1

SCHEME OF MODERN WESTERN PHILOSOPHY

1. Introduction: A Glance at the Ancient-Medieval Period

2. Setting the Background to Modern Western Philosophy: Renaissance,

Humanism, Geographical development, and the development in Science,
art and Literature.
3. Renaissance Thinkers, Scientists, Humanists, Religious Thinkers and
Political Thinkers:
Renaissance thinkers: 1. Nicholas of Cusa (1401-64)
2. Michael de Montaigne (1533-92)
Renaissance Scientists: 1. Leonardo da Vinci (Italian)
2. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) (Italian)
3. Nicolaus Copernicus Polish(1473-1543)
4. Tycho Brahe(1546-1601)
5. Johannes Kepler (German)(1571-1630)
6. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
7. Robert Boyle (1627-91)
8. John Napier (1550-1617)

Renaissance Humanists: 1. Desiderius Erasmus (1464-1536)

2. Thomas More (1478-1535)
Renaissance Religious Thinkers: 1. Martin Luther (1483-1546)
2. John Calvin (1509-64)
Renaissance Political Thinker: 1. Nicolo de Bernado Machiavelli
(1469-1527) (Italian)

4. Descartes, Malebranche, Pascal, Spinoza, Leibniz

1. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) French

2. Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715) French
3. Blaise Pascal (1623-62) French
4. Benedict de Baruch Spinoza (1632-77) Amsterdam
5. Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz (1646-1746) German

5. Empiricism
1. John Locke (1632-1704) Bristol
2. George Berkeley (1685-1753) Irish
3. David Hume (1711-76) Scottish

6. Transcendental Idealism: Immanuel Kant

7. Post Kantian Idealism

1. Friedrich Schelling
2. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
3. Arthur Schopenhauer
Chapter 1 Introduction
 2

1. A Glance at the Ancient and Medieval periods

Here we look at the major characteristics of the Ancient, and Medieval periods.

1.1 Some of the characteristics of ancient philosophy were the following:

 Centered in Greece
 Search for Wisdom
 Philosophers were also known as wise men
 Wonder at the different realities
 Written materials were produced in a meager manner.
 They viewed universe as a harmony, an organism and a work of art.
“Thought” was considered by the majority as the noblest and most divine
function.

1.2 Some of the characteristics of medieval philosophy were the following:

It was closely connected with Christian thinking.
It was faithful to tradition.
Tried to combine faith and reason.
The medieval western philosophy is characterized by the relationship between faith
and reason. During this period, Christianity came into contact with Greek philosophy.
Because of this encounter, there were lots of reactions towards philosophy among
Christians. The first group said that philosophy is useless, as they argued: ‘we find all
wisdom in Christ. Then why to search for wisdom in philosophy?’ And so
philosophy is useless. The second group said that philosophy was dangerous.
Because philosophy gave rise to many heresies. The cause of heresies was the
interpretation of the teaching and the person of Christ in different ways by
philosophers in Greek philosophical terms. The third group studied philosophy to
attack philosophy. (Early fathers of the church…St. Gregory) The fourth group began
to accept philosophy like St. Thomas Aquinas etc. They understood the importance of
studying philosophy. In fact, they placed philosophy at the service of faith. They
used philosophy in order to explain the mysteries of faith. They said, the main
function or objective of philosophy is to defend the faith. Because the scripture is
truth.

1.3 Origin of Modern Western Philosophy

We say that every age is unique in itself. Like ancient western philosophy and
medieval western philosophy, Modern western philosophy is also unique in various
ways. Modern western philosophy witnessed many conflicts. Modern western
philosophy is often compared to the teenagers’ transition to adolescence.

1.3.1 Father of Modern Philosophy: Rene Descartes (1596-1650), a French

thinker is generally considered as the father of Modern Western Philosophy. In other
words, with the advent of Descartes, Modern Western Philosophy received a great
push. The period of Modern Western Philosophy is from 15-16 century up to 18-19
century AD.

1.3.2 Characteristics of Modern Philosophy

 3

The focus of the modern Philosophy was reason. This period is marked by
the separation of philosophy from theology. It was due to the development of
science which challenged the existing beliefs present in the Gospel. So, philosophers
gradually began to distance philosophy from religion. The second characteristic of
this period is the separation of philosophy from other sciences. Up to 19th century,
all the sciences were considered to be branch of philosophy. Before this period, any
science was under philosophy (Philosophy was the science of all sciences). It was
because of the advancement of science (knowledge) that men cane to distinguish one
science from another. Thus they made philosophy an independent science.

1.3.2.1Three characteristics were identified in Modern Western Philosophy

1. Rationalism: Rationalism gave importance to reason. The method
followed by the rationalists was deductive method, i.e., from general to
particular. Important rationalistic philosophers were Descartes,
Malebranche, Pascal, Spinoza, and Leibniz.
2. Empiricism: Empiricism gave importance to sense knowledge. The
method used by the empiricism was inductive method. The important
empiricist philosophers are Locke, Berkeley, and Hume.
3. Transcendentalism: Transcendentalism stressed the need for both reason
and sense knowledge. The important figure in transcendentalism is
Immanuel Kant.
Though we say that Modern Western Philosophy began with Descartes,
actually it had its starting much before. There is a period that functioned as a
background to the development of Modern Western Philosophy, namely the
Renaissance period.
 4

Chapter 2

Setting the Background to the Modern Philosophy

The Renaissance period, the growth of Humanism, Geographical development and the
development in Art, Science and literature

2.1 Renaissance Period

Etymologically, renaissance means rebirth, renewal, awakening etc. The term
Renaissance was first used in 1542 to herald the birth of art and fine writing. On
going back to the 15th century, we find that in 1453 Constantinople fell to the Turks
and soon all of Europe was flooded with refugees from that ancient centre of culture
where East met West (present-day Istanbul is half in Europe and half in Asia!) These
refugees brought with them the literary treasures they had managed to rescue from the
great library of the city and thus it was that the term Renaissance was used in 1542, to
herald the rebirth of art and fine writing.

Not only the fall of Constantinople sparked off a revolution in human

thinking. Marking the origin of the Modern Western Philosophy there grew a sense
of dissatisfaction with the way things were. There developed a desire to strike out in
new directions. There was an explosion of human thought in the beginning of the
Modern period. Together with the breaking forth of the human thought there came
about the revival of the cosmological theories, which denounced fearlessly the
geocentric theory (earth as the centre of the cosmos). These scientific discoveries had
a devastating religious, sociological and economic implications for the man in the
street. The starting of printing press put an end to the tedious process of making
hand-written copies of manuscripts. For such reasons, the beginning of the Modern
period is dated from about 1450, a hundred years after the death of William of
Occam, the last great Medieval Philosopher. Renaissance is also known as the ‘Age
of Adventure.’

