Substance theory
• Ten things you may not know about images on Wikipedia •Jump to: navigation, search
Substance theory, or substance attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood, positing that a substance is distinct from its properties.
Substance is a core concept of ontology and metaphysics. Indeed, philosophies may be divided into monist philosophies, and dualist or pluralist philosophies. Monistic views, often associated with immanence, hold that there is only one substance, sometimes called God or Being. Dualist and pluralist views hold that two or more types of substances do exist, and that these can be placed in an ontological hierarchy. Platonism or Aristotelianism considers that there are various substances, while stoicism and Spinoza hold that there is only one substance.
Contents
1 The concept of substance in Western philosophy
2 Criticisms of the concept of substance
3 Primitive concepts of substance theory
3.1 Bare particular
3.2 Inherence relation
4 Arguments supporting the theory
4.1 Argument from grammar
4.2 Argument from conception
5 Bundle theory
5.1 Indiscernibility
5.2 Discernible concrete particulars
5.3 Identity of indiscernibles
6 Stoicism
The concept of substance in Western philosophy
In the millennia-old Aristotelian tradition, as well as early modern traditions that follow it, substances are treated as having attributes and modes.
This concept helps to explain, for instance, state transitions. Let us take a quantity of water and freeze it into ice. Substance theory maintains that there is a "substance" which is unchanged through this transition, which is both the liquid water and also the frozen ice. It maintains that the water is not replaced by the ice - it is the same "stuff," or substance. If this is true, then it must be the case that the wetness of water, the hardness of ice, are not essential to the underlying substance. (Essentially, matter does not disappear, it only changes form.)
The Aristotelian view of God considered God as both ontologically and causally prior to all other substance; others, including Spinoza, argued that God is the only substance. Substance, according to Spinoza, is one and indivisible, but has multiple modes; what we ordinarily call the natural world, together with all the individuals in it, is immanent in God: hence the famous phrase Deus sive Natura ("God, or Nature").
Criticisms of the concept of substance
Friedrich Nietzsche and, after him, Martin Heidegger, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze rejected the notion of "substance", and in the same movement the concept of subject. For this reason, Althusser's "anti-humanism" and Foucault's statements were criticized, by Jürgen Habermas and others, for misunderstanding that this led to a fatalist conception of social determinism. For Habermas, only a subjective form of liberty could be conceived, to the contrary of Deleuze who talks about "a life", as an impersonal and immanent form of liberty.
For Heidegger, Descartes means by "substance" that by which "we can understand nothing else than an entity which is in such a way that it need no other entity in order to be." Therefore, only God is a substance as ens perfectissimus (most perfect being). Heidegger showed the inextricable relationship between the concept of substance and of subject, which explains why, instead of talking about "man" or "humankind", he speaks about the Dasein, which is not a simple subject, nor a substance. [1]
Primitive concepts of substance theory
Two primitive concepts (i.e., genuine notions that cannot be explained in terms of something else) in substance theory are the bare particular and the inherence relation.
Bare particular
In substance theory, a bare particular of an object is the element without which the object would not exist, that is, its substance, which exists independent from its properties, even if it is physically impossible for it to lack properties entirely. It is "bare" because it is considered without its properties and "particular" because it is not abstract. The properties that the substance has are said to inhere in the substance.
In substance theory of the mind, the objects are minds.
Inherence relation
Another primitive concept in substance theory is the inherence relation between a substance and its properties. For example, in the sentence, "The apple is red," substance theory says that red inheres in the apple. Substance theory considers to be clear the meaning of the apple having the property of redness or the property of being juicy, and that a property's inherence in a substance is similar to, but not identical with, being part of the substance. Thus, Aristotle wrote:
"By being 'present in a subject' I do not mean present as parts are present in a whole, but being incapable of existence apart from the said subject." (The Categories 1a 24-26)
The inverse relation is participation. Thus in the example above, just as red inheres in the apple, so the apple participates in red.
Arguments supporting the theory
Two common arguments supporting substance theory are the argument from grammar and the argument from conception.
