oval Portrait" 351

PROBING QUESTIONS 352

FOR FURTHER READING 352

CHAPTER 8 THE JUST SOCIETY 354

8.1 OVERVIEW: JUSTICE AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 355

What Do You Believe? Polit ica l Views in

Flux 358 Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical

Views 359

8.2 PLATO'S THEORY: JUSTICE AS MERIT 360

PLATO: The Republic 361 Philosophy Now: Merit or Equality: Who Gets

to Live? 363

Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical Views 364

8.3 SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORIES 364

Hobbes 365

Philosophers at Work: Thomas Hobbes 365

HOBBES: Leviathan 366

Locke 370

LOCKE: Second Treatise of Government 371

Rawls 375 Philosophers at Work: John Locke 375

RAWLS: A Theory of justice 376 Writing to Understand: Crit iquing Philosophical

Views 378

8.4 SOCIALIST THEORIES 379

Philosophy Lab 380 Philosophy Now: Is the United States a Socialist

Country? 381

MARX and ENGELS: Manifesto of the Communist

Party 381 Writing to Understand: Crit iquing Philosophical

Views 387

8.5 FEMINISM ANO SOCIAL JUSTICE 387

OKIN: Justice, Gender, and the Family 388

MILLER: Political Philosophy 392 Writing to Understand: Crit iquing Philosophical

Views 392

REVIEW NOTES 393

Writing to Understand: Arguing Your Own

Views 395

KEY TERMS 395

FICTION: William Golding, "Lord of the Flies" 397

PROBING QUESTIONS 405

FOR FURTHER READING 405

CHAPTER 9 THE MEAN ING OF LIFE 406

9.1 OVERVIEW: PHILOSOPHY ANO THE MEAN ING

OF LIFE 407

Philosophy Lab 410

9.2 PESSIMISM: LIFE HAS NO MEANING 411

TOLSTOY: My Confession 411

Contents xix

xx Contents

SCHOPENHAUER: "On the Sufferings of the World" 413

BAGG/NI: What's It All About? 414 Philosophy Now: Nietzsche: Reflections

on Meaning 415

9.3 OPTIMISM : LIFE CAN HAVE MEANING 416

Meaning from Above 416

TOLSTOY: My Confession 416 Philosophy Now: Is Religion Necessary

for a Meaningful Life? 4 19

BAGG/NI: What's It All About? 420

Meaning from Below 4 21

EDWARDS: The Encyclopedia of Philosophy 421

REVIEW NOTES 426

What Do You Believe? What Can and Cannot Give Life Meaning? 427

Writing to Understand: Arguing Your Own Views 428

FICTION: Voltaire, "The Good Brahmin" 429

PROBING QUESTIONS 430

FOR FURTHER READING 430

Appendix A: The Truth about Philosophy Majors 431

Appendix B: Answers to Exercises 437

Appendix C: How to Write a Philosophy Paper 441

Notes 451

Glossary 457

Credits 461

Index of Marginal Quotations 463

General Index 465

PREFACE ................................... _. ........ _. .... .._ ............ ._ ............................................................... .-................................ _. ........ __. ._ ....................... __. .............. . ............ __. ........ __. .......... ........... ......... ................. .... ..... _. ... .

This third edition of Philosophy Here and Now stays true to the aspirations and char- acter of the first and second. From the beginning, the text has been designed to provide an extraordinary amount of encouragement and guidance to students \vho are encountering philosophy for the first (and perhaps last) time. !rs ambitious aim is to get such students to take some big steps tO\vard understand ing, appreciating, and even doing philosophy. Philosophy Here and Now thus tries to do a great deal more than most other texts or readers. To foster a serious understanding of philosophy, it includes solid coverage of critical thinking skills and argument basics as well as guid- ance and practice in reading philosophical works. Studenrs of course can appreciate the point and power of philosophy as they comprehend philosophical \vritings, but their appreciation blossoms when they see ho\v philosophical issues and reasoning play out in contemporary society and how philosophical insights apply to their O\vn lives. So the book's coverage and pedagogical features help students grasp philoso- phy's relevance and t imeliness. Studenrs learn how to do philosophy-to think and write philosophically-\vhen they get encouragement and practice in analyzing and critiquing their own vie\vS and those of the philosophers they study. To this end, Phiwsophy Here and Now emphasizes philosophical writing, reinforced with step- by-step coaching in how to \vrite argumentative essays and supported by multiple opportunities to hone basic skills.

In addition to these core elements, Philosophy Here and Now further engages today's learners \Vith abundant illustrations and color graphics; marginal notes, questions, and quotes; profiles of a diverse array of philosophers; and ample repre- sentation of non-Western and nont raditional sources.

TOPICS AND READINGS

Nine chapters cover the existence of God, morality and the moral life, mind and body, free wi ll and determinism, knowledge and skepticism, aesthetics, political philosophy, and the meaning of life. These topics are explored in read ings from seventy-five traditional and contemporary philosophers integrated into the main text, featuring both indispensable standards and ne\ver selections. The standards include Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Pascal, Anselm, Descartes, Hume, Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, d'Holbach, Paley, James, Sartre, Marx, and others. Among t he more recent voices are Searle, Chalmers, Craig, Swinburne, H ick, Mackie, Rowe, Gard- ner, Blum, Dersho\vitz, Rahula, Jaggar, Held, Baier, Nagel, Block, Van l n\vagen, Taylor, D u Sautoy, Ducasse, Cole, Ainley, Rawls, O kin, and Schopenhauer.

All these selections are juxtaposed with end-of-chapter pieces of fiction or narrative-stories meant to explore and dramatize the philosophical issues encountered

xxi

xxii Preface

in the chapters. They include some classic stories such as "The Good Brahmin" by Volta ire, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Ornelas" by Ursula Le Guin, and "They're Made Out of Meat" by Terry Bisson, as \veil as lesser-kno\vn fiction by notable writers like Arthur C. Clarke and William Golding. Each story is accompanied by discus- sion/essay questions designed to dra\v out irs philosophical implications.

MAIN FEATURES

• A comprehensive introductory chapter that lays the groundwork for philo- sophical thinking. Through examples drawn from philosophical literature and everyday life, th is chapter explains clearly the nature and scope of philosophy and ho\v it relates to students' lives. This much, of course, is \vhat any good text in this field should do. But this first chapter also shows how to devise and evalu- ate arguments and guides students in critically thinking, reading, and \vriting about philosophical issues.

• Critical thinking questions that correspond to relevant passages in the main text or readings. These questions, located in the margins of the text, invite stu- dents to ponder the implications of the material and to th ink critically about the assumptions and arguments found there. The questions are numbered and highlighted and easily lend themselves to both \vriting assignments and class discussion. The point of their marginal placement is to prompt students to think carefully and analytically as they read.

• Four types of text boxes that demonstrate the value and relevance of philoso- phy in the modern world:

• "Philosophy Now" -These boxes contain news items and research reports that illustrate ho\v each chapter's philosophical issues permeate everyday life. They demonstrate that philosophical concerns arise continually in science, society, ethics, religion, politics, medicine, and more. Each box ends \vith questions that prompt critical thinking and philosophical reflection.

• "What Do You Believe?"-Prompting student engagement and reflec- tion, these boxes explore issues related to the chapter's topics and challenge students' beliefs.

• "Philosophers at Work'' -These boxes profi le the lives and work of com- pelling figures in philosophy, past and present, Western and non-Western or nontraditional, men and women. Some feature philosophers from the past \vhose story adds a human and historical dimension to the ideas discussed in the chapter, and some profile contemporary thinkers who are grappling \vith the important issues of the day. The point of these features is, of course, to sho\v that philosophy is very much a living, relevant enterprise.

• " Philosophy Lab"-These boxes present simple thought experiments chal- lenging students to think through scenarios that can reveal deeper philo- sophical insights or perspectives.

• In-depth coverage of philosophical writing includes step-by-step coaching in argument basics and multiple opportunities to hone critical thinking skills.

• "Writing to Understand: Critiquing Philosophical Views" -These boxes appear at the end of each section and consist of essay questions that prompt students to critically examine the strengths and weaknesses of the vie\vS dis- cussed in the sections.

• "Writing to Understand: Arguing Your Own Views" - These boxes prompt students to explain and defend thei r O\vn views on the chapter's topics in short essays.

• " How to Write a Philosophy Paper" -This appendix offers concise, step- by-step guidance in crafting an effective philosophical essay.

• A final chapter on ''The Meaning of Life." This chapter discusses how philoso- phers have clarified and explored the topic of life's meaning. It covers the main philosophical perspectives on the subject and samples the views of philosophers past and present.

All these features are supplemented \Vith other elements to make the material even more engaging and accessible:

• Marginal quotes. These pithy, compelling quotes from an array of philosophers appear throughout the text, inviting students to join the ongoing conversation of philosophy.

• Key Terms, marginal definitions, and end-of-book Glossary. Key Terms in each chapter appear in boldface at their first appearance in a chapter, and mar- ginal definitions help studenrs learn the terms within their immediate context. A list of the chapter's Key Terms appears at the end of each chapter, along \vith the page numbers on which the term and irs definition fi rst appear. Last, a Glossary of those Key Terms and definitions provides an essential reference for students as they review and prepare fo r tesrs as well as draft their own philosophical essays and argumenrs.

• Chapter Objectives. This list at the beginning of each chapter helps to scaffold student learning by providing both structure and support for previewing, note taking, and retention of content.

• End-of-chapter reviews. Concluding each chapter, this feature revisits the Chapter Objectives, encouraging students to reflect and revie\v.

• An index of marginal quotes. This supplemental index helps students locate the words of philosophers that seem especially insightful or inspiring to them.

• For Further reading. Located at the end of each chapter, these useful referen ces point students to sources that \viii enhance thei r understanding of chapter issues and argumenrs.

• Timeline. Featuring philosophers' lives and important events, this visual learn- ing tool helps students appreciate the historic significance of philosophical ideas by placing them \vithin a larger context.

• Charts, tables, and color photos. Appearing throughout the book, these have been selected or created to deepen studen t engagement with and understanding of complex ideas and abstract conceprs. In addition, captions fo r these images include brief, open-ended questions to help studenrs "read" visuals \Vith the same critical attention they learn to bring to written texrs.