2.2 Some of the Characteristics of the Renaissance Period are the Following:

1. There was a conflict with the authority of tradition. Some people began to
think differently. Contrary to the people of medieval period who were
faithful to tradition, with Renaissance the moderns began to shift away
from tradition.
2. Since some people began to think differently there came about religious
revivals, atheistic movements.
3. There was a revival of Greek humanism in opposition to Christian
religiosity. There was an interest in man and nature, rather than in the
‘supernatural.’
4. With the rise of modern science and the Copernican revolution, there was
an open conflict between science and religion.
Because of these characters the modern period in Western Philosophy is compared to
the period of adolescence in human development.
 5

2.3 The Growth of Humanism

Humanism was one of the movements of the Renaissance period. It was by no
accident that Italy became the home of the Renaissance and the cradle of Modern
thought.
What led to the movement of Humanism? In the middle ages, man was valued
according to his union with the Church/Corporation/State. The natural man, with his
purely individual, emotional life was of no accident. The political struggle in
opposition to this evolved/brought forth in people a desire to realize at all cost their
personality, dignity, and worth.

What does humanism denote and represent? Humanism denotes not only a
literary tendency or a school of philologists, but also a tendency of life, characterized
by interest for the human, both as a subject of observation and as the foundation of
action. Humanism represented a belief in man, a passion for learning, an emphasis
on scholarly exactness. It stressed the need for political, economical, and social
changes and laid the foundation for Modern Liberalism.

Church’s attitude to Humanism: It for sometime showed itself favorable to this

movement

Impact of Humanism: Humanism affected Italy, France, Germany, Spain, England

and Hungary. The significance of humanism consisted in its call for a more tolerant
and human way of life. The humanist ideal required exact knowledge, validity of
reason and the need for moderation in making intellectual assertions.

Indefinite character of Humanism: Humanism is somewhat indefinite in character.

It denotes the discovery of the human; but how this humanity was to be conceived
and its development to be promoted was still veiled in obscurity. But the spirit of
Humanism was the most important intellectual development of the Renaissance.

2.4 Geographical Development and the Expansion of European Horizon

The Geographical development and the Expansion of European horizon due to the
discovery of new lands add to the modernity of this period.
1492 Christopher Columbus discovers America
1498 Vasco da Gama lands at Kappad near Kozhikode. New maps were
discovered.

2.5 Development in Art and Literature

The Renaissance period was one of the talented geniuses like:

Bramante and Palladio Architects
Cervantes 1546-1616 Don Quixote
Dante (poet) 1265-1321 The Divine comedy
Erasmus 1406-1536 In the praise of folly
Leonardo da Vinci A great genius, painter of the last supper
Machiavelli political scientist
Michael Angelo Architect, sculptor, painter, poet.
Palestrino, Victoria, Byrd Musicians
 6

Petrarch 1304-1374 Sectret, familiar letters

Pope Julius II 1503-1503
Pope Leo X 1513-1521
Pope Nicholas V 1447-1455
Raffaello, Corregio, Titiano
Thomas More 1478-1535
Rebuilds St.Peter’s Basilica
Encourages the study of Classics
Founder of the Vatican Library
Painters
Utopia

We shall study some of the thinkers of the Renaissance period in the next chapter.
 7

Chapter 3

Renaissance Thinkers, Scientists, Humanists, Religious

Thinkers and Political Thinkers:
Renaissance Thinkers

3.1 Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464)

He was born in Cusa as the son of boatman on the Moselle. He had a brilliant
mathematical mind. He conceived Maths as the ‘science of the infinite’. Educated by
the Brothers of Common Life, he attended two universities, that of Heidelberg (1416),
and that of Padua (1417-1423) and received his doctorate in Canon Law. He became
a priest in 1426, attended the council of Basle in 1432, and he was made a Cardinal in
1448. He was appointed to the Bishopric of Brixen in 1450 and he acted as the Papal
legate in Germany in 1451-52. He strove to bring about a reunion of the Eastern
churches with Rome. Being one of the church’s first great ecumenicists he published
a book in 1453-4 proposing foundations for dialogue between Islam and Christianity.
He had quite an extensive knowledge of the Koran, which he picked during a sojourn
in Constantinople. He has written about 12 philosophical books and 3 mathematical
books. Among his books, De docta ignorantia (Learned Ignorance) is of importance.

His Thought

Harmony: He had a passion for harmony. Unity, he says is the harmonious

synthesis of opposites. This is found in every field, politics, religion… His ideal of
unity without suppression of differences is akin to that of Leibniz. This idea of unity
as the harmonious synthesis of differences was not confined to the field of speculative
philosophy. This idea had a powerful influence in his activity. On the metaphysical
place this unity is found in his idea of God.

God: He defines God as coincidence of opposites. (Coincidentia Oppositoru).

God transcends all the differences we find operating among finite beings. He is also
able to unite them in himself in mysterious and incomparable way. In him the
existence and essence merge as his ‘essence is to be.’ In God the opposites coincide
in a manner incomprehensible to the finite beings. We can call God as the Greatest
being (Maximum) as well as the smallest being. (Minimum). This is because God
cannot be greater than what He is and cannot be smaller than what He is. He laid
emphasis on the via negative in his intellectual approach to God. (i.e., we know of
God what He is not rather than what He is.)

Learned Ignorance: It refers to the type of knowledge that we can have of God.
This is nothing but the way of negation (neti neti). With regard to the positive
knowledge of the divine nature, our minds are in a state of ‘ignorance.’ This
ignorance is not the ignorance of some one who has no knowledge of God or who has
never made an effort to understand what God is. The ignorance proceeds from the
realization of God’s infinity and transcendence. Ignorance refers to the realization of
our finitude. A person becomes wise only when he/she realizes that the human
 8

intellect never grasps any truth fully. It is thus ‘learned’ or instructed’ ignorance.
Hence the title of his famous work De docta ignorantia.

Man: Every individual is a kind of summary or contraction of its species and of

the universe. A person unites in himself or herself matter, organic life, sensitive
animal life, and spiritual rationality. Man is finite representation of the divine
coincidence of opposites. Man is a microcosm, a little world, embracing in himself
the intellectual and material sphere of reality. Each finite thing mirrors the whole
universe and so too the man. The nature of man in mirrored in all of his parts, but it is
mirrored more perfectly in the head. Similarly the universe, though mirrored in every
part, is mirrored more perfectly in man. Therefore man can be called a ‘perfect world,
although he is a little world and a part of the great world.’