Argument from grammar
The argument from grammar uses traditional grammar to support substance theory. For example, the sentence, "Snow is white," contains a subject, "snow", and the assertion that the subject is white. The argument holds that it makes no grammatical sense to speak of "whiteness" disembodied, without snow or some other subject that is white. That is, the only way to make a meaningful claim is to speak of a subject and to predicate various properties of it. Substance theory calls this subject of predication a substance. Thus, in order to make claims about physical objects, one must refer to substances, which must exist in order for those claims to be meaningful.
Many ontologies, including bundle theory, reject the argument from grammar on the basis that a grammatical subject does not necessarily refer to a metaphysical subject. Bundle theory, for example, maintains that the grammatical subject of statement refers to its properties. For example, a bundle theorist understands the grammatical subject of the sentence, "Snow is white", as a referent to a bundle of properties, including perhaps the containing of ice crystals, being cold, and being a few feet deep. To the bundle theorist, the sentence then modifies that bundle of properties to include the property of being white. The bundle theorist, then, maintains that one can make meaningful statements about bodies without referring to substances that lack properties.
Argument from conception
Another argument for the substance theory is the argument from conception. The argument claims that in order to conceive of an object's properties, like the redness of an apple, one must conceive of the object that has those properties. According to the argument, one cannot conceive of redness, or any other property, distinct from the thing that has that property. The thing that has the property, the argument maintains, is a substance. The argument from conception holds that properties (e.g. redness or being four inches wide) are inconceivable by themselves and therefore it is always a substance that has the properties. Thus, it asserts, substances exist.
A criticism of the argument from conception is that properties' being of substances does not follow from inability to think of isolated properties. The bundle theorist, for example, says that properties need only be associated with a bundle of other properties, which bundle is called an object. The critic maintains that the inability for an individual property to exist in isolation does not imply that substances exist. Instead, he argues, bodies may be bundles of properties, and an individual property may simply be unable to exist separately from such a bundle.
Bundle theory
In direct opposition to substance theory is bundle theory' whose most basic premise is that all concrete particulars are merely constructions or 'bundles' of attributes, or qualitive properties:
Necessarily, for any concrete entity, a, if for any entity, b, b is a constituent of a, then b is an attribute.
The bundle theorist's principal objections to substance theory concern the bare particulars of a substance, which substance theory considers independently of the substance's properties. The bundle theorist objects to the notion of a thing with no properties, claiming that one cannot conceive of such a thing and citing John Locke, who described a substance as "a something, I know not what." To the critic, as soon as one has any notion of a substance in mind, a property accompanies that notion. That is, to the critic it is not only physically impossible to encounter a bare particular without properties, but the very notion of a thing without properties is so strange that he cannot even form such a notion.
Indiscernibility
The indiscernibility argument from the substance theorist targets those bundle theorists who are also metaphysical realists. Metaphysical realism uses repeatable entities known as universals exemplified by concrete particulars to explain the phenomenon of attribute agreement. Substance theorists then say that bundle theory and metaphysical realism can only coexist by introducing an identity of indiscernibles creed, which substance theorists suggest is incoherent. The identity of indiscernibles says that any concrete particular that is numerically different from another must have its own qualitive properties, or attributes.
Since bundle theory states that all concrete particulars are merely constructions or 'bundles' of attributes, or qualitive properties, the substance theorist's indiscernibility argument claims that the ability to recognize numerically different concrete particulars, such as concrete objects, requires those particulars to have discernible qualitative differences in their attributes and that the metaphysical realist who is also a bundle theorist must therefore concede to the existence of 'discernible (numerically different) concrete particulars', the 'identity of indiscernibles', and a 'principle of constituent identity'.
Discernible concrete particulars
Necessarily, for any complex objects, a and b, if for any entity, c, c is a constituent of a if and only if c is a constituent of b, then a is numerically identical with b.
The indiscernibility argument points out that if bundle theory and discernible concrete particulars theory explain the relationship between attributes, then the identity of indiscernibles theory must also be true:
Identity of indiscernibles
Necessarily, for any concrete objects,a and b, if for any attribute, Φ, Φ is an attribute of a if and only if Φ is an attribute of b, then a is numerically identical with b.