Preface xx11 1

xxiv Preface

NEW TO THIS EDITION

• An expanded chapter on aesthetics ( Chapter 7). Jc covers issues relating to the definition of art, objective and subjective standards, femi nist art, controversial artworks, on line art, and the philosophical examination of art by Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Gardner, Ducasse, and Dan to. Several new photos illustrate fem inist art, controversial art, and art that provokes discussion about what art is and isn't.

• Expanded coverage in Chapter 9 {The Meaning of Life). In addition to in- cluding readings by Tolstoy, Schopenhauer, Baggini, and Ed\vards {and com- mentary on Niet2Sche), the text now adds four more philosophers who debate the objectivity of meaning in life. Klemke and Lucretius lay out their case for subjectivist meaning, and Wolf and Belshaw argue fo r objectivist meaning.

• More history of philosophy in Chapter 1. No\v there's coverage of the pre- Socratics Thales, Empedocles, and Parmenides, as well as four early women phi- losophers: Hypatia, Themistoclea, Arignote, and Theano.

• More text boxes adding depth to discussions or demonstrating how philo- sophical thinking can tackle tough contemporary issues. These cover human rights for robots, to rturing terrorists, racism, Buddhism and science, belief in God, and scientists and religion.

ANCILLARIES

The Oxford University Press Ancillary Resource Center {ARC) {www.oup-arc.com/ vaughn-philosophy-here-and-no\v) houses a \vealth of instructor resources, includ- ing an Instructor's Manual with sample syllabi, reading summaries, essay/discussion questions, suggested Web links, and a glossary of key terms from the text; a Com- puterized Test Bank \Vith fifty or more multiple-choice and true/false questions per chapter {also available as a traditional "pencil-and-paper" Test Bank in the Instruc- tor's Manual); and PowerPoint lecture outlines.

A companion website {www.oup.com/us/vaughn) contains study materials for students, including level-one and level-nvo practice quizzes with multiple-choice and true/false questions taken from the Test Bank, essay/discussion questions, read- ing summaries, flashcards of key terms from the text, and suggested Web links.

All instructor and student resources are also available as cartridges for Learning Management Systems. For more information, please contact your Oxford University Press Sales Representative at 1-800-280-0280.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A text like th is is not possible \Vithout the help of a lot of talented and consci- entious people. At the top of the list are my fine editors at Oxford University Press-most notably Robert Miller and Meg Botteon, as well as Alyssa Palazzo

and Sidney Keen. Throughout the formative stages of this text, many astute re- viewers provided invaluable suggestions and criticisms, and the book is much the better for it. Many thanks to:

Kristin Borgwald Miami Dade College

Daniel Bramer Holy Family University

Jeremy Byrd Tarrant County College

Teresa Cantrell University of Louisville

Alberto Gonzalez College of the Canyons

Aaron Rizzieri Yavapai College

Stephen Russell Orr Solano Community College

Allen Shonvell Ivy Tech Community College

John Shuford Lin.field College

Russell S\vanson Florida South Western State College

Rabbi Doug Weber Castleton University

Steve Wyre Mohave Community College

Preface xxv

CHAPTER

PHILOSOPHY AND YOU

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

1.1 PH ILOSOPHY: THE QUEST FOR UNDERSTANDING

• Know the practical and theoretica l benefits of studying philosophy.

• Take an inventory of your philosophical beliefs.

• Know the four main divisions of philosophy and the kinds of questions they examine.

1.2 SOCRATES ANO THE EXAMINED LIFE

• Understand why Socrates declared that "the unexamined life is not worth living."

• Explain the Socratic method and how Socrates used it in search of understand ing.

• Relate how Socrates showed that Thrasymachus's notion of justice was wrong.

• Exp lain how reductio ad absurdum arguments work.

1.3 THINKING PHILOSOPHICALLY

• Define argument, statement, conclusion, and premise.

• Know the two conditions that must be met for an argument to be good.

• Define deductive argument, inductive argument, valid, sound, cogent, strong, and weak. Understand inferences to the best explanat ion and how their strength is evaluated.

• Be able to ident ify arguments in the form of modus ponens, modus to/lens, affirming the consequent, and denying the antecedent .

• Be able to ident ify arguments in various contexts and tell whether they are valid or invalid, sound or not sound, strong or weak, and cogent or not cogent.

• Understand the guidelines for reading and appreciating philosophy.

• Be aware of common fallacies and know how to identify them in various contexts .

2 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

Science gives us know·

ledge, bur only philosophy can give us wisdo m. -Will Durant

1 Suppose you had a fundamental belief that the mind, or soul, does not survive the death of the body. What other beliefs would this fundamen- tal belief be likely to support?

Philosophy should be responsive ro human ex·

pcricncc and yet critical of the defective thinking it sometimes encounters.

-Martha Nussbaum

1.1 PHILOSOPHY: THE QUEST FOR UNDERSTANDING

The title of chis text, Philosophy Here and Now, is meant co emphasize chat philoso- phy is, well, here and now-chat is, relevant and current. This means chat philoso- phy, even with its ancient lineage and seemingly remote concerns, applies co your li fe and your times and your world. Philosophy achieves chis immediacy by being many good things at once: it is enlightening, choughc-provoking, life-changing, liberating, theoretical, and practical. The world is fu ll of scudencs and teachers ,vho can attest co these claims. More importantly, you will find proof of chem in the remainder of chis text-and in the writings of the great philosophers, in your grasping what they say and the reasons they give for saying it, and in your o,vn honest accempcs co apply philosophy co your life.

Philosophy is the name chat philosophers have given co both a d iscipline and a process. As a discipline, philosophy is one of the humanities, a field of study out of which several ocher fields have evolved-physics, biology, political science, and many ochers. As a process, philosophy is a penetrating mode of reflection for understanding life's most important truths. This mode is what ,ve may call the philosophical method-the systematic use of critical reasoning co cry co find answers co fundamental questions about reality, morality, and kno,vledge. The method, however, is not a master key used exclusively by professional philosophers co unlock mysteries hidden from common folk. The philosophical method is the birthright of every person, fo r ,ve are all born with the capacity co reason, co ques- tion, co discover. For thousands of years, great minds like Ariscocle, Plato, Confu- cius, Descartes, Aquinas, and Sartre have used it in their search for wisdom, and ,vhac they found has changed countless lives. Bue amateur philosophers like you have also used it-and continue co use it-to achieve life-altering understanding chat ,vould have eluded chem otherwise.

The Good of Philosophy

Philosophy is not just about ideas; it's about fundamental ideas, chose upon which ocher ideas depend. A fundamental belief logically supporcs ocher bel iefs, and the more beliefs it supporcs the more fundamental it is. Your belief or disbelief in God, for example, might support a hose of ocher beliefs about morality, life after death, heaven, hell, free will, science, evolution, prayer, abortion, miracles, homo- sexuality, and more. Thanks co your upbringing, your culture, your peers, and ocher influences, you already have a head full of fundamental beliefs, some of chem true, some false. Whether true or false, they constitute the framework of your ,vhole belief system, and as such they help you make sense of a wide range of important issues in life-issues concerning what exists and what doesn't, what actions are right or ,vrong (or neither), and ,vhac kinds of things we can kno,v and not kno,v. Funda- mental beliefs, therefore, make up your "philosophy of life," which informs your chinking and guides your actions.

Perhaps now you can better appreciate philosophy's greatest practical benefit: it gives us che intellectual wherewithal co improve our lives by improving our

Phi losophy: The Quest for Understanding 3

philosophy of life. A faulty philosophy of life-that is, one that comprises a great many false fundamental beliefs-can lead to a misspent or misdirected life, a life less meaningful than it could be. Philosophy is the most powerful instrument we have for evaluating the worth of our fundamental beliefs and for changing them for the better. Through philosophy we exert control over the t rajectory of our lives, making major course corrections by reason and reflection.

The Greek philosopher Socrates (469-399 BCE), one of Western civil ization's great intellectual heroes, says, "An unexamined life is not \VOrth living." To examine your life is to scrutinize the core ideas that shape it, and the deepest form of scrutiny is exercised through philosophy. This search for answers goes to the heart of the tradi- tional conception of philosophy as a search for wisdom (the term phiwsophy is derived from Greek words meaning " love of wisdom"). With the attainment of wisdom, we come to understand the true nature of reality and how to apply that understanding to living a good life.

Philosophy's chief theoretical benefit is the same one that most other fields of inquiry pursue: understanding for its own sake. Even if philosophy had no pract ical applications at all , it would sti ll hold great value fo r us. We want to know how the world works, what t ruths it hides, just for the sake of knowing. And philoso-

Figure 1.1 Socrates (469-399 ace).

phy obliges. Astronomers search the sky, physicists study subatomic part icles, and archaeologists search fo r ancient ruins, all the while knowing that what they find may have no practical implications at all . We humans wonder, and that's often all the reason we need to search for ans\vers. As the great philosopher Aristotle says, "For it is owing to thei r wonder that people both no\v begin and at first began to philosophize."

For many people, the quest for understand ing through philosophy is a spiri- tual, transformative endeavor, an ennobling pursuit of truths at the core of life. Thus, several philosophers speak of philosophy as something that enriches or nur- tu res the soul or mind. Socrates, speaking to the jurors who condemned him fo r practicing philosophy on the streets of Athens, asked, "Are you not ashamed that, while you take care to acquire as much wealth as possible, with honor and glory as \vell , yet you take no care or thought for understanding or t ruth, or for the best possible state of your soul?" In a similar vein, the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BCE) said , "Let no young man delay the study of philosophy, and let no old man become \veary of it; for it is never too early nor too late to care fo r the well-being of the soul." And in our own era, the philosopher Walter Kaufmann (1921- 1980) declared, "Philosophy means liberation from the two d imensions of routine, soaring above the well kno\vn, seeing it in ne\v perspectives, arousing wonder and the wish to fly."

Along with philosophical inquiry comes freedom. We begin our lives at a partic- ular place and time, steeped in the ideas and values of a particular culture, fed ready- made beliefs that may or may not be true and that \Ve may never think to question.

2 Is it possible to lead a meaningful life w ith· out self-examination?

Philosophy is the highest music.