Christ: He had a Christocentric vision. His is an eminently Christian philosophy.

According to him, Christ unites in himself all levels of created existence as man, and
synthesizes the Godhead in his human nature, for he is the God-man. He is the
concrete maximum, and is the unique necessary means for man and through him all
creatures are to be united with God. Man’s highest potentialities are only actualizable
through Christ and there is no incorporation into Christ except through the Church, his
mystical body.

Cosmology: Nicholas rejected the cosmology of the Ptolemaic medieval system.

He did not see the earth as the centre of the universe or the centre of the orbit of the
planets. He did not accept the Aristotelian contention that the earth was a kind of sub-
lunary rubbish dump. He instead called the earth ‘a noble star’. He was novel enough
to consider the possibility of extraterrestrial life, and he said that it was possible. But
he says, one should not speculate which is superior or inferior. They have their own
way of life and perfection and we have our own.

Critical Evaluation: He was a Christian thinker and his thought was

Christocentric in character. The great German idealists of the 18th century, notably
Fichte and Hegel, will return to his idea of harmonious synthesis. Teilhard also
appreciated him very much. Openness of this man’s vision is amazing. He could
interest himself in other faiths, other cultures.

3.2: Michael Eyquem, Seigneur de Montaigne

He was born in Cascony. He was more reactor against the pedantic
dogmatism of his age than a full-blooded skeptic. His favourite phrase was Que sais-
je? (What do I know?) He wrote “there is no animal in the world so treacherous as
man,” but we should understand this in the context of his rejoinder to the pretentious
and proud claims that were being made about human intelligence and the human
person, at that time. He was not remiss in calling for tolerance and fairness of the
need for weighing all claims in the balance of good judgement.

His famous essays are a classic in French literature, and would influence many
a would-be philosophers of France all the way to Descartes and beyond. He says
“Others fashion man. I repeat him.” Montaigne says, “Man is quite insane. He
wouldn’t know how to create a maggot, and he creates Gods by the dozen. Some
people argue that the revival of classical skepticism associated with Montaigne led to
 9

the climate in which science could flourish. Montaigne re-introduced the idea of
constant, critical enquiry, although he wasn’t too good on how to know things. What
the scientists did, which was so important was to devise a new way of knowledge.

Renaissance Scientists: Leonardo da Vinci, Nicholas Copernicus,

Tycho Brahe, Galileo Galilei
Renaissance scientists were interested in verifiable truths rather than in mere
contemplation of nature. Science underwent a remarkable development at the time of
the Renaissance and this development coupled with inventions, discoveries has
exercised a profound influence on European life and thought and on the heliocentric
hypothesis.

3.3: Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)

This great artist was gifted with a remarkable flair of anticipating future
discoveries inventions and theories. Thus he anticipated speculatively the discovery
of the circulation of the blood, which was made by William Harvey about 1615; and
in optics he anticipated the undulatory theory of light. He is also known for his plans
for flying-machines, parachutes and improved artillery (weaponry).

3.4: Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)

He was a polish ecclesiastic. Copernicus argued on behalf of the hypothesis of
the earth’s daily rotation on its axis that he rotating earth also rotates round a
stationary sun. He thus substituted the Heliocentric for the geocentric hypothesis.
Until his entry into science, the earth was the centre of the cosmos and the planets
moved around it in near circular orbits. But it was a false theory and the evidence was
against it. But scientists before Copernicus rather than rectifying the wrong theory
preferred to find ways and means by which the facts could agree with their theory.
Copernicus shattered the static medieval worldview by picturing the Earth as circling
the Sun. As a philosopher his thinking was New! He tried to verify his theory by
observation.

3.5: Tycho Brahe (1546-1601)

He opposed the Heliocentric hypothesis and proposed on in which the sun
circled around the earth and Mercury, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn circling around the
sun.

3.6: Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Born at Pisa. From medicine he turned to Mathematics. Refuting the
Aristotelians Galileo upheld the Archimedean finding that it was the density or
specific gravity of a body and not its shape which determined whether a body would
sink or float in any liquid. He also confirmed through observation Stevin’s discovery
that bodies of different weight take the same time to fall a given distance and that they
do not, as the Aristotelians thought, reach the grounds at different times. His
opposition to the Ptolemaic cosmology first brought him under the suspicion of the
Inquisition in 1611, but he continued his investigation and publicly defended the
 10

Copernican system. He had plans for a pendulum clock, which later Huygens (1629-
95) invented and got the patent for it.
The invention of the telescope greatly promoted the advancement of
astronomy. By using telescope Galileo was enabled to observe the moon. His
observations fitted in very well with the heliocentric theory, but not with the
geocentric hypothesis. He defined the meaning of cause and effect and recognized
force as an important factor in physics. He fitted mathematical formulae to empirical
observation. He applied mathematical structure in the scientific interpretation of the
universe.
His famous works include The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
Systems, Dialogue Concerning Two New Sciences, and Mathematical Discourses and
Demonstrations Touching Two New Sciences.

Renaissance Humanists

3.7 Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536)

Born in Rotterdam Holland. He was an Augustinian monk, but he left after
some time. He was one of the most cultured men of his time. His books are The
Handbook of the Millitant Christian, (According to him the militant Christian is
summoned to battle with the world, the flesh and the devil, and his main weapons
are to be prayer and wisdom.) On contempt for the World (He proposes detatchment
and renunciation as the best way to avoid being contaminated by the evils of the
time.) and On Preparation for Death, and In praise of Folly.
His political thought is dominated by his vision of universal peace and the
notions of consensus and consent, which he sees as the basis of a state. He was
involved most notably in discussions concerning the state of the Church. He felt
called upon to use his learning in the purification of the doctrine and in the
liberalizing of the institutions of Christianity. He began as a Scholar, trying to free
the methods of scholarship from the rigidity and formalism of medieval traditions.
He conceived of himself as a preacher of righteousness. His call for a reformation
of the Church in its head and members brought him into conflict with conservative
Catholic theologians. On the question of ‘free will’ he entered into a polemic with
Luther. He believed in free will (opposed to determinism). He was more interested
in the moral and spiritual reformation rather than the doctrinal aspects of it. In his
attempts to expose the abuses of the Church and the failings and foolishness of
churchmen he was disliked. It is said, “the jokes of Erasmus did the Pope more
harm than the anger of Luther.” The council of Trent put his works in the Index.
Judged by the perspectives and vision of Vatican II these books are a bit too
negative and overly pious.