The indiscernibles argument then asserts that the identity of indiscernibles is false. For example, two different pieces of printer paper can be side by side, numerically different from each other. However, the argument says, all of their qualitive properties can be the same (e.g. both can be white, rectangular-shaped, 9 x 11 inches...). Thus, the argument claims, bundle theory and metaphysical realism cannot both be correct.
However, bundle theory combined with trope theory (as opposed to metaphysical realism) is immune to the indiscernibles argument. The immunity stems from the fact that each trope (attribute) can only be held by one concrete particular, thus qualitive indiscernible objects can exist while being numerically identical and the identity of indiscernibles therefore does not hold.
Stoicism
The Stoics rejected the idea that incorporeal beings inhere in matter, as taught by Socrates and Aristotle. They believed that all being is corporeal. Thus they developed a scheme of categories different from Aristotle's based on the ideas of Anaxagoras and Timaeus.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Logic
a. Definition.
Logic is first of all an instinctive art. We all, from an early age, try to 'sort out' our experiences and 'make sense' of the world around us — and this thought process is to varying degrees 'logical'. It is logical to the extent that we try to consider the evidence, avoid contradictions, and try to understand. We call this using 'common sense'.
On a higher level, logic is a science, which developed out of the self-awareness of thinkers. They began to wonder why some thoughts were more credible, forceful, and informative than others, and gradually discerned the patterns of logical intelligence, the apparatus of reasoning. A logic theorist is called a logician. Note that we also call 'a logic', any specific field of or approach to logical science.
Logic as a field of inquiry has two goals, then. On a practical level, we want it to provide us with a guide book and exercise manual, which tells us how to think straight and trains us to do so efficiently. On a theoretical level, we seek the assurance that human knowledge does, or can be made to, conform to reality. How these methodological and philosophical tasks are fulfilled, will become apparent as we proceed.
Logic is of value to all individuals, bettering their daily reasoning processes, and thus their efficacy in dealing with their lives, and their work. It teaches you organization, enabling you to arrive at the solution of problems more efficiently. It helps you to formulate more pondered opinions and values.
Be you an artist, a parent, a university professor, a doctor, a psychologist, a civil engineer, an auto-mechanic, a bank manager, an office worker, an investor, a planner, an organizer, a negotiator, a lawmaker, judge or lawyer, a politician or journalist, a systems analyst, a statistician, a computer or robot programmer, whatever your profession or walk of life — you are sure to find the study of logic useful.
It is of value to scientists of all disciplines, helping them to clarify issues and formulate solutions to problems. There is no area of human interest or endeavor where logic does not have a say, and where the study of logic would not be effective in improving our situation.
Logic is worth studying also, for the sheer esthetic joy of it. There is no describing the mind's response to this beautiful, colorful achievement of the human spirit. I hope the reader will have as much fun reading this book, as I had writing it. It can be hard work, but it is rewarding. My own favorite topic is de-re modality; I find it closer to earth than logical modality.
Logic teaches us to pursue and verify knowledge. It is based on an acknowledgment of the possibility of human error, but also implies our ability to correct errors. Where veracity or falsity is hard to establish, it tells us at least how 'reasonable' or 'forced' our judgments are.
It is essentially a holistic science, teaching us to take everything into consideration when forming judgments. Truth is not to be found in a limited viewpoint, but through a global perspective, an awareness of all aspects of an issue, all proposed answers to a question.
Logical science shows us what to look for in the course of knowledge acquisition, by listing and clarifying the main forms of relation among things and ideas (whence the name 'formal logic'). It is the 'systems analysis' of human thought.
Logic is concerned with the formalities of reasoning, without so much regard to its subject-matter. It allows for objective assessments of inferential processes, precisely because its principles make minimal references to specific contents of thought. It is emotionally detached, it has no double standards, it is open-minded and fair.
Logic is a tool of interpretation, understanding, and prediction. It is a method for drawing the maximum amount of useful information from new experiences, or enveloped in previous knowledge, so as to fully exploit the lessons of the world of matter and mind, appearing all around us all the time.