-Plato

4 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

If you passively accept such beliefs, then those beliefs are not really yours. If they are not really yours, and you let them guide your choices and actions, then they-not you-are in charge of your life. You thus forfeit your personal freedom. But phi- losophy helps us rise above th is predicament, to transcend the narro,v and obstructed standpoint from which we may vie,v everything. It helps us sift our hand-me-down beliefs in the light of reason, look beyond the prejudices that blind us, and see what's real and true. By using the philosophical method, we may learn that some of our beliefs are on solid ground and some are not. In either case, through philosophy our beliefs become truly and authentically our own.

Philosophical Terrain

Figure 1.2 Aristotle (384-322 BCE).

Philosophy's sphere of interest is vast, encompassing funda- mental beliefs drawn from many places. Philosophical ques- tions can arise anywhere. Part of the reason for th is is that ordinary beliefs that seem to have no connection with philoso- phy can become philosophical in short order. A physiologist may ,vant to know ho,v our brains ,vork, but she ventures into the philosophical arena ,vhen she wonders ,vhether the brain is the same th ing as the mind-a quest ion that science alone

To teach how to live

w itho ut certainty and ycr

without being paralysed by hesitation is perhaps ,he

chief thing that philoso· phy, in our age, can do for those who srudy it.

-Benrand Russell

3 Has your thin king recent ly led you to reflect on philosophi- cal questions? If so, how did the thought process begin, and what f undamental belief did you end up contemplating?

Metaphysics is the study of reality in ,he broadest

sense, an inquiry into rhc clcmcnral narurc of rhc

universe and the things JO It.

cannot answer. A lawyer studies how the death penalty is ad- ministered in Texas, but he does philosophy when he considers whether capital pun- ishment is ever morally permiss ible. A medical scientist wants to kno,v ho,v a human fetus develops, but she finds it d ifficult to avoid the philosophical query of ,vhat the moral status of the fetus is. An astrophysicist studies the Big Bang, the cataclysmic explosion thought to have brought the universe into being-but then asks whether the Big Bang shows that God cause.cl the universe to exist. On CNN you see the horrors of ,var and famine, but then you find yourself grappling with ,vhether they can be squared with the existence of an all-po,verful, all-knowing, and all-good God. Or you ,vonder ,vhat your moral obligations are to the poor and hungry of the ,vorld. O r you ponder whether government should help people in need or leave them to fend for themselves.

We can div ide philosophy's subject matter into four main divisions, each of ,vhich is a branch of inquiry in its o,vn right ,vith many subcategories. Here's a brief rundown of these divis ions and a sampling of the kinds of quest ions that each asks.

Metaphysics is the study of reality in the broadest sense, an inquiry into the elemental nature of the universe and the things in it. Though it must take into ac- count the findings of science, metaphysics generally focuses on basic questions that science cannot address. Questions of interest: Does the ,vorld consist only of matter, or is it made up of other basic things, such as ideas or minds? Is there a spiritual, ideal realm that exists beyond the material world? Is the mind the same thing as the body?

Phi losophy: The Quest for Understanding 5

WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?

Your Philosophical Beliefs

Where do you stand on the fundamencal issues in philosophy? Here is your chance co cake inventory of your vie,vs. After you finish chis course, cake the survey again co see if your perspective has changed or become ,nore nuanced. AnS\ver ,vich chese numbers: 5 = true; 4 = probably crue; 3 = neither probable nor i1nprobable; 2 = probably false; I = false.

I. Ac lease so,ne 1noral nonns or principles are objectively true or valid for everyone.

2. Mora l standards are relative co what individuals or cu ltures bel ieve. __ 3. Mind and body consist of nvo fu nda,nencally different kinds of scuff- nonphysical

scuff and physica l scuff. __ 4. The 1nind, or soul, can exist ,vichouc che body. __ 5. Our mental scares are nothing bur bra in scares (,n ind scares are identical co bra in scares).

6. No one has free ,vi ii. __ 7. Persons have free will (so,ne of our actions are free). __ 8. Although our actions are determined, they can still be free (free ,viii and decenn inis,n

are nor in confl ict). __ 9. The God of crad icional Western religions (an all-knowing, all-po,verful, all-good deity)

exists. __ 10. The apparent design of the universe shows char it had an intell igent designer. __ 11. Right actions are chose co,nmanded by God; ,vrong actions are chose forbidden by

God. __

12. God does nor ,nake actions right or ,vrong by commanding chem co be so. __ 13. We can know some th ings about che external world. __ 14. We cannot know anything about che external world. __ 15. The theory of evolution is a beccer explanation of the apparent design of biologica l life

chan che theory of "incelligenc design." __ 16. Truth about something depends on what a person or culture believes. __ 17. Libercarianis,n is che correct political theory. __ 18. Welfare liberalis,n is che correct moral theory. __ 19. Meaning in life comes from outside ourselves, fro,n God or so,ne ocher transcendent

real ity. __ 20. Meaning in life comes from ,vichin ourselves. __

How are mind and body related? Do people have immortal souls? Do humans have free wi ll, or are our actions determined by forces beyond our control? Can actions be both free and determined? Does God exist? How can both a good God and evil exist simultaneously? What is the nat ure of causality? Can an effect ever precede its cause? What is the nature of time? Is time travel possible?

And what, Socrates, is the food of che soul> Surely, I said, knowledge is the food of che soul. - Plato

6 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

MAIN DIVISIONS OF PHILOSOPHY

DIVISION

Metaphysics

Epistemology

Axiology

Logic

Epistemology is the study of knowledge.

Axiology is the study of value, including both aesthetic value and moral

value. Ethics is the study of moral value using the methods of philosophy.

QUESTIONS

Does the world consist only of matter, or is it made up of other basic th ings, such as ideas or mind? Is there a spiritual, ideal realm that exists beyond the material world? Is the mind the same thing as the body? How are mind and body related? Do people have immortal souls? Do humans have free wi ll, or are our actions determined by forces beyond our control? Can actions be both free and deter- mined? Does God exist? How can both a good God and evi l exist simultaneously? What is the nature of causal ity? Can an effect ever precede its cause? What is the nature of time? Is time trave l possible?

What is knowledge? What is truth? Is knowledge possible- can we ever know any- thing? Does knowledge require certainty? What are the sources of knowledge? Is experience a source of knowledge? Is mysticism or faith a source? Can we gain knowledge of the empirical world through reason alone? If we have knowledge, how much do we have? When are we justified in saying that we know something? Do we have good reasons to believe that the world exists independently of our minds? Or do our minds constitute reality?

What makes an action right (or wrong)? What th ings are intrinsically good? What is the good life? What gives life meaning? What makes someone good (or bad)? What moral principles should guide our actions and choices? Which is the best moral theory? Is killing ever mora lly permissible? If so, why? Are mora l standards objective or subjective? Is an action right merely because a culture endorses it? Does morality depend on God? What makes a society just?

What are the ru les for drawing correct inferences? What are the nature and struc- ture of deductive arguments? How can propositional or predicate logic be used to evaluate arguments? Upon what logical principles does reasoning depend? Does logic describe how the world is- or just how our minds work? Can conclusions reached through inductive logic be rationally justified?

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Questions of interest: What is knowl- edge? What is truth? Is kno\vledge possible-can \Ve ever kno\v anything? Does knowledge require certainty? What are the sources of kno\vledge? Is experience a source of knowledge? Is mysticism or faith a source? Can we gain kno\vledge of the empirical \vorld through reason alone? If \Ve have kno\vledge, how much do \Ve have? When are we justified in saying that \Ve know something? Do we have good reasons to believe that the \vorld exists independently of our minds? Or do our minds con- stitute reality?

Axiology is the study of value, including both aesthetic value and moral value. The study of moral value is kno\vn as eth ics. Ethics involves inquiries into the nature of moral judgments, virtues, values, obligations, and theories. Questions of interest: What makes an action right (or wrong)? What things are intrinsically good? What is the good life? What gives life meaning? What makes someone good (or bad)? What moral principles should guide our actions and choices? Which is the best moral

Phi losophy: The Quest for Understanding 7

theory? Is ki lling ever morally permissible? If so, why? Are moral standards objective or subjective? Is an ac- t ion right merely because a culture endorses it? Does morality depend on God? W hat makes a society just?

Logic is the study of correct reasoning. Ques- tions of interest: W hat are the rules for d rawing cor- rect inferences? What are the nature and structure of deductive arguments? How can propositional or pred- icate logic be used to evaluate argumenrs? Upon what logical principles does reasoning depend? Does logic describe ho,v the world is-or just ho,v our minds work? Can conclusions reached through induct ive logic be rationally justified?

In addition to these divisions, there are subdivi- sions of philosophy whose job is to examine critically the assumptions and principles that underlie other fields. Thus ,ve have the philosophy of science, the philosophy of la,v, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of history, the philosophy of language, and many others. When those laboring in a discipline begin questioning irs most basic ideas-ideas that define irs subject matter and principles of inquiry- philosophy, the most elemental mode of investigation, steps 1n.

Figure 1.3 Plat o, point ing upward t oward the h igher realm of ideas, and Aristotle, gesturing down toward the th ings of t his earth.

ESSAY/ DISCUSSION QUESTIONS SECTION 1.1

1. What is the philosophical method? W ho can make use of this approach to important questions? Can only philosophers use it? H ave you used it? Ho,v?

2. What are some fundamental beliefs that are part of your philosophy of life? Ho,v do these beliefs influence your life?

3. What is philosophy's greatest practical benefit? Do you think studying philosophy could change your life goals or your fundamental beliefs? Why or why not?

4. How can philosophy enhance your personal freedom? What are some of your fundamental beliefs that you have never fully examined? What might be the result of never examining a fundamental belief?

5. Which of the four main divisions of philosophy interests you the most? W hy? W hat philosophical ques tions listed in this section would you most ,vant to have ans,vers to?

Logic is the study of correct reasoning.

There's a difference

between a philosophy and a bumper sticker.

- Charles M. Schulz

8 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

The point of philosophy

is to start with something so simple as not to seem worrh stating. and to end with something so para-

doxical that no one will believe it. - Bertrand Russell

4 Socrates says that a good man can never be harmed. What do you think he means by this?

The Socratic method is a qucstion-and .. answcr

dialogue in which proposi- tions arc methodically scrutinized to uncover the

trurh.

The chicfbcncfir, which rcsuk< from philosophy, arises in an indirect man ..

ncr, and proceeds more

from its secret> insensible

inAucncc, than from its immediate application.