3.8 Thomas More (1478-1535)

Born in London. Erasmus spoke of him as “England’s only Genius.” He was
a greatly respected lawyer, considered as ‘the fairest of judges, the general patron of
the poor,’ a man of simple tastes, and noted for his gentle sense of fun and interest in
those around him. He, the scholarly Lord Chancellor of England wrote the famous
book Utopia considered by the humanists as the ‘golden little book’. (Utopia is an
island somewhere off the New World free of all social ills of Europe, where people
live a communal existence, sharing equally in their food, their government, clothes,
 11

houses, education and wars. The book is a humourless travelogue and has an idealist
vision or a bitter satire on the selfish greed of the Old World.) He is the father and
founder of Modern English school system, a system that was more geared towards life
rather than merely intellectualistic. He fought for freedom and reform. He did not
want to break with orthodoxy.
According to him those who deny God’s existence, providence and
immortality should not be given a place in public offices. He said ‘no’ to capital
punishment. He was killed by Henry VIII the supreme head of the church in England.
1
Before his death he said, “The king’s good servant, but God’s first.”

Religious Thinkers
Even before the Renaissance period there were many religious revivals and
‘holy wars.’ The church had to wage the Holy war or the crusade from 1098 onwards
to occupy the Holy land. Besides the crusades, the Church also had to defend itself
against the attacks aimed at it.
Attack on the Church: During these centuries the church also had earned a bad name
because of its cruel treatment towards the heretics, and because of its temporal power
(secular power) and immoral life. The church in 1225 approved the use of torture in
hunt for heretics. In the 13th century the Waldensians and the Albigensians in France
attacked papacy for its lapse/failure. In the 14th century some Christian mystics
denounced sacraments as means of salvation and emphasized Faith and devotion. In
this century the church was criticized for its temporal power and immoral life of the
clergy. He also demanded an English translation of the Bible. This ‘morning star of
reformation’ attacked also the doctrine of transubstantiation. In 1517 the Church is
challenged by the 95 theses of the Martin Luther, written against the church. Luther’s
radical teaching challenges the papal claim to be the sole authority on the scriptures.
He questions many of the rights of the priests and rejects the belief that bread and
wine become the body and blood of Christ. In 1522 Luther translated Bible into
German for the common people. Erasmus, the great Dutch humanist scholar exposed
the abuses of the Church and the failings and foolishness of the Churchmen.

The Church’s Reaction to the Heretics: The 14th century witnessed the digging out
of the bones of John Wycliffe, the priest professor at the Oxford and were burnt to
ashes and thrown into the river, 52 years after his death for heretical teachings. In
1401 the English parliament forbad heresy. Tyndale who smuggled into England
English Bibles had to pay his life for that. John Huss of Bohemia was burnt as a
heretic for teaching Wycliffe. In 1498 Savanarola- the Dominican Friar called as the
‘Black Friar’ – of Florence who attacked the greed and immorality of the clergy was
condemned and burnt at the stake by the orders of the Pope. In 1521 Luther was
excommunicated.
1
Henry VIII is remembered for his 6 marriages, and his momentous rupture with the church.
King Henry VIII wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon the widow of his elder brother Arthur, -who
could not bear him a male heir and only one daughter and many miscarriages- and marry the protestant
Anne Boleyn, aged 18, with the reputation as a flirt, but was not allowed by the church on the grounds
of the closeness of the relationship/ or forbidden blood link. In 1536 he beheaded her for infidelity. In
1532 More redigned from his chancellorship. In 1533 pope Clement excommunicated Henry. Due to
this in 1534 England broke with the Church and England’s religious controversies took place against
the background of religious revolution in continental Europe by Martin Luther who was preaching
against papal indulgences. In Zurich too church reformation was going on; Sweden and Denmark
broke with the pope.
 12

3.9 Martin Luther

The monk who angered the Church, Martin Luther was the son of a wealthy
copper miner and became an Augustinian monk, theologian, and a professor of Moral
Philosophy at Wittenberg University. He married Katherine von Bora an ex-nun, and
besides his six children he brought up 11 more. He published more that 400 works.
One of his important books is On Secular Authority. In 1510 he visited Rome and
was pained and disturbed by the corruption and degeneration of Papacy. In 1517 he
turned against the Church. He was excommunicated by Pope Leo X because of the
protestant reformation that he organized. He died of heart attack.

Protestant Reformation: Luther was the leader of the protestant reformation

originated in Germany, and wanted to reform the church off its malpractices. Luther
was thoroughly disgusted with the clergy and the sale of indulgence and the fund
raising to complete the St.Peter’s Basilica by Tetzel. At this time the best agricultural
lands were occupied by the church, and peasants were badly exploited. This caused
Luther to nail his 95 theses (debating points) on the Wittenberg church door. He
asked the German princes to expel the clergy and to take over their wealth. He burnt
the bull of excommunication by Pope Leo X. He printed pamphlets attacking the pope
and the church.

Doctrines of Protestantism or Lutheranism/ How it differs from Catholicism?

Holds on only to the authority of the Scriptures, and rejects the authority of the
Pope. (Luther denounced the pope and called him an usurper.)
Considers duties as sacred and not the clergy themselves.
Rejected free will, saying “faith in God alone will save.”
Considers human nature as totally and incurably corrupted by original sin.
Only faith in Christ can save people and not good works. (This was against the
teaching of the council of Trent that said: human nature is only wounded and
not totally corrupted; baptism can restore human nature; and good works are
necessary for salvation.)
God’s mercy will ultimately save everyone and not any human effort. His
intention was to emphasize faith and grace of God. He rejected reason. He
called reason “a prostitute whose face must be smeared with dung.” He had
contempt for Aristotle and the Louvain theologians. “Aristotle is an urchin
that must be put in the pigsty or the donkey’s table.” He called the theologians
of Louvain as “cursed donkeys.”
Luther’s Idea on State: He considered the secular state as the Supreme
power. He said: “No one need to think that the world can be ruled without
blood.” But according to him it is not proper for a Christian to set himself up
against the government. A Christian must be ready to suffer persecution from
his rulers/princes who he says must be seen as gods. He exhorted to common
people to break away from the exploitation of the Churchmen.
Conclusion: Though as Catholics we cannot accept the Lutheran teachings,
Luther is a real model for all of us as a man who raised his voice at what was
corrupt and sinful, pointing out the mistakes of that time and setting out a
reformation.