What logic does is to help us to take all impressions and intuitions in stride, and resolve any disagreements which may arise. What is sure, is that, in reality, things themselves can never be in contradiction. It is ideas which conflict with each other or with primary experiences. Sometimes it is the idea that there is a conflict which turns out to be wrong.
The so-called logical order of development is satisfying to trained logicians (from the general to the particular, as it were), and has also some didactic value. But it is often the opposite of the way an individual or a researcher normally arrives at knowledge (building up from specific discoveries, then formulating a comprehensive theory); sometimes, replicating the natural order is a more effective teaching method.
Sometimes these two kinds of orders coincide. In the last analysis, they are always to some extent both involved, working in tandem; logical practise is an integral part of logical theorizing.
As for the historical order, it follows the natural order pretty closely, though with some redundancies. Some other consciousness must precede self-consciousness. Logic has developed on both the deductive and inductive sides alternately, and not in a systematic fashion.
The goal of logic is to make the facts and their relations transparent; it teaches us to focus the object until its most firm manifestation is captured. Logic cannot immediately solve all problems, but it always brings us closer to the solutions.
For the individual, this self-discipline is the source of realism and understanding. 'Think for yourself', do your own thinking, 'use your head', be creative, think things through. The goal is not a mind a-buzz with words, a slave to words; but the inner peace and self-respect of efficacy.
In communication with others, transparency means expressing one's thoughts clearly, so that, as far as possible at the time, there is no doubt or ambiguity as to just what one is trying to say, and on the basis of what processes. 'Say what you mean, and mean what you say'. Information is freely and helpfully shared; points or areas of ignorance or error are easily admitted.
This is the idea of 'glasnost', transparency, a mutual respect and openness policy, a cooperative attitude, without unnecessary frictions. Too often, politicians, media, and others, use words to hide or distort, and do not in turn pay attention to input. You may prove something to them incontrovertibly; they remain unfazed, comme si de rien n’était.
Clarity of expression, accuracy of observation and thought, passing knowledge on honestly, reasonableness on all sides, are essential to vibrant democracy and social peace. Logic is a civilized way to resolve disputes.
This means self-criticism, the ability to review one's own proposals, and anticipate possible objections, and try to deal with them as well as one can. We often gloss over possible problems in our own ideas, hoping no one will spot them; but this wastes one's time, and everybody else's. Logic is taking the time to double check one's projects, shifting them this way and that way, to see how well focused they are in the largest context.
On the other hand, when receiving ideas, one's should not look at them with an overly-critical eye, at least until one has properly understood them. Like rigid bone, hasty and excessive skepticism can inhibit the growth of knowledge. 'Stop, look, listen', hear, consider, make the effort to assimilate it. Learn before you try to teach.
While I am not of the opinion that logic is relative and arbitrary, there is more often than not at least some helpful truth to be found in other people's concerns. One should not reject offhand, though still reserve one's judgement. One should neither fool nor be fooled. Be humble, but keep your standards high.
Logic is not a method of inferring all knowledge from a limited number of abstract premises; it is not a magical tool of omniscience. It depends for its action on moment by moment impressions or intuitions, which in some cases turn out to be unfounded. Nor is logic merely a mechanized manner of pursuing solutions to specific problems.
People often wrongly regard and use logic as a square-headed, narrow-minded activity. But in my opinion, logic is, straight and tough on a level of details, but overall very broad and open minded. Obstinacy and prejudice, are rather attributes of people unwilling to listen to reason, not even to at least consider alternative viewpoints. This is the very antithesis of a logician's attitude.
People often oppose 'logic' to feeling; they believe it discards the emotional side of life. But logic does not mean ignoring feelings, but rather recommends taking the feelings — including their inner meaning, their intuited significance — as one set of data among others in the total picture; rationalistic data must also, however, be given their due weight.
Some people complain that 'logic' sometimes leads to evil conclusions. But value-judgments involve inferences from standards. So either the norms are unsound, or they have not been given their due weights in comparison to other norms, or the proposed means are not the exclusive ways to achieve the norms. Thus, the failure involved may precisely be a weakness in logical abilities, rather than any inherent coldness of logic.