- David Hume

1.2 SOCRATES AND THE EXAMINED LIFE

There is no better way to understand and appreciate the philosophical quest for knowledge than to study the life and work of Socrates, one of philosophy's greatest practitioners and the most revered figure in irs history. Socrates wrote no philosophy, but ,ve know about his thinking and character through his famous pupil Plato, who portrayed him in several dialogues, or conversations (notably in Euthyphro, Crito, and Apology). For two and a half millennia Socrates has been inspi ring generations by his devotion to philosophical inquiry, his relentless search for ,visdom, and his determination to live according to his o,vn high standards. As mentioned earl ier, he famously said that "the unexamined life is not worth living," and he became the best

example of someone living his life by that maxim. Thus, at a time when most phi- losophy was di rected at cosmological speculations, he turned to critically examining people's basic conceprs, common beliefs, and moral thinking.

For Socrates, an unexamined life is a tragedy because it resulrs in grievous harm to the soul, a person's true self or essence. The soul is harmed by lack of kno,vledge- ignorance of one's o,vn self and of the most important values in life (the good). But knowledge of these things is a mark of the soul's excellence. A clear sign that a per- son has an unhealthy soul is her exclusive pursuit of social status, ,vealth, po,ver, and pleasure instead of the good of the soul. The good of the soul is attained only through an uncompromising search for what's true and real, through the wisdom to see what is most vital in life. Such insight comes from rational self-examination and critical questioning of facile assumptions and unsupported beliefs. To get to the truth, Socrates thought, we must go around the false certitudes of custom, tradition, and superstition and let reason be our guide. Thus he played the role of philosophi- cal gadfly, an annoying pest to the people of Athens, prodding them to wake up and seek the wisdom within their grasp.

We know very little about Socrates' life. He spent all his days in Athens except for a term of military service in which he sold iered in the Peloponnesian War. He ,vas married and had three sons. He spent much of his time roaming the streets of Athens, speaking ,vith anyone who would listen. His habit was to ask people seem- ingly simple questions about their views on virtue, religion, justice, or the good, challenging them to think critically about their basic assumptions. This sort of question-and-answer dialogue in which propositions are methodically scrutinized to uncover the truth has become known as the Socratic method. Usually when Socrates used it in conversations, or dialogues, with his fellow Athenians, thei r views ,vould be exposed as false or confused. The main point of the exercise for Socrates, ho,vever, was not to win arguments but to get closer to the truth. He thought people ,vho pursued this noble aim as he did should not be embarrassed by being sho,vn to be wrong; they should be delighted to be weaned from a false opinion. Nevertheless, the Socratic conversations often ended in the humiliation of eminent Athenians. They were enraged by Socrates, ,vhile many youths gravitated to him.

Eventually Socrates ,vas arrested and charged ,vith disrespecting the gods and corrupting the youth of the city. He was tried before five hundred jurors, a majority

PHILOSOPHERS AT WORK

Plato

No philosopher- with che possible exception of Ariscocle-has had a deeper and more lasting effect on Western choughr chan Plato (c. 427- 347 BCE). He ,vas born in Athens into an inAuencial ariscocracic fa,nily and grew up during che perilous years of che Peloponnesian War, a struggle between Athens and the Peloponnesian scares. He was a student and admirer of Socrates, who turned Plato's

Socrates and the Examined Life 9

Figure 1.4 Plato (c. 427- 347 8C£).

m ind coward philosophy and che pursuit of wisdom. He ,vas horrified by Socrates' execution in 399 for irnpiery and corruption of Athenian youth, so he left Athens and traveled ,videly, possibly co Sicily and Egypt. When he returned co Athens, he founded the Academy, a reaching college regarded as che first university, and devoted che rest of his life co reaching and writing philosophy. (The Academy endured for hundreds of years until ic ,vas abolished by che Eastern Roman ernperor Justi nian I.) The Acade,ny's ,nose renowned studen t ,vas Ariscocle, who entered the school ar age seventeen and re,nained for C\venry years.

Plato's chinking is e,nbodied in his dia logues, nvenry-five of which exist in cheir co,nplece form. They were ,vrircen during a span of fifty years and have been divided into three periods: early, middle, and lace. The early dia logues include Eurhyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, and Gorgias. These early works portray Socrates as a brill iant and principled deAarer of his contemporaries' bogus clai,ns ro knowl- edge. The midd le dialogues include Phaedo, Republic, and Theneretur; che lace ones consist of Critias, Pnrmenides, Sophirt, Laws, and ochers.

of whom voted co convict him. H is sentence was death or exile; he chose death by poison rather than leave his beloved Athens. In his d ialogues Crito and Phaedo, Plato recounts che events of che trial, including Socrates' address co che jurors. Socrates is portrayed as a man of brill iant intellect and unshakeable integrity who would not compromise his principles, even co escape death.

In one form or another, che Socratic method has been pare of Western e.ducacion for centuries. le is one of che ways chat philosophy is done, a powerful procedure for applying critical chinking co many scacemencs chat seem out of reason's reach. As Socrates used it, che method typically ,vould go like chis: (1) someone poses a ques- tion about che meaning of a concept (for example, "What is justice?"); (2) Socrates' companion gives an answer; (3) Socrates raises questions about che answer, proving chat che answer is inadequate; (4) co avoid che problems inherent in chis answer, che companion offers a second ans,ver; (5) seeps (3) and (4) are repeated a number of

10 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

Figure 1.5 The Death of Socrates by Jacques-Louis David.

times, ultimately revealing that the companion does not kno\v \vhat he thought he

knew. To Socrates, this negative outcome is actually a k ind of progress. False answers are eliminated, opinions are improved, and perhaps the truth is a little closer than before.

Let's watch Socrates in action. Here is his conversation with Thrasymachus, a teacher eager to demonstrate that Socrates is not as \vise as people say he is. The ques- tion is "What is justice?" and Thrasymachus insisrs that justice is whatever is in the interest of the strongest-that is, might makes right.

Plato, The Republic

Listen, then, he [Thrasymachus] said; I proclaim that justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger. And now why do you not praise me? But of course you won't.

Let me first understand you, I [Socrates] replied. Justice, as you say, is the interest of the stronger. What, Thrasymachus, is the meaning of this? You can not mean to say that because Polydamas, the pancratiast [an athlete), is stronger than we are, and fi nds the eating of beef conducive to his bodily strength, that to eat beef is therefore equally for our good who are weaker than he is , and right and just for us?

That's abominable of you, Socrates; you take the words in the sense which is most damaging to the argument.

Not at all , my good sir, I sa id; I am trying to understand them; and I wish that you would be a little clearer.

Socrates and the Examined Life 11

Well, he said, have you never heard that fo rms of government differ; there are tyrannies, and there are democracies, and there are aristocracies?

Yes, I know. And the government is the ruling power in each state? Certainly. And the different forms of government make laws democratical, aristocratical,

tyrannical, with a view to their several interests; and these laws, which are made by them for their own interests, are the j ustice which they deliver to their subjects, and him who t ransgresses them they punish as a breaker of the law and unjust. And that is what I mean when I say that in all states there is the same principle of justice, which is the interest of the government; and as the government must be supposed to have power, the only reasonable conclusion is, that everywhere there is one principle of justice, which is the interest of the stronger.

Now I understand you, I said; and whether you are right or not I will try to discover. But let me remark, that in defining justice you have yourself used the word " interest" which you forbade me to use. It is true, however, that in your definition the words "of the stronger" are added.

A small addition, you must allow, he said. Great or small, never mind about that: we must first inquire whether what you are

saying is the truth. Now we are both agreed that justice is interest of some sort, but you go on to say "of the stronger"; about this addition I am not so sure, and must therefore consider further.

Proceed. I will; and first tell me, Do you admit that it is just for subjects to obey their rulers? I do. But are the ru lers of states absolutely infallible, or are they sometimes liable to err? To be sure, he replied, they are liable to err. Then in making their laws they may sometimes make them rightly, and sometimes

not? True. When they make them rightly, they make them agreeably to their interest; when

they are mistaken, contrary to their in terest; you admit that? Yes. And the laws which they make must be obeyed by their subjects- and that is what

you call justice? Doubtless. Then justice, according to your argument, is not only obedience to the interest of

the stronger but the reverse? What is that you are saying? he asked. I am only repeating what you are saying, I believe. But let us consider: Have we not

admitted that the rulers may be mistaken about their own interest in what they com- mand, and also that to obey them is justice? Has not that been admitted?

Yes. Then you must also have acknowledged justice not to be for the interest of the

stronger, when the rulers unintentionally command things to be done which are to their own injury. For if, as you say, just ice is the obedience which the subject renders to their commands, in that case, 0 wisest of men, is there any escape from the conclusion that the weaker are commanded to do, not what is for the interest, but what is for the injury of the stronger?•

Astonishment is chc root

of philosophy. -Paul Tillich

5 Socrates never seems adversaria l or combat- ive in his dialogues. What effect do you t hink this approach has on those who enter into dialogue with him?

12 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

PH I LOSO PH ERS AT WORK

The Pre-Socratics

Philosophy began in ancient Greece in rhe sixth century BCE a,nong thinkers ,vho broke with age-old tradition co ponder important ,narrers in an entirely novel ,vay. For centuries, hu,nans had been devising allS\vers co fundamental questions: What is rhe nature of the world? Whar is ir ,nade of-one kind of scuff or ,nany kinds? Does rhe ,vorld have an origin or has it always existed? Why is the world rhe ,vay it is? What ,nakes things happen-gods, magic, or something else? What is rhe reality behind rhe appearances of reality? Their answers ,vere generally drawn fro,n 1nyrhology and rradirion, from old stories about rhe gods or from hand-me-down lore and law. But rhe first philosophers-called pre-Socratics because most of the,n came before Socrates (fifth century BCE)-refused to rake th is parh. It is mosrly rheir way of seeking answers about the world, rather rhan the answers the,nselves, char distinguished chem and 1nade chem rhe first philosophers. Once chis philo- sophical fire was lie, ir spread co lacer thinkers in rhe ancient ,vorld, a period of about a thousand years, from approximately 600 BCE co around 500 CE. Ir ,vas in chis era char Western phi losophy first established itself, defined almost all irs main areas of study, and gave us philosophica l heroes (most notably, Socrates, Plaro, and Arisrorle) who continue co inAuence our ch inking on imporranr ideas and issues.