3.10 John Calvin (1509-1564)

 13

Born in France, in an upper class family. His thought is known as Calvinism

(similar to that of Ulrich Zwingli the Swiss religious – protestant- reformer).
Calvinism is an ethical code whose basic tenet is that all people are born sinful and
only a few selected by God can hope to attain salvation. His main idea was on
Predestination. (one’s final state is predestined). According to him, “God destines
those whom he pleases, to salvation.” When he won control over Geneva, he became
a cruel man and tyrant. He had burnt many to death. Some were burnt to death for
interpreting the Bible wrongly. The council of Trent (1545-1563) was a remarkable
event at this time.

Political Thinkers

3.11 Nicola/Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)

An eminent Italian philosopher and statesman, Machiavelli was the first great
political philosopher of the Renaissance. Machiavelli’s greatest work is The Prince.
Its main theme is that princes should retain absolute control of their territories, and
they should use any means of expediency to accomplish this end, including deceit.
This treatise stands apart from all other political writings of the period in so far as it
focuses on the practical problems a monarch faces in staying in power, rather than
more speculative issues explaining the foundation of political authority. He never
brought God into his thinking, except to point out that pretending to be pious was a
good thing to keep the masses happy. What he was interested in was political power.
Because of his political connections he was known as devil’s councilor. He even
thought it legitimate to use immoral means to ensure peace in the state. He believed
“end justifies the means.”
Prince Should be a beast-man: In The Prince, Machiavelli posits a complex
relationship between ethics and politics that associates princely virtu with the capacity
to know and act within the political world as it ‘is’ and with the beastly abilities to
dispense violence and practise deception. A prince must be able to act just like a
beast, he should learn from the fox and lion. One has to be a fox to recognize the
traps and a lion to frighten the wolves. According to him politics is a realm of
appearances where the practice of moral or Christian virtues often results in a prince’s
ruin, while knowing ‘how not to be good’ may result in greater security and well-
being for both prince and people.
Republic-citizens with civic virtu: in his Discourses he states that a republic is only
successful in self-governance as its citizens are infused with civic virtu and therefore
not corrupted.
Conclusion: The politicians of his day were against him, because he opposed their
secrets. But he has managed to translate politics into the vernacular, giving them a
secular, scientific basis, and has laid the foundation of Modern Political Philosophy
 14

Chapter 4

Rationalism

In this age as we know the main thrust was given to Reason. The prejudice
shared by rationalism and empiricism was that man does not know things directly but
grasps only their impressions (phenomena). Rationalism is concerned with the
impressions made on the intellect. Hence the question arises: can the knowing subject
be certain of the existence of known objects? If so, to what extent can man be certain?

4.1 Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650)

A. Life and Works

Descartes was born in a village near Tours in France of a noble family, and was
educated by Jesuits. He received philosophical and scientific education according to
the principles of the Scholasticism of his day. He went to Paris and enlisted in the
army during the Thirty Years War. He gave himself up to meditating on how to apply
the mathematical method of the sciences to philosophy. He then abandoned the army,
but before dedicating himself completely to philosophical meditation he undertook
long travels throughout Europe. In 1629 he retired to Holland, which offered
tranquility for meditation and writings. He remained there until 1649. During these
twenty years he wrote nearly all his books. In 1649, he went to the court of Queen
Christina of Sweden, being summoned by the Queen, who wished to study philosophy
under his direction. Unable to resist the rigor of winter, he died in Sweden during
1650.
The philosophical works published by the author were four: Discourse of
Method; Meditations on First Philosophy, in which he proves the existence of God
and the immorality of the soul; Principles of Philosophy, in four books, a systematic
work reviewing the entire thought of the author; The Passions of the Soul, treating of
the problem of morality. His Rules for the Direction of Mind was published
posthumously, as was his treatise on The World.

4.1.1 Theory of Knowledge

Descartes often asked the question: “What do I know?”, because he doubted
everything. While examining the history of philosophy there were many things that
great philosophers said, but not a single idea without dispute. According to him
philosophy should begin with something absolutely certain, from which everything
else will be derived by logical inference (deducing from facts).
He doubted sensory knowledge (practical knowledge). He said, I cannot depend
on sensory knowledge, because I may be dreaming. E.g., I see a tree outside. The
colour of the leaves is green. But is it true? I may be dreaming. E.g., someone is
sleeping. I may be dreaming that he is sleeping. I cannot be sure. In his First
Meditation he says, it is wiser not to trust entirely anything. He also doubted
theoretical knowledge and he says that Mathematics is the only certain knowledge.
According to him, sometimes even theoretical knowledge is to be doubted. In his
First Meditation he speaks of an evil genius who is constantly corrupting and
disturbing one’s thinking process.
 15

Universal Doubt (Methodic Doubt or Cartesian Doubt) so, for Descartes, the best
way to arrive at certainly is through doubt. This universal doubt is a doubt about
everything. But there is a difference between Cartesian doubt and the doubt of the
Sceptics. The skeptics’ doubt is out of despair. They hope to achieve nothing. But
Descartes doubted in order to know. The doubt was part of his struggle to attain
certainty. (Discernment of vocation)
Cogito ergo sum: Think of Descartes who is in total doubt, dreams and is in total
confusion. But he asks the question: “What sort of a creature am I?” I think I am a
man, but who is man! A rational animal. But what is animal? He says, I will be lost
if I proceed this way. Still he asks the question who am I. Well, I can think.
Therefore I exist. He could not doubt his thinking. One cannot doubt the fact of his
thinking process. Thus Descartes tries to accept at least one certainty namely, the fact
of his existence. There can be various forms of the cogito. Cogito can be any
conscious experience. Therefore we can say, I understand therefore I exist, or I walk
therefore I exist. Walking is not a bodily activity, but the mental activity of being
conscious of this activity.

What is the criterion of truth? For Descartes “all that is clearly and distinctly
perceived is true.” (3rd meditation) Clear refers to what it is, and distinct means that it
is different from others.
Types of concepts:
Representative facts: these are images of things or person. For example,
when I think of the concept of a man, at once the image of a man comes to my
mind.
Purely active facts: They are two types. 1) Volitions: Volitions are acts where
in the soul is involved. E.g. To love God, to desire a reward etc. Sentiments:
these are acts where the soul appears to be acted upon by something else. E.g.
the pleasure one experiences in seeing a friend.
Judgements: A combination of the purely active facts.