Logic is only a tool — it cannot be blamed for errors made in its name, nor can it control the moral choices of individuals who utilize it. Its only possible danger is that the efficacy it endows on thought and action may be used for nefarious ends. But even then, a person who sees things truly clearly, with the broad conception logic gives, is less likely to have twisted values.
Logic is an important component of both mental health and moral responsibility. It requests that we face facts and listen to the voice of reason: this does not exclude having a heart or paying attention to one's intuition. A person who does not keep in close touch with reality, can easily develop unhealthy emotions and make counter-productive choices. Rationality is a sign of maturity.
Another wrong impression people have of logic is that it is a meaningless manipulation of symbols, or at best a branch of mathematics. One man recently told me the following sad story. He thought of himself as a 'logical person', and being inclined to constantly improve his education, he enrolled for a University course on the subject in San Francisco. He was so put off by the lessons he attended, that he now hesitates to call himself 'logical'!
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Scholasticism
Scholasticism is derived from the Latin word scholasticus (Greek: σχολαστικός), which means "that [which] belongs to the school", and was a method of learning taught by the academics (or school people) of medieval universities circa 1100–1500. Scholasticism originally started to reconcile the philosophy of the ancient classical philosophers with medieval Christian theology. Scholasticism is not a philosophy or theology in itself but a tool and method for learning which places emphasis on dialectical reasoning. The primary purpose of scholasticism is to find the answer to a question or to resolve a contradiction. It is most well-known for its application in medieval theology, but was eventually applied to classical philosophy and many other fields of study.
Contents |
Scholastic method
The scholastics would choose a book (say, the Bible) by a renowned scholar, auctor (author), as a subject for investigation. By reading it thoroughly and critically, the disciples learned to appreciate the theories of the auctor. Other documents related to the book would be referenced, such as Church councils, papal letters and anything else written on the subject, be it ancient or contemporary. The points of disagreement and contention between multiple sources would be written down in individual sentences or snippets of text, known as sententiae.
The Bible contains many apparent contradictions for Christians, such as laws which detail what foods are kosher. These contradictions have been examined by scholastics both ancient and contemporary. They would gather all arguments about the contradictions, looking at problems from all sides with open minds.
Once the sources and points of disagreement had been laid out through a series of dialectics, the two sides of an argument would be made whole so that they would be found to be in agreement and not contradictory. This was done in two ways.
The first was through philological analysis. Words were examined and argued to have multiple meanings. It was also considered that the auctor might have intended a certain word to mean something different. Ambiguity could be used to find common ground between two otherwise contradictory statements.
The second was through logical analysis, which relied on the rules of formal logic to show that contradictions did not exist but were subjective to the reader.
Scholastic genres
Scholastics developed two genres of literature:
The first was called quæstiones (questions). This was essentially as described above, except that, unconfined to a single scholar or auctor, the scholastic method was applied to a question: by way of example, "Is it permissible to kill for self-preservation?" From such a preface, any number of sources could be referenced to divine the pros and cons of a question.
The second genre was called a summa, a system of all questions, or a complete summary of what was possible to conceive on a subject. Any question could be found in the summa and would reference any other question that might arise. The most famous summa was by Thomas Aquinas, called Summa Theologica, whose goal was to cover the "sum" total of Christian theology at the time.
Scholastic school
Scholastic schools had two methods of teaching. The first was the lectio: a teacher would read a text, expounding on certain words and ideas, but no questions were permitted; it was a simple reading of a text: instructors explained, and students listened in silence.
The second was the disputatio, which goes right to the heart of scholasticism. There were two types of disputationes: the first was the "ordinary" type, whereby the question to be disputed was announced beforehand; the second was the quodlibetal, whereby the students proposed a question to the teacher without prior preparation. The teacher advanced a response, citing authoritative texts such as the Bible to prove his position. Students then rebutted the response, and the quodlibetal went back and forth. Someone took notes on what was said, so the teacher could summarise all arguments and present his final position the following day, riposting all rebuttals.
History
Scholastic philosophy usually combined logic, metaphysics and semantics into one discipline. It is generally recognised to have developed our understanding of logic significantly as compared with older sources.