So,ne of rhe more notable pre-Socratics: Thales (c. 625-547 BCE). Accord ing co tradition, Thales ,vas rhe first philoso-

pher. In ancient Greece he and his new ,vay of chinking garnered a great deal of

Figure 1.6 Thales of Miletus (c. 625-547 ace).

respect for an odd reason: he ,vas said co have predicted rhe solar eclipse of 585 BCE and co have derived his prediction ,virhour appeals to divine or orherworldly forces. On th is account he has also been called rhe first scienrisr, for in chose ri,nes rhere ,vas no clear distinction between philos- ophy and science. Thales' grearesr conrriburion to both philosophy and science ,vas his method. He sec out co look for natural-nor myth ic-explanations for natu- ral pheno,nena, and he insisted char such accounts be as simple as possible, preferably accounting for everyth ing by positing a sin- gle substance or element. This, as it turns our, is also rhe preferred approach of ,nodern science.

Empedocks (c. 495- c. 435 BCE). In rhe ninereenrh century Charles Danvin propounded rhe theory of biological evolution, explaining char evolution op- erates through whar he called "natural selection." The basic ourlines of natural selection, however, didn't originate ,virh Darwin. They ,vere first arriculared in rough fonn rwenry-five centuries ago by a pre-Socratic philosopher na,ned Em- pedodes. Using observation and imagi- nation, Empedocles ,nainrained char an i,nals were nor created whole by a deiry and placed on rhe earrh-rhey evolved.

Parmenides (c. 515-450 BCE). Par- menides ,vas rhe ,nose groundbreaking and inAuenrial philosopher of rhe pre- Socrarics. We know lirrle about his life- nor much more rhan char he lived in Elea (a Greek colony on rhe southern coast of Italy) and raughr rhe famous master of par- adoxes, Zeno. We also kno,v char through rhe centuries he won rhe arrenrion and ad- miration of several eminent thinkers, fro,n Plato co Plutarch co Hegel. Like rhe ocher pre-Socratics, he conrribured more co rhe shape of philosophica l inquiry rhan co its conrenr. Parmenides' clai,n co fame rests mosrly on his sysremaric e1nploy1nenr of deductive argu,nenr. He seems co have been rhe first thinker outside rhe field of marhe,narics co reason deductively and consisrenrly from basic premises co inrer- esring conclusions. In rhe process, he ce- mented basic distinctions char have been essential co philosophica l inquiry co chis day. For one rhing, he conrrasred reason and rhe senses. He contended char knowl- edge of rhe world could be acquired only through reason, only through a deductive chain of reasoning such as he himself used.

Figure 1.7 Empedocles (c. 49x. 435 see).

Socrates and the Examined Life 13

The senses, however, were unreliable. Fig. 1.8 Parmenides (c. 515-450 see).

14 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

Red11ctio ad abs11rdu111 is an argumcnr form in which a set of statements to be proved false is as· sumed, and absurd or false statements arc deduced from the set as a whole}

showing that the original statement must be false.

Socrates uses his famous question-and-anS\ver approach to prove that Thrasy- machus's defin ition of justice is \vrong. In particular, he applies a common form of argument called redttctio ad absurdu»z. (Other argument forms are discussed in the following section.) The basic idea behind it is if you assume that a set of statements is true, and yet you can deduce a false or absurd statement from it, then the original set of statements as a whole must be false. So, in the preceding d ialogue, Socrates says in effect, Let's assume that Thrasymachus is right that justice is whatever is in the interest of the powerful, and that people are just if they obey the laws made by the powerful. It is clear, ho\vever, that the powerful sometimes make mistakes and demand obedience to la\vS that are not in their best interest. So if Thrasymachus's definition of justice is correct, then it is right for people to do what is in the interest of the po\verful, and it is also right to do \vhat is not in the interest of the powerful. H is idea of justice then leads to a logical contradiction and is therefore false.

ESSAY/ DISCUSSION QUESTIONS SECTION 1.2

1. Could the execution of someone for saying unpopular things happen in this country? Why or why not? Are there countries in the \vorld where such things happen regu larly? Is the execution of someone for his or her offensive speech ever justified? Explain.

2. What do you think Socrates would think about modern consumer societies?

3. Socrates is often regarded as the noblest of the great philosophers. Is this opinion justified? Why or why not?

4. Write an imaginary Socratic dialogue benveen yourself and a friend . Imagine that your friend declares, "Everyone lies. No one ever tells the truth," and you want to sho\v that those statements are false.

5. Write a Socratic dialogue between two fictional characters. Imagine that the opening statement is, "C.ourresy to others is always a cynical attempt to serve your own interests. Respect for people has nothing to do with courtesy."

1.3 THINKING PHILOSOPHICALLY

As we have seen, to think philosophically is to bring your po\vers of critical reasoning to bear on fundamental questions. When you do this, you are usually clarifying the meaning of concepts, constructing and evaluating philosophical theories, or devis- ing and evaluating logical arguments. This latter task constitutes the principal labor of philosophy. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and other great thinkers do not deliver their philosophical insights to us without argument, as if we are automatically to accept their vie\vS \Vith no questions asked. Philosophers provide reasons for think- ing their ideas are plausible-that is, they give us arguments. And if we believe what

Thinking Philosophically 15

they say, it should be because there are good reasons for doing so. Like\vise, if we expect intelligent people co accept our philosophical vie\vS, \Ve must argue our case. Since the philosophy we read \vill most likely contain arguments, our understand- ing of the text will hang on our abil ity co identify and understand chose arguments.

Reasons and Arguments

As you might have guessed, the term argument does not refer co heated d isagreemenrs or emotional squabbles. An argument is a group of statements in \vhich one of chem is meant co be supported by the others. A statement (or claim) is an assertion chat something is or is not the case and is therefore the kind of utterance chat is either true or false. In an argument, the statement being supported is the con clusion , and the scacemenrs supporting the conclusion are the premises. The premises are meant co provide reasons for believing chat the conclusion is true. A good argument gives us good reasons for accepting a conclusion; a bad argument fails co provide good reasons. In philosophy-and in any ocher kind of rational inqui ry-accepting a conclusion (statement) \Vithout good reasons is an elementary mistake in reasoning. Believing a statement without good reasons is a recipe for error; believing a statement for good reasons increases your chances of uncovering the truth.

When we do philosophy, then, we are likely at some point co be grappling with argumenrs-we are trying co either (1) devise an argument co support a statement or (2) evaluate an argument co see if there really are good reasons for accepting irs conclusion.

Note chat argument in the sense used here is not synony- mous with pem,asion. An argument provides us with reasons for accepting a claim; it is an attempted "proof" for an asser- tion. But persuasion does not necessarily involve giving any reasons at all for accepting a claim. To persuade is co influence people's opinions, \vhich can be accomplished by offering a good argument but also by misleading with logical fallacies, exploiting emotions and prejudices, dazzling with rhetori- cal gimmicks, hiding or distorting the faces, threatening or coercing people-the list is long. Good arguments prove something \vhether or not they persuade. Persuasive ploys can change minds but do not necessarily prove anything.

No\v consider these nvo simple arguments:

Argument 1 It's wrong to take the life of an innocent person. Abortion takes the life of an innocent person. Therefore abortion is wrong.

An a.rgume.nt is a state· men, coupled wh h o,her statements that arc meant

to supporr that statement. A s tatement (claim) is an asscrrio n that something

is o r is not the case and L~ therefore the kind of urrer- ancc that is either true or false. A conclusion is the sra,emen, being suppon ed. A premise is a sratcmcnt supporting the conclusion.

Argument2 God does not exist. After a ll , most college students believe that that is the case.

Figure 1.9 Hit ler was a master persuader, relying not on good arguments but on emotional rhetoric. How many people today would be persuaded by a contem- porary politician w ith Hitler's rhetorical talents?

16 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

Philosophy asks ,he simple question, what is it all about? -Alfred North \'qhicehead II I II I II 111111111111 Ill II I II I II I II I II Ill 1111111

PHILOSOPHY LAB - Do you live an examined life? The follo,ving srarements express some fundamenral beliefs-beliefs char countless people have bur may never have thought much abour. Read each sraremenr and select che ones char you sincerely believe. Then rry ro recall if you have ever seriously questioned these beliefs. (Passing thoughts and idle revelry do not counr.) Be honesr. This liule experiment could be very revealing-and help- ful as you chink abour your life and values.

I. God exists and ,varches over me. 2. God somerimes answers prayers. 3. There is a heaven. 4. I have both a body and an im morral soul. 5. My emotions are not under my control; rhey just happen. 6. It is ,vrong co criticize ocher cultures. 7. It is ,vrong co judge or her people's acrions. 8. The mora l principles chat I ,vas raised ro bel ieve are the right ones. 9. Political conservatives are wrong about most issues.

10. Political liberals are wrong about most issues. 11. I make free choices; all my decisions are up co me. 12. I can come ro kno,v some things by faith alone. 13. My emotions are my best guide co what is morally right or ,vrong. 14. People are basically bad. 15. People are basically good.

In Argument I, the conclusion is "abortion is wrong," and it is backed by nvo

premises: "Ir's ,vrong to take the life of an innocent person" and "Abortion takes the life of an innocent person." In Argument 2, the conclusion is "God does not exist,"

,vhich is supported by the premise "After all, most college students believe that that is the case." D espite the differences between these nvo passages (differences in con- tent, the number of premises, and the order of their parts) , they are both arguments because they exemplify basic argument struc ture: a conclusion supported by at least one premise.

Though the compo nenrs of an a rgument seem clea r enough, people often fail to distinguish benveen a rgumenrs and stro ng statemenrs that contain no arg uments at all. Suppose we change Argument I into this:

Abortion is wrong. I can' t believe how many people think it's morally okay. The world is insane.

Now there is no a rgument, just an expression of exasperat io n or anger. There are no statements giving us reasons to believe a conclusio n. What we have are some un- suppo rted assertions that may merely appear to make a case. If we ig no re the distinc- tion between genuine arguments and nonargumentative material, critical reasoning is undo ne.