The Problem of the Bridge: In his 3rd meditation, Descartes asks: “Are the ideas
which I find in myself conformable or similar to things which are outside of myself?”
this is the foundation of the famous problem of the bridge. How can I bridge the gap
between my concepts and the things outside (external world-the world of ideas)?
Descartes’ answer was this: God our good and wise creator would not let us be
deceived. He says that we can safely assume that there is an external world
corresponding to the ideas in our mind. He used God’s existence to guarantee the
reality of the external world.

4.1.2 Theory of God

1) Proof from within: For Descartes, God is the guarantee for the existence of the
external world. Now Descartes cannot get this idea from the external world, but from
within himself. He said that we are able to form an idea of God from within, on the
basis of our self-consciousness and thus without any reference to any created reality
outside us.
2) Proof from the idea of the perfect being: It is possible for us to have a clear idea
about a being which is perfect in every way. Neither the external world nor I are
perfect. Therefore there must be a perfect being who has put in me this idea of
Himself.
 16

3) Proof from the indication that I did not create myself: this is found in the
principles of philosophy. A being which is capable of both forming the idea of the
most perfect as well as of producing itself, would make itself perfect. But we have
the first capability, but not the last. So, we are not our own cause. (A technical
engineer who has conceived of the idea of a machine and has made the machine will
be a better knowledgeable person than one of the employees in the factory.)

4.1.3 Man
Definition of Man: Man is a being who has the nature of thinking. He took a step
further and said, “I am only a thinking thing, that is, a mind.” (Second Meditation).
Therefore his emphasis was on the mind. What about the unity of body and soul? For
Descartes, the body is joined to the soul, so that we may have sensation and appetite.
But how did he explain the intimate union of body and soul? He tried to avoid this
question. Still he said, “There is a special gland somewhere in the head where body
and soul meet.”

Cartesian Dualism: According to Descartes, there are two elements in the world:
conscious and material. All the objects that surround us are material. Conscious
beings have the qualities of will, knowledge, and desire. The material objects do not
have these characteristics. This is true of mind (conscious) and body (material). They
appear to be two opposite things. (Mind is not visible, body is visible. Therefore Man
is a combination of two opposed though complementary elements.

4.1.4 Ethics
He considered Ethics as the highest and the most perfect of all sciences.

4.1.5 World
He defines substance as a ‘thing, which exists independently of everything.’ So,
according to this definition only God can be the substance, because God is
independent of everything. But later he said, “We can also call other things
substances because they proceed from God, or they have a connection with God.
With regard to the animals and plants, Descartes always denied all forms of sub-
human life. He considered animals as mere sophisticated machines. Why did he say
this? Because, at that time some thinkers considered, that the difference between
animals and human beings was only in degree.

4.1.6 Criticism
The problem of the bridge: Is it really a problem/pseudo problem? It is an artificial
one that does not exist at all. It is more consistent to say that what we know
immediately and directly are things, not our ideas of them. First we have to see the
object, only then we can have an idea of that object. It is a strange paradox that the
founder of the Rationalist school has to accept the reality of the external world on an
act of faith. But the problem of the bridge did remain a problem. Kant would say,
“We just cannot know…” Man as a thinking thing does not portray man who is also
flesh and blood.

4.2 Nicholas Malebranche (1638-1715)

He was born in Paris; he joined the ‘Oratorians,’ and developed an Augustinian
spirituality, which emphasized a theocentric vision of reality. In his search for a
 17

better system, he came across Descartes and was fascinated. Being a mathematician
himself, he appreciated Descartes. Accused of heretical ideas, his book Treatise on
Nature and Grace was put in the Index, along with those of Descartes. His famous
book is Search for Truth. Bossuet called his philosophy ‘Pulchra, Nova, Falsa.’
(Nice, new and false)

4.2.1 Theory of Occasionalism:

He held the theory of Occasionalism, which says that there is only one efficient cause
and others are mere occasions for God to act. No human being is an efficient cause,
but only instrumental cause and an occasion for God to act.

4.2.2 On Ideas:
All eternal and necessary ideas are in God (also Augustine’s view). These ideas are the
objective reality and they are different from feelings. Since man is not eternal and
immutable, ideas cannot reside in him. So man needs to have the direct vision of these
ideas in God. But we do not see God but have a natural intuition of ideas. Though he
was a rationalist, he emphasized on the theocentric vision of reality.

4.3 Blaise Pascal (1623 – 1662)

4.3.1 His Life

He is considered as one of the world’s greatest mathematician. He was born in a very
well established respectable upper middle class family in Clermont in France. He
never saw the inside of a school. He underwent private tuition. He discovered many
things (wheel barrow). He was very austere. His last words were “may God never
forsake me.” During his life time he wanted to write many books but he did not. A
book was written and published posthumously – Thoughts. He was noted for his
middle way (reason and faith). “The heart has reasons which reason does not know.”
The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob is not the God of the
philosophers. The conclusion is, God of reason is not God of faith.

Doctrines
4.3.2 Epistemology
His idea of ‘middle way’ runs through all his writings, especially in his book called
Thoughts. This seems to be his criterion of truth. Middle path is the guarantee of the
truth of any statement.
Reason: There are indications in his writings that he was very much prone to accept
reason. He seems to be exalting reason, at the same time keeping faith in high esteem.
“I can very well conceive a man without a hand, but not a man without reason or
thinking; else he would be a stone or a brute.” In support of faith, he says, “the heart
has reasons, which the reason does not know. He also says that reason is a poor thing.
It cannot know everything in philosophy. It cannot know the supernatural philosophy.
But he was not in any way belittling reason. He took a middle path.

4.3.3 Man
Definition of Man: “Man is but a reed; the weakest thing in nature; but he is a
thinking reed.” Man is capable of knowing himself. Even if the whole nature comes
to kill him, he cannot be killed. In such a situation, man will be nobler because he
still knows himself to be dying (the universe doesn’t know!)
 18

The Mystery of Man: Pascal had a gloomy picture of man. He considered man as
wounded person to the depths of his being, by the consequences of the original sin.
His picture of human being could be imagined this way- ‘A number of men are in
fetters. Each day one is killed in front of others. So all are in great pain and agony.
They look at one another in sorrow and without any hope.’ Pascal is of the opinion
that the relationships existing among human beings are corrupt and insincere. He
says: “I state as a fact that if all men knew what others said about them behind their
backs, there would not be four friends left in the world.”