Scholasticism was concurrent with movements in early Islamic philosophy (in the works of Alkindus, Alfarabi, Avicenna, Algazel and Averroes) and Jewish philosophy (especially in the case of Maimonides). From the Eighth Century, the Mutazilite school of Islam, compelled to defend their principles against the more orthodox Ash'ari school, looked for support in philosophy. They are among the first to pursue a rational theology, Ilm-al-Kalam, which can be seen as a form of scholasticism. Later, the philosophical schools of Avicennism and Averroism exerted great influence on Scholasticism (see Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe).
In the high scholastic period, from 1250 to 1350, scholasticism moved beyond theology into the philosophy of nature, psychology, epistemology and philosophy of science. In Spain, the scholastics made important contributions to economic theory, which influenced the later development of the Austrian school.
During the humanism of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, scholastics were backgrounded and somewhat forgotten (although revived in Spain in the School of Salamanca). This is the source of the view that scholasticism is a rigid, formalistic, outdated and improper way of conducting philosophy. During the catholic scholastic revival of the late 1800s and early 1900s, the scholastics were repopularized, but with a somewhat narrow focus on certain scholastics and their respective schools of thought, most notably with Thomas Aquinas. In this context, scholasticism is often used with theology and metaphysics, but not many other areas of inquiry.
The following authors and works were commonly used as auctores:
- Plato, specifically the Timaeus
- Aristotle ("The Philosopher")
- The Bible
- Saint Augustine
- Boethius and his Consolation of Philosophy
- Avicenna, especially The Book of Healing
- Peter Lombard, specifically his Sentences
- Averroes ("The Commentator")
Early Scholasticism and its contemporaries
Anselm of Canterbury is sometimes misleadingly called the "Father of Scholasticism", owing to the prominence accorded to reason in his theology. Rather than establish points by appeal to authority, his arguments demonstrated why what he believed on authority must be so. His approach was not especially influential in his time, as he kept his distance from the Cathedral Schools.
We should look instead to the production of the gloss on Scripture associated with Anselm of Laon, the rise to prominence of dialectic (middle subject of the medieval trivium) in the work of Abelard, and the production by Peter Lombard of a collection of Sentences or opinions of the Church Fathers and other authorities. Scholasticism proper can be thought of as the kind of theology that emerges when, in the Cathedral schools and their successors, the tools of dialectic are pressed into use to comment upon, explain and develop the gloss and the sentences.
Notable authors include:
- Anselm of Canterbury (1033/1034-1109)
- Anselm of Laon (died 1117)
- Hugh of St Victor (1078-1151)
- Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
- Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)
- Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179)
- Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160)
- Alain de Lille (c. 1128-1202)
- Joachim of Fiore (c. 1135-1202)
High Scholasticism and its contemporaries
The Thirteenth Century saw the attempted suppression of various groups perceived as heterodox, like the Cathars and Waldensians, and the associated rise of the mendicant orders (most notably the Franciscans and Dominicans). This was intended in part as an orthodox alternative to the heretical groups.
The two orders quickly became contexts for some of the most intense scholastic theologising, producing such "high-scholastic" theologians as Alexander of Hales (Franciscan) and Thomas Aquinas (Dominican), and the less-obviously-scholastic Bonaventure (Franciscan).
The century also saw a flourishing of mystical theology, whereby women such as Mechthild of Magdeburg played prominent roles. In addition, it is seen as the earliest period in which the study of natural philosophy which could (anachronistically) be termed "science" began, in the hands of such men as Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon, to flourish again in theological soil.
Notable authors include:
- Saint Dominic (1170-1221)
- Robert Grosseteste (c. 1175-1253)
- Francis of Assisi (1182-1226)
- Alexander of Hales (died 1245)
- Mechthild of Magdeburg (1210-1285)
- Roger Bacon (1214-1294)
- Bonaventure (1221-1274)
- Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
- Angela of Foligno (1248-1309)
Late Scholasticism and its contemporaries
Scholastic theology continued to develop as the Thirteenth Century gave way to the Fourteenth, becoming all the more complex and subtle in its distinctions and arguments. The Fourteenth Century saw particularly the rise to dominance of the nominalist or voluntarist theologies of men like William of Ockham. The Fourteenth Century was also a time in which movements of widely varying character worked for the reform of the institutional church. These included conciliarism, Lollardy and the Hussites. Spiritual movements such as the Devotio Moderna also flourished.