Thinking Philosophically 17

The simplest way co locate an argument is co find its conclusion first, then its premises. Zeroing in on conclusions and premises can be a lot easier if you keep an eye out for indicator uJords. Indicator words often tag along \vich arguments and indicate that a conclusion or premise may be nearby.

Here are a fe\v conclusion indicator \vords:

consequently

thus

therefore

it follows chat

as a result

hence

so

\vhich means chat

Here are some premise indicator words:

in view of the fact assuming chat

because since

due co the face that for

inasmuch as given that

Just remember chat indicator words do not guarantee the presence of conclusions and premises. They are simply telltale signs.

Assuming we can recognize an argument when we see it, ho\v can we cell ifit is a good one? Fortunately, the general criteria for judging the merirs of an argument are simple and clear. A good argument-one chat gives us good reasons for believing a claim-muse have (1) solid logic and (2) true premises. Requirement (1) means chat the conclusion should follow logically from the premises, chat there muse be a proper logical connection between the supporting scacemenrs and the statement supported. Requirement (2) says chat what the premises assert must in fact be the case. An argu- ment that fails in either respect is a bad argument.

There are two basic kinds of arguments-deductive and inductive-and our two requirements hold for both of chem, even though the logical connect ions in each type are distinct. Deductive arguments are incende.d co give logically conclusive support co t heir conclusions so chat if the premises are true, the conclusion absolutely must be true. Argument I is a deductive argument and is therefore supposed co be const ructed so that if the two premises are true, its conclusion cannot possibly be false. Here it is with irs structure laid bare:

Argument 1

1. It's wrong to take the life of an innocent person. 2. Abortion takes the li fe of an innocent person. 3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Do you see that, given the form or structure of this argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true? It would be very strange-illogical, in fact-to agree that the two premises are true but that the conclusion is false.

One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in chc cho ices

one makes . .. and the choices we make arc ultim~

arcly out responsibility. -£lea.nor Roosevelt

6 Recall some state- ments that you have heard or read in which st rong assert ions were made but no argument was presented. Did the assert ions prove any- thi ng? What was your reaction at the t i me? Were you persuaded or impressed by them?

A deductive argument is an argument intended to give logically conclusive

support to its conclusion.

18 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

Philosophy, when super- ficially studied, excite.< doubt; when thoroughly explored, it dispels it. -Francis Bacon

An inductive argume.nt is an argument intended to

give probable support ro its conclusion.

Now look at this one:

Argument 3

1. All dogs are mammals. 2. Rex is a dog. 3. Therefore, Rex is a mammal.

Again, there is no way for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. The deductive form of the argument guarantees this.

So a deductive argument is intended to have this sort of airtight st ructure. If it actually does have th is structure, it is said to be valid. Argument I is deductive because it is intended to provide logically conclusive support to its conclusion. It is valid because, as a matter of fact, it does offer this kind of support. A deductive argu- ment that fails to provide conclusive support to its conclusion is said to be invalid. In such an argument, it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Argument 3 is intended to have a de.ductive form, and because it actually does have this form, the argument is also valid.

An elementary fact about deductive arguments is that their valid ity (or lack thereof) is a separate issue from the truth of the premises. Validity is a structural matter, depending on how an argument is put together. Truth concerns the nature of the claims made in the premises and conclusion. A deductive argument is sup- posed to be built so that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true-but in a particular case, the premises might not be true. A valid argument can have true or false premises and a true or false conclusion. (By defin ition, of course, it cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.) In any case, being invalid or having false premises dooms a deductive argument.

Inductive arguments are supposed to give probable support to their conclusions. Unlike deductive argumenrs, they are not designe.d to support their conclusions deci- sively. They can establish only that, if their premises are true, their conclusions are probably true (more likely to be true than not). Argument 2 is an inductive argu- ment meant to demonstrate the probable truth that "God does not exist." Like all in- ductive arguments (and unlike deductive ones), it can have true premises and a false conclusion. So it's possible for the sole premise-"After all, most college studenrs bel ieve that that is the case"-to be true while the conclusion is false.

If inductive argumenrs succee.d in lending very probable support to their conclu- sions, they are said to be strong. Strong arguments are such that if their premises are true, their conclusions are very probably true. If they fail to provide th is probable support, they are terme.d iueak. Argument 2 is a weak argument because its prem- ise, even if true, does not show that more likely than not God does not exist. What college st udenrs (or any other group) believe about God does not constit ute good evidence for or against God's existence.

But consider this inductive argument:

Argument 4

1. Eighty-five percent of the students at th is univers ity are Republicans. 2. Sonia is a student at this university. 3. Therefore, Sonia is probably a Republican.

Thinking Philosophically 19

This argument is strong. If its premises are true, irs conclusion is likely to be true. If 85 percent of the university's students are Republicans, and Sonia is a university student, she is more likely than not to be a Republican too.

When a valid (deductive) argument has true premises, it is a good argument. A good deductive argument is said to be sound. Argument I is valid, but we cannot say whether it is sound until ,ve determine the t ruth of the premises. Argument 3 is valid, and if its premises are true, it is sound. When a st rong (inductive) argument has true premises, it is also a good argument. A good inductive argument is said to be cogent. Argument 2 is ,veak, so there is no way it can be cogent. Argument 4 is st rong, and if irs premises are t rue, it is cogent.

Checking the validity or strength of an argument is often a plain, commonsense undertaking. Using our natural reasoning ability, ,ve can examine ho,v the premises are linked to the conclusion and can see quickly whether the conclusion follows from the premises. We are most likely to make an easy job of it when the argumenrs are simple. Many times, ho,vever, we need some help, and help is available in the form of methods and guidel ines for evaluating arguments.

Having a fam il iarity with common argument patterns, or forms, is especially useful ,vhen assess ing the validity of deductive argumenrs. We are likely to encoun- ter these forms again and again. Here is a prime example:

Argument 5

1. If the surgeon operates, then the patient will be cured. 2 . The surgeon is operating. 3. Therefore, the patient will be cured.

This argument form contains a conditional premise-that is, a premise consist- ing of a conditional, or if-then, statement (actually a compound statement composed of nvo constituent statements). Premise 1 is a conditional statement. A conditional statement has two parrs: the part beginning with if (called the antecedent), and the part beginning ,vith then (known as the consequent). So the antecedent of Premise 1 is "If the surgeon operates," and the consequent is "then the patient will be cured."

The best ,vay to appreciate the structure of such an argument (or any deductive ar- gument, for that matter) is to t ranslate it into traditional argument symbols in ,vhich each statement is symbolized by a letter. Here is the symbolization for Argument 5:

, . If p, then q. 2 . p. 3. Therefore, q.

We can see that p represenrs "the surgeon operates," and q represents "the patient wi ll be cured." But notice that we can use this same symbolized argument form to represent countless other arguments-arguments with different statemenrs but hav- ing the same basic structure.

It just so happens that the underlying argument form for Argument 5 is extremely common-common enough to have a name, modus ponens (or affirming the anteced- ent). The truly useful fact about modus ponens is that any argument having this form is valid. We can plug any statemenrs we ,vant into the formula and the result will be a valid argument, a circumstance in which if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Philosophy is like trying to o~n a safe w ith a com~ bination lock: each linle adjustmen, of the dials

seems to achieve nothing, only when everything is in place docs the doo, open. -Ludwig \'7iugenstein

20 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

PH I LOSO PH ERS AT WORK

Philosophy Takes on Racism So,ne people have no patience for philosophy's preoccupation ,vith conceptual anal- ysis, fine distinctions, and argument niceties- the fussy murmurings of pedants and bores, they might say. Bue chis attitude underesci,naces the power of philosophical precision and che good work it does on some of che weightiest issues of our rime.

Consider the issue of racis,n, a 1nonscrous evil co d ispel from society and often a hard topic co discuss ,vichouc raising voices and elevating blood pressures. What can philosophy possibly say about ch is issue char could be helpful or en lightening?

Apparently, a great dea l. The distinguished phi losopher Lawrence Blu,n, au- thor of che book "I'm Nor a Racist But . .. ", dra,vs anencion co che "conceptual in- Aacion" of che terms racist and racism. He and ocher scholars observe char che words are so overused and 1nisapplied chat they are losing their moral po,ver co indict and co sha,ne. Their reckless use causes 1nisunderscanding and resenunent. Blum says:

Some feel that the word [racist] is thrown around so much that anything involving "race" that someone does not like is liable to castigation as "racist." ... A local newspaper called certain blacks "racist" for criticizing other blacks who s upported a white over a black candidate for mayor. A whi te girl in Virginia said that it was "racist" for an African American teacher in her school to wear African attire .... Merely mentioning someone's race (or racial designatio n), using the word "Oriental" for Asians without recog- nizing its origins and its capacity for insu lt, or socializing only with members of one's own racial group are called "racist.'"

Blum cues through popular confusion about racis,n by offering a plausible definition of che word. All forms of racism, past and present, he says, involve cwo key elements: (I) an anicude or belief char another race is inferior or (2) antipathy (hatred, hoscilicy) coward char race.

lnferiorizatio n is linked to historical racist doctrine and racist social systems. Slavery, segregatio n, imperiali sm, aparthe id, and Nazism all treated certain groups as inferior to other groups ....

An equally prevalent argument form is modus to/lens (or denying the consequent). For example:

Argument 6

1. If the dose is low, the n the healing is slow.

2. The healing is not slow. 3, Therefore, the dose is not low.

Thinking Philosophically 21

Though race-based antipathy is less related to the original

concept of "racism," today the term unequivocally encompasses racial bigotry, hostility, and hatred. Indeed, the racial bigot is many people's paradigm image of a "racist." . ..

Historical systems of racism did of course inevitably involve racial antipathy as well as inferiorization. Hatred of Jews was cen- tral to Nazi philosophy; and it is impossible to understand Ameri- can racism without seeing hostility to blacks and Native Americans as integral to the nexus of attitudes and emotions that shored up slavery and segregation.t

If racism ahvays involves either inferiorization or antipathy, as Blu,n argues, then 1nany actions that people call racist actually ,nay be so,neching else.