4.3.4 World
He considers the world as fallen (like man). Like man, the world is also waiting for
the redemption by Christ. The world stands in need of liberation, because nature also
has suffered corruption. He aimed at harnessing science to the service of faith. He
also aimed at setting up a methodology for science. “Authority is useless in subjects
that fall under the senses and under reasoning.

4.3.5 God
“God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob; and not of the philosophers.” “The
God of Christians is not merely a divine author of geometrical truths and of the order
of the elements.” He is not simply a God who bestows everything (his providence)
upon human beings who worship him and offer him sacrifices. According to him, this
was the thought of the Jews. He says that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and
the God of Christians is a God of love and consolation, a God who fills the souls and
hearts of those who are His, and who causes them to feel deeply within themselves
their own mystery.

God-Man Relationship: Pascal speaks of man’s insufficiency and misery, as well as

his utter dependence on God. This is the foundation of a very intimate and lasting
relationship between the human and the divine. According to Pascal, God is not the
mere end of our life. He is the beginning and the ground of our very being.
Pascal’s Wager: According to him, belief in God is always preferred to atheism
because the benefits of theism are so infinite compared to the benefits of atheism
Pascal on Other Religions: He considered non-Christian religions as foolish. He
called atheists as evil men, because they are unwilling to live moral life. (Pascal does
not accept the fact of inculturation and inter-religious dialogue) He strongly believed
that prophesies are fulfilled only in Christianity.
On Islam: “Who bears witness to Muhammad? He himself… Muhammad, poor
wretch, stands alone.” Pascal says, Quran proves that Muhammad is a false prophet.
Fire and sword are their methods of spreading Islam. “Muhammad came as a slayer;
Jesus caused his followers to be slain.” “There is no redeemer in any religion other
than Christianity.”

Conclusion: Pascal represents rationalism in the sense that he devoted himself to the
pursuit of truth as attainable by the philosophical and scientific reflection of the
human mind. His famous book Pensees made him known in the circles of philosophy
 19

4.4 Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677)

Baruch Spinoza was born in Amsterdam in 1632. He came from a family of

Portuguese Jews. Very early in life he found himself unable to accept the Orthodox
Jewish theology that he was exposed to. In 1656 he was solemnly excommunicated
from the Jewish community on grounds of being a heretic.
As a means of livelihood, he took to grinding lenses for optical instruments.
This afforded him the opportunity to live a retired and quiet life of a scholar and
philosopher. In spite of his brilliance, he never occupied an academic post. In 1673,
he was offered the chair of philosophy at Heidelberg, which he refused. He was a
calm, moderate and temperate man who was noted for being extraordinarily kind. He
died in 1677. His best known work Ethics was discovered from his room after his
death. When published it was received with hositility and antagonism by many
conservative theologians.

4.4.1 On God
It is significant that a man who was labeled by many as an atheist during his
life time was referred to by Novalis (a 19th century romantic philosopher) after his
death as ‘that God-intoxicated man.’
God occupied a central place in the philosophy of Spinoza. He held that God
is not transcendent. He is the totality of everything that is. ‘Everything is in God’;
there is no real metaphysical distinction between God and the universe. He held that
God is not the person of the Christian tradition. To speak of God as possessing will is
incorrect, as that would imply imperfection in God. God is perfect and lacks nothing.
Attributing human qualities to God is not legitimate. God is not creator. He is not a
loving and providential father. All the attributes that Christian piety has attributed to
God are illusions; projections that arise from ignorance and insecurity.

Spinoza as we said earlier is often referred to as ‘God-intoxicated man.’ God

was the starting point of his philosophy. In Ethics he defines God as “that which is in
itself and us conceived through itself.’ Therefore only God is the substance and
everything else is a mode or attribute of the one substance (God). The substance
cannot have a personality; because by giving a personality we are limiting the
substance. (Therefore Spinoza’s God is not a person!)

4.4.2 On World
Here he speaks of the theory of emanation. To emanate means ‘to originate
from something else.’ Emanation is different from creation. According to him various
things emanate from the infinite essence. So he considered God as the ultimate
substance and other than Him there is nothing. God becomes the essence of all things
and God and the universe are considered as one. In this sense Spinoza can be quite
legitimately labeled a pantheist. He held that nature is not ontologically distinct from
God. He even went to the extent of saying that ‘God is the totality of existence.’ In
his view finite substances are modifications of God, the one unique substance. God
possesses an infinity of attributes, each of which is infinite. Of these only two are
known, that is, thought and extension. Finite minds are modes of God under the
attribute of thought. Finite bodies are modes of God under the attribute of extension.
 20

4.4.3 Epistemology
1. Obscure knowledge: It comes from our sensations and imagination. It is
inadequate knowledge.
2. Clear and distinct knowledge: It arises when reason studies the real nature of
objects and studies the relations that exist between things. Therefore, clear and
distinct knowledge comes as a result of rational knowledge.
3. Intuitive Knowledge: It is a kind of immediate perception of truth. For
example, whole is greater than the parts. Reason gives us more accurate and certain
information.
On the criterion of truth: He accepted Descartes’ understanding of the criterion of
truth: clarity and distinctness. He also added coherence to clarity and distinctness for
an idea to be true. So knowledge which yields adequate ideas is necessarily true.

4.4.4 Moral Relativism:

Spinoza held that nothing is good or evil in itself. The terms good and evil
refer to our subjective evaluations of how something affects our interests and
concerns. He says, ‘we neither strive for, wish, seek, nor desire anything because we
think it to be good, but on the contrary, we adjudge a thing to be good because we
strive for wish, seek, or desire it.’ Similarly, he says, ‘when we feel adverse to
something we call it evil.’ In short we can say that Spinoza was a moral relativist.
For him there are no absolute standards for moral judgments. Moral judgments are
relative to each individual’s perception: for one and the same thing may at the same
time be both good and evil or indifferent. Music, for example, is good to a
melancholy person, bad to the mourning, while to a deaf man it is neither good nor
bad.

4.4.5 Ethics
Spinoza’s ethics is rooted in his notion of ‘Conatus’ (in Latin, it means ‘effort’
or ‘endeavor’). That is behind every being’s activities there is present one most basic
urge: the endeavor to persist in one’s being. “everything, in so far as it is itself,
endeavors to persist in its own being, and the endeavor wherewith a thing seeks to
persist in its own being is nothing else than the actual essence of that thing.” (Ethics
III 6-7)
Good and Evil: According to Spinoza, good individuals act according to reason.
Anything which retains the harmony of action and inaction between the various parts
of a human being’s body is good. Whatever helps the social life of human being is
good. Man should strive for pleasure-but rational pleasure.