Notable authors include:
Friday, May 09, 2008
Political Philosophers
Influential political philosophers
A larger list of political philosophers is intended to be closer to exhaustive. Listed below are a few of the most canonical or important thinkers, and especially philosophers whose central focus was in political philosophy and/or who are good representatives of a particular school of thought.
- Confucius : The first thinker to relate ethics to the political order.
- Chanakya : Founder of an independent political thought in India, laid down rules and guidelines for social, law and political order in society.
- Socrates/Plato: Named their practice of inquiry "philosophy", and thereby stand at the head of a prominent (often called "Western") tradition of systematic intellectual analysis. Set as a partial basis to that tradition the relation between knowledge on the one hand, and a just and good society on the other. Socrates is widely considered founder of Western political philosophy, via his spoken influence on Athenian contemporaries; since Socrates never wrote anything, much of what we know about him and his teachings comes through his most famous student, Plato.
- Aristotle: Wrote his Politics as an extension of his Nicomachean Ethics. Notable for the theories that humans are social animals, and that the polis (Ancient Greek city state) existed to bring about the good life appropriate to such animals. His political theory is based upon an ethics of perfectionism (as is Marx's, on some readings).
- Thomas Aquinas : In synthesizing Christian theology and Peripatetic teaching, Aquinas contends that God's gift of higher reason, coupled with divine virtues and human law, provides the foundation for righteous government.
- Niccolò Machiavelli: First systematic analyses of: (1) how consent of a populace is negotiated between and among rulers rather than simply a naturalistic (or theological) given of the structure of society; (2) precursor to the concept of ideology in articulating the epistemological structure of commands and law.
- Thomas Hobbes: Generally considered to have first articulated how the concept of a social contract that justifies the actions of rulers (even where contrary to the individual desires of governed citizens), can be reconciled with a conception of sovereignty.
- Baruch Spinoza: Set forth the first analysis of "rational egoism", in which the rational interest of self is conformance with pure reason. To Spinoza's thinking, in a society in which each individual is guided of reason, political authority would be superfluous.
- John Locke: Like Hobbes, described a social contract theory based on citizens' fundamental rights in the state of nature. He departed from Hobbes in that, based on the assumption of a society in which moral values are independent of governmental authority and widely shared, he argued for a government with power limited to the protection of personal property. His arguments may have been deeply influential to the formation of the United States Constitution.
- Baron de Montesquieu: Analyzed protection of liberty by a "balance of powers" in the divisions of a state.
- David Hume: Hume criticized the social contract theory of John Locke and others as resting on a myth of some actual agreement. Hume was a realist in recognizing the role of force to forge the existence of states and that consent of the governed was merely hypothetical. He also introduced the concept of utility, later picked up on and developed by Jeremy Bentham.
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Analyzed the social contract as an expression of the general will, and controversially argued in favor of absolute democracy where the people at large would act as sovereign.
- Immanuel Kant: Argued that participation in civil society is undertaken not for self-preservation, as per Thomas Hobbes, but as a moral duty. First modern thinker who fully analyzed structure and meaning of obligation. Argued that an international organization was needed to preserve world peace.
- Jeremy Bentham: The first thinker to analyze social justice in terms of maximization of aggregate individual benefits. Founded the philosophical/ethical school of thought known as utilitarianism.
- John Stuart Mill: A utilitarian, and the person who named the system; he goes further than Bentham by laying the foundation for liberal democratic thought in general and modern, as opposed to classical, liberalism in particular. Articulated the place of individual liberty in an otherwise utilitarian framework.
- Karl Marx: In large part, added the historical dimension to an understanding of society, culture and economics. Created the concept of ideology in the sense of (true or false) beliefs that shape and control social actions. Analyzed the fundamental nature of class as a mechanism of governance and social interaction.
- John Dewey: Co-founder of pragmatism and analyzed the essential role of education in the maintenance of democratic government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)