Not every instance of racia l conflict, insensitivity, discomfort, miscommunication, exclusion, injustice, or ignorance should be called "racist." Not all racial incidents are racist incidents . . . . We need a more varied and nuanced moral vocabulary for talking about the domain of race .. . . All forms of racial ills should elicit concern from responsible individuals. If someone displays racial insensitiv- ity, but not racism, people should be able to see that for what it is)

Blum is careful co point out chat we can't conclude from this "conceptual inflation" chat racism and inequa lity have been overstated. Indirect or veiled racism, he says, is likely worse chan ,ve ,n ight think.

The point here is not chat Blum is right about racism (he may or ,nay not be), but chat ph ilosophica l th inking like chis is powerful and can yield very useful in- sights into real problems.

• Lawrence Blum, "I'm Not a Racist B11t . . . :" 7he Moral Quandary of Race {Ithaca, NY: Cornell Universiry Press, 2002), 1- 2.

l Blum, 8. I Blum, 9.

···························································································································•••;yl'-. .. ,,.

, . If p, then q.

2. Not q. 3. Therefore, not p.

Modus tollens is also a valid form, and any argument using this form must also be valid.

•

22 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

7 Before read ing this chapter, would you have found any of the invalid argument forms persuasive? Why or why not?

The essence of philosophy is that a man should so live that his happiness shall depend as little as possible on external things. -Epictetus

There are a lso common argument forms that are invalid. Here a re two of them:

Argument 7 (Affirming the Consequent)

1. If the mind is an immaterial substance, then ESP is rea l. 2. ESP is rea l. 3- Therefore, the mind is an immaterial substance.

1. If p, then q. 2. q. 3- Therefore, p.

Argument 8 (Denying the Antecedent)

1. If morality is relative to persons (that is, if moral rightness or wrongness depends on what people believe), then moral disagree- ment between persons would be nearly imposs ible.

2. But morality is not relative to persons. 3- Therefore, moral disagreement between persons is not nearly

imposs ible.

1. If p, then q. 2. Not p. 3- Therefore, not q.

The advantage of being able to recognize these and other common a rgument forms is that you can use that skill to readily determine the validity of many deduc- tive arguments. You kno\v, for example, that any a rgument having the same form as modus ponens or modus to/lens must be valid, and any argument in one of the com- mon invalid forms must be invalid.

Inductive arguments also have distinctive forms, and being fam iliar with the forms can help you evaluate the arguments. In enumerative induction, we arrive at a

generalization about an enti re g roup of things after observing just some members of the g roup. C,onsider these:

Argument9

Every formatted disk I have bought from the computer store is defective.

Therefore, a ll formatted d isks sold at the computer store are probably defective.

Argument 10

All the hawks in th is wild li fe sanctuary that I have observed have had red tai ls.

Therefore, all the hawks in this sanctuary probably have red tails.

Argument 11

Sixty percent of the Bostonians I have interviewed in various parts of the city are pro-choice.

Therefore, 60 percent of a ll Bostonians are probably pro·choice.

As you can see, enumerative induction has this form:

X percent of the observed members of group A have property P.

Therefore, X percent of all members of group A probably have property P.

Thinking Philosophically 23

The observed members of the group are simply a sample of the entire group. So based on what we know about this sample, \Ve can generalize to all the members. But how do \Ve kno\v \vhether such an argument is strong? Everything depends on the sample. If the sample is large enough and representative enough, \Ve can safely assume that our generalization dra\vn from the sample is probably an accurate reflec- tion of the whole group of members. A sample is represen tative of an entire group only if each member of the group has an equal chance of being include.cl in the sample. In general, the larger the sample, the greater the probability that it accur- ately reflects the nature of the group as a \vhole. Often common sense tells us when a sample is too small.

VALID AND INVALID ARGUMENT FORMS

VALID ARGUMENT FORMS

Affirming the Antecedent (Modus Ponens)

If p, then q.

p .

Therefore, q.

Example: If Spot barks, a burglar is in the

house.

Spot is barking.

Therefore, a burglar is in t he house.

INVALID ARGUMENT FORMS

Denying the Consequent (Modus To/lens)

If p, then q.

Not q.

Therefore, not p.

Example: If Spot barks, a burglar is in the

house.

A burglar is not in the house.

Therefore, Spot is not barking.

Affirming the Consequent Denying the Antecedent If p, then q. If p, then q.

q . Not p.

Therefore, p. Therefore, not q.

Example: Example: If t he cat is on t he mat, she is asleep. If the cat is on the mat, she is asleep.

She is asleep. She is not on the mat.

Therefore, she is on t he mat. Therefore, she is not asleep.

24 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

We do not kno\v ho\v many formatted disks from the computer store are in the sample mentioned in Argument 9. But if the number is several dozen and the disks \vere bought over a period of weeks or months, the sample is probably sufficiently large and representative. If so, the argument is strong. Like\vise, in Argument 10 \Ve don't kno\v the size of the sample or ho\v it was obtained. But if the sample \vaS taken from all the likely spots in the sanctuary where hawks live, and if several hawks \Vere ob- served in each location, the sample is probably adequate-and the argument is strong. In Argument 11, if the sample consists of a handful of Bostonians intervie\ved on a few street corners, the sample is definitely inadequate and the argument is weak. But if the sample consists of several hundred people, and if every member of the whole group has an equal chance of being included in the sample, then the sample would be good enough to allo\v us to accurately generalize about the whole population. Typically, se- lecting such a sample of a large population is done by professional polling organizations.

In the argument form kno\vn as analogical induction (or argument by analogy), \Ve reason in this fashion: T\vO or more th ings are similar in several ways; therefore, they are probably similar in one further \vay. Consider this argument:

Argument 12

Humans can walk upright, use simple tools, learn new skill s, and devise deductive arguments.

Figure 1.10 How much is a watch like the uni- verse? Everything depends on the relevant simi- larit ies and differences.

Chimpanzees can walk upright, use s imple tools, and learn new ski ll s.

Therefore, chimpanzees can probably devise deduc- tive arguments.

This argument says that because chimpanzees are simi- lar to humans in several respects, they probably are similar to humans in one further respect.

Here's an argument by analogy that has become a classic in philosophy:

Argument 13

A watch is a complex mechanism with many parts that seem arranged to achieve a specific purpose- a pur- pose chosen by the watch's designer.

In s imilar fashion, the universe is a complex mecha- nism with many parts that seem arranged to achieve a specific purpose.

Therefore, the universe must also have a des igner.

We can represent the form of an argument by analogy in this way:

X has properties P1 , P2, P3, plus the property P 4.

Y has properties P1, P2, and P3,

Therefore, Y probably has property P4.

Thinking Philosophically 25

The strength of an analogical induction depends on the relevant similarities be- tween the two things compared. The more relevant similarities there are, the greater the probability that the conclusion is true. In Argument 12, several similarities are note.cl. But there are some unmentioned diss imilarities. The brain of a chimpanzee is smaller and more primitive than that of a human, a difference that probably inhibirs higher intellectual functions such as logical argument. Argument 12, then, is ,veak. A common response co Argument 13 is chat the argument is weak because although the universe resembles a watch in some ,vays, in ocher ,vays it does not resemble a watch. Specifically, the universe also resembles a living thing.

The thi rd type of inductive argument is kno,vn as inference to the best explanation (or abduction), a kind of reasoning chat ,ve all use daily and that is at the heart of scientific investigations. Recall chat an argument gives us reasons for believing that something is the case. An explanation, on the other hand, states how or ivhy some- thing is the case. It attempts co clarify or elucidate, not offer proof. For example:

1 . Megan definitely understood the material, for she could answer every question on the test.

2. Megan understood the materia l because she has a good memory.

Sentence 1 is an argument. The conclusion is "Megan definitely understood the material," and the reason (premise) given for believing chat the conclusion is true is "for she could answer every question on the test." Sentence 2, though, is an expla- nation. It does not try co present reasons for believing something; it has nothing co prove. Instead, it tries co sho,v why something is the way it is (why Megan understood the material). Sentence 2 assumes chat Megan understood the material then cries co explain ,vhy. Sud, explanations play a crucial role in inference co the best explanation.

In inference co the best explanation, we begin with premises about a phenom- enon or state of affairs co be explained. Then ,ve reason from chose premises co an explanation for chat state of affairs. We try co produce not just any old explanation, but the best explanation among several possibilities. The best explanation is the one most likely to be true. The conclusion of the argument is that the preferred explana- t ion is indee.d probably true. For example:

Argument 14

Tariq flunked his philosophy course.

The best explanation for his failure is that he didn't read the material.

Therefore, he probably didn't read the material.

Argument 15

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant was found with the murder weapon in his hand, blood on his clothes, and the victim's wallet in his pocket. We have an eyewitness putting the defendant at the scene of the crime. The best explanation for all these facts is that the defendant committed the murder. There can be very little doubt- he's gu il ty.

The object of studying philosophy is to know one's own mind, not other

people's. -Dean Inge

26 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

The true function of phil- osophy is to educate us in

the principles of reasoning and not to put an end to fur ther reasoning by the introduction of fixed conclusions. -George Henry Lewes

Here's the form of inference to the best explanation:

Phenomenon Q.

E provides the best explanation for Q.

Therefore, it is probable that E is true.

In any argument of this pattern, if the explanation given is really the best, then the argument is inductively strong. If the explanation is not the best, the argument is inductively weak. If the premises of the strong argument are t rue, then the argu- ment is cogent. If the argument is cogent, then we have good reason to bel ieve that the conclusion is true.

The biggest challenge in using inference to the best explanation is determining ,vhich explanation is the best. Somet imes this feat is easy. If our car has a flat tire, we may quickly uncover the best explanation for such a state of affa irs. If we see a nail sticking out of the flat and there is no obvious evidence of tampering or of any other extraordinary cause (that is, there are no good alternative explanations), we may safely conclude that the best explanation is that a nail punctu red the tire.

In more complicated situations, we may need to do ,vhat scientists do to evalu- ate explanations, or theories-use special criteria to sort through the possibilities. Scientists call these standards the criteria of adequacy. Despite this fancy name, these criteria are basically just common sense, standards that you have probably used yourself.

One of these criteria is cal led conservatism. This criterion says that, all things being equal, the best explanation or theory is the one that fits best ,vith what is al ready kno,vn or established. For example, if a friend of yours says-in all seriousness-that she can fly to the moon ,vithout using any kind of rocket or spaceship, you probably ,vouldn't bel ieve her (and might even think that she needed psychiatric help). Your rea- sons for doubting her would probably rest on the criterion of conservatism-that ,vhat she says conflicts with everything science knows about spaceflight, human anatomy, aerodynamics, la,vs of nature, and much more. It is logically possible that she really can fly to the moon, but her claim's lack of conservatism (the fact that it conflicts ,vith so much of ,vhat we already know about the ,vorld) casts serious doubt on it.

Here is another useful criterion for judging the worth of explanations: simplicity. Other things being equal, the best explanation is the one that is the simplest-that is, the one that rests on the fe,vest assumptions. The theory making the fe,vest assump- tions is less likely to be false because there are fewer ,vays for it to go ,vrong. In the example about the flat tire, one possible (but strange) explanation is that space aliens punctured the tire. You probably ,vouldn't put much credence in this explanation be- cause you ,vould have to assume too many unknown entities and processes-namely, space al iens ,vho have come from who-kno,vs-,vhere using who-knows-what methods to move about and puncture your ti res. The nail-in-the-tire theory is much simpler (it assumes no unknown entities or processes) and is therefore much more likely to be true.

When you are carefully reading an argument (whether in an essay or some other context), you ,viii be just as intereste.d in whether the premises are true as in whether the conclusion follows from the premises. If the ,vriter is conscientious, he or she

Thinking Philosophically 27

will try to ensure that each premise is either well supported or in no need of sup- port (because the premise is obvious or agreed to by all parties). The needed support will come from the citing of examples, statistics, research, expert opinion, and other kinds of evidence or reasons. This arrangement means that each premise of the pri- mary argument may be a conclusion supported in turn by premises citing evidence or reasons. In any case, you as the reader \vill have to evaluate carefully the truth of all premises and the support behind them.

Reading Philosophy

Unfortunately, arguments in philosophical essays rarely come neatly labeled so you can find and evaluate them. You have to do that \vork yourself, a task that requ ires careful reading and th inking. The process can be challenging because in the real world, a rgumenrs can be s imple or complex, clearly stated or perplexing, and apparent or hidden. This is true for philosophical essays as well as for any other kind of \vriting that contains arguments. In some philosophical prose, the relationship between the conclusion (or conclusions) and the premises can be complicated, and even good arguments can be surrounded by material irrelevant to the arguments at hand. The remedy for these difficulties is instructive examples and plenty of practice, some of which you can get in this chapter.

Let's begin by identifying and analyzing the argument in the following passage. The issue is whether humans have free will or are compelled by forces beyond their control to act as they do (a topic we take up in Chapter 5). The statemenrs are num- bered for ease of reference.

(1) The famous trial lawyer Clarence Darrow (1857- 1938) made a name for himself by using the "determinism defense" to get his clients acquitted of serious crimes. (2) The crux of this approach is the idea that humans are not reall y responsible for anything they do because they cannot choose freely- they are "determined," predes- tined, if you will , by nature (or God) to be the way they are. (3) So in a sense, Darrow says, humans are like wind-up toys with no control over any action or decision. (4) They have no free will. (S) Remember that Darrow was a renowned agnostic who was skeptical of all reli - gious claims. (6) But Darrow is wrong about human free wi ll for two reasons. (7) First, in our everyday moral life, our own commonsense experience suggests that sometimes people are free to make moral decisions. (8) We should not abandon what our commonsense ex- perience tells us without good reason- and (9) Darrow has given us no good reason. (10) Second, Darrow's determinism is not con- fi rmed by science, as he claims- but actually conflicts with science. (11) Modern science says that there are many things (at the subatom- ic level of matter) that are not determined at all : (12) they just happen.

Indicator words are scarce in this argument, unless you count the words "fi rst" and "second" as signifying premises. But the conclusion is not hard to find; it's

28 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

Statement 6: "Darrow is \vrong about human free \viii for nvo

reasons." Locating the conclusion enables us to see that some statements (Statements 1 through 4) are neither conclusion nor premises; they a re just background information on Darrow's views. Most argumentative essays contain some supplemental in-

formation like th is. Statement 5 is irrelevant to the argument; Darrow's agnosticism has no logical connection to the premises or conclusion. Statement 12 is just a reword ing of Statement 11. After this elimination process, only the following premises and conclusion (Statement 6) remain:

(6) But Darrow is wrong about human free will for two reasons.

(7) Fi rst, in our everyday moral life, our own common- sense experience suggests that sometimes people are free to make moral decis ions.

Figure 1.11 Clarence Darrow (1857-1938). (8) We should not abandon what our commonsense expe- rience tell s us without good reason.

Philosophy is a kind of jo urney, ever learning yet

never arriving at the ideal perfection of truth. -Albert Pike

(9) Darrow has given us no good reason.

(10) Darrow's determinism is not confirmed by science, as he claims- but actually conAicts with science.

(11) Modern science says that there are many th ings (at the subatomic level) that are not determined at all.

Statements 7 through 11 are the premises. They are all meant to provide support to Statement 6, but thei r support is of unequal weight. Statement 10 gives indepen- dent support to the conclusion without the help of any other premises, so it is an independent premise. We can say the same thing about Statement 11; it too is an independent premise. But notice that Statemenrs 7, 8, and 9 are dependent premises supporting the conclusion. That is, taken separately, they are weak, but together they constitute a plaus ible reason for accepting Statement 6. Statement 10 directly sup-

porrs the conclusion and in turn is supported by Premise 11. Now take a look at th is passage:

(1) As the Is lamic clerics cling to power in Iran, students there are agita ting for greater freedom and less suppression of views that the clerics d islike. (2) Even though ultimate power in Iran rests with the mu llahs, it is not at a ll certain where the nation is headed. Here's a rad ical suggestion: (3) the Is lamic republic in Iran will fall within the next five years. Why do I say this? (4) Because the majority of Iranians are in favor of democratic reforms, (5) and no regime can stand for very long when citizens are demanding access to the political pro- cess. (6) Also, Iran today is a mirror image of the Soviet Union before it broke apart- there's widespread d issatisfaction and d issent at a time when the regime seems to be trying to hold the people's loyalty.

Thinking Philosophically 29

PHILOSOPHERS AT WORK

Hypatia

Hypacia (c. 370-415) was the greatest philosopher of her day. She lived in che Greek cicy of Alexandria, ,vhich in the fourth century was che incelleccual epicen- ter of che ,vorld, excelling in scientific and philosophical learning. Jc also ,vas the home of the famed Library, which contained thousands of scholarly manuscripts dra,vn fro,n the best thinkers of ancient times, including che works of Pla-

Figure 1.12 Hypatia (c. 370-415).

to and Ariscocle. In chis rich environment, Hypacia achieved fame as a Neoplaconisc philosophy teacher, an astronomer, and a mathematician. Ac around age C\Vency- five or thirty she became the director of che school of the reno,vned philosopher Plocinus-a very high honor, since women were cradicionally noc appointed co such offices. Another indication of her sterling reputation ,vas chat she was appointed by a Christian govenunenc even though she was known co be a pagan.

She caught che works of che "pagan" philosophers such as Plato and Aristocle, and students ca,ne from far-Aung places for che privilege of being her students. She also is thought to have ,vricren three commentaries on noted mache,natical treatises.

In 415, she ,vas brutally murdered by a mob of Christian zealots. She ,vas pulled from her chariot, hauled to a church, stripped naked, and skinned alive ,vith oyster shells.

(7) Every nation that has taken such a path has imploded within five years. (8) Finally, the o ld Iranian trick of ga ining support for the government by fomenting hatred of America will not work anymore (9) because Iran is now trying to be friends with the United States.

The conclusion is Statement 3, and the premises are Statements 4 th rough 9. The fi rst nvo statements are extraneous. Statements 4 and 5 are dependent premises and

so are Statements 6 and 7. Statements 8 and 9 constitute an a rgument chat gives sup- port to the passage's main conclusion (Statement 3). Statement 8 is the conclusion; Statement 9, the premise. Notice also that the sentence "Why do I say this?" is not a statement.

So remember: When you read a philosophical essay, you are not simply trying to glean some facts from it as you might if you were reading a science text or tech- n ical report. Neither are you follo,ving a storyline as if you were reading a mystery novel (though philosophy papers sometimes contain their share of mysteries). In most cases, you are tracing the steps in an argument, trying to see ,vhat conclusion the ,vriter wants to prove and whether she succee.ds in proving it. Along the way, you

8 Suppose you are presented with written material containing statements and argu- ments that strike you as irreverent or un- orthodox. Would you be able to read such a text with an open mind? Can you recall a case in which you did just that?

30 Chapter 1 Philosophy and You

Small amounts of philoso· phy lead to arhcism, but larger amounts bring us

back to God. -Francis Bacon II I II I II 111111111111 II I II I II I II I II I II Ill I 111111

may encounter several premises with their accompanying analyses, clarifications, explanations, and examples. You may even run into a whole chain of arguments. In che end, if you have read \veil and che \vricer has \vriccen \veil, you are left not \vich a ne\v sec of data or a story ending, but a realization-maybe even a revelation-that a conclusion is, or is not, worthy of bel ief.

The best way co learn how co read philosophy \veil is co read philosophy often. You wi ll probably gee plenty of chances co do chat in your current philosophy course. Having a fe\v rules co guide you in your reading, however, may help shorten che learning curve. As you read, keep che follo\ving in mind.

1. Approach the text with an open mind. If you are studying philosophy for che first time, you are likely-at lease at first-co find a good bit of che material diffi- culc, strange, or exasperating, sometimes all three at once. That's normal. Philosophy is an exploration of che rugged frontiers of our kno\vledge of fundamental th ings, so much of chis new territory is likely co seem daunting or unfamiliar. There's also an excellent chance chat your first visits co this terrain will be vexing, perhaps even infuriating, because you may sometimes disagree \vich what you read.

There is no shame in experiencing any of these reactions. They come with che territory. Bue if you are co make any head\vay in philosophy, you need co try your best co counteract these attitudes and feelings. Remember, philosophy at ics best is a fa ir-minded, fearless search for t ruth. Anything chat interferes with this noble quest muse be overcome and case as ide.

Avoid making a judgment about an essay's ideas or arguments until you fully un- derstand them and have fairly considered them. Make sure you are not reading with che intent co prove che conclusions false (or true). Be open co che possibil ity that che essay could give you good reasons co change your mind about something.