Spinoza speaks of two important emotions: Joy and Sadness. When a person
becomes aware of his success in attempting to persist in being, he experiences the
emotion of joy. When he/she becomes aware of the failure, he/she experiences
sadness (Ethics, III, IX). According to him, all the other emotions are derives from
these two emotions. Love for example, is joy that arises with the help of an external
cause, and hate is sadness coming with the help of an external cause. (Ethics, III,
XIII)
]
4.4.6 His Influence
After his death, many of the philosophers of the time attacked Spinoza
vigorously. He was referred to as the ‘Jewish Atheist.’ His views were described as
 21

the ‘climax of heresy’. But after some time his fame began to grow. His starting
point was God. The importance that he gave to realizing God’s closeness to the world
and our essential relationship to the divine is something remarkable.

4.5 Gottfried Wilhelm Von Leibnitz

4.5.1 Life
He was born in Leipzig in Germany, the son of a moral philosophy professor.
He had a library at home and made full use of it. He studied Latin literature and
history of philosophy. He invented a calculating machine; he tried to reunite the
protestant and catholic churches. He wrote a book Discourse on Metaphysics. The
background of this book was on the reunification of Protestants and Catholics. His
basic proposal for this was, try to arrive at some of the basic or common propositions
which are acceptable to both the parties on the basis of which you could bring about
the union. This actually did not take place. He is known mainly for two of his ideas:
Theodicy and Monadology. Main works are: New Systems of Nature & of Interaction
of Substances (1695), Theodicy (1710), Monadology (1714), and Principles of Nature
and Grace (1714).

4.5.2 Theory of Knowledge

Basic Elements: According to Leibniz, truth is to be established by
combining the simplest and the most basic elements of knowledge. These basic
elements are the ‘building blocks’ of truth. Let us take up any statement: ‘Yesterday
we saw an action-packed movie’ or ‘Today we had a heavy rain this morning.’ Divide
them into terms and their definitions, till you reach indefinable parts. According to
Leibniz, these indefinable parts serve as the basic alphabets of human thought.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason: No fact can be real or existing and no statement
can be true, unless it has a sufficient reason why it should be thus and not otherwise.
Leibniz says that sometimes these reasons are not known to us. Some people connect
the principle of sufficient reason with the principle of causality and with the principle
of identity. For example, what is the sufficient reason to say, why I am a man and not
this duster? My human existence. What is the sufficient reason to say that my
substance is a human substance? - God the creator.

Truths of reasoning and Truths of facts: In ‘truths of reasoning’, the opposite is

impossible. For example, ‘A triangle has three sides.’ This is rational knowledge.
‘Truths of reasoning’ is a priori knowledge.2
While ‘truths of fact’ can have opposites. ‘Roshan was our first capo.’ The opposite
is possible, i.e. somebody else could have become the first capo. Or it wasn’t
necessary that Roshan should have been the first capo. ‘Truths of fact’ are based on
experience. This is a posteriori knowledge.3 The truths of reasoning are necessary
and their opposite is impossible. The truths of fact however are contingent and their
opposite is possible.
2
From the Latin a (from) and priori (the preceding), a priori refers to a type of knowledge
which is obtained independently of experience. It is knowledge gained before experience.
(Kaippananickal, Love of Wisdom)
3
This term comes from the Latin a (from) and Posteriori (the latter). It is a type of
knowledge which can be gained by induction or by experience. .(Kaippananickal, Love of Wisdom)
 22

4.5.3 Theory of World

Monad4: this word has its origin in Greek language. In simple words, a monad
signifies unity. Monad is that which is one. They are “simple substances, which go
to make up composites.”(The Monadology, 1). By simple we mean, without parts.
Thus monads are the basic elements of things. According to Leibniz, there is plurality
of monads. But each one is dependent on God. Monads are not dependent on each
other. No monad can influence or affect another monad. “One created monad cannot
have any physical influence upon the inner being of another.” “Each monad is a
perpetual living mirror of the universe.”(The Monadology, 56). For Leibniz, all simple
substances enjoy some kind of perception, in different degrees. “Those monads
whose perception is more distinct and is accomplished by memory have souls in it.
Soul is a mysterious dominating force.”

4.5.4 Theory of Man:

Body-Soul relationship: Though there are no relationships between monads, Leibniz
speaks of a pre-established harmony. When God created monads, He gave them the
nature that made it possible to exist in harmony. “The soul follows its own laws, the
body also its own laws. They are fitted to each other in virtue of the pre-established
harmony between all substances since they are all representations of one and the same
universe.”(The Monadology, 78). For Leibniz, the principle of harmony works
everywhere. Nothing in the world is without a purpose, because the pre-established
harmony works everywhere.

4.5.5 Theory of God

According to Leibniz, God is the supreme monad. He is the monad of
monads. Leibniz is certain of God’s existence. He uses the principle of sufficient
reason to explain the existence of God. According to him, God is the only sufficient
reason that can account for the existence of contingent beings.
“Only God, or the necessary being, has this privilege that he must exist if he is
possible. And since nothing can prevent the possibility of that which contains no
boundaries, no negation and therefore no contradiction, this alone suffices to know
God’s existence, a priori (Monadology, 45).
Leibniz says that God wills everything in the best possible way. Therefore,
our particular world is the best possible world and whatever happens to us is for our
good. This is no more a pious thought for Leibniz, but a metaphysical principle: “this
is the cause for the existence of the greatest good: namely, the wisdom of God permits
him to know it, his goodness causes him to choose it and his power enables him to
produce it.” (Monadology, 55)
Evil: According to Leibniz, there are three types of evil: metaphysical evil (it is mere
imperfections) physical evil (suffering) and moral evil (sin). Evil is a privation and it
is not a positive entity. God permits physical on the supposition that it is for our
good. While metaphysical evil is necessary for all created beings, because created
beings are finite beings. Is God responsible for metaphysical evil? Not at all! Created
beings are finite beings; God willed only our good. The fitness or the metaphysical
evil is due to the limited nature of things.

4
Monads according to his philosophy are simple substances that cannot be broken down
further. They do not take up space and they can perceive reality.
 23

5. EMPIRICISM
Introduction

Empiricism extolled experience (sense knowledge) as the source and norm of

knowledge. It denied that there were a priori truths and held that clearly and
distinctly and perceived truths were not necessarily certain. The chief exponents of
this system were: Sir Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, George Berkley
and David Hume.

5.1 Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

5.1.1 Life
He was born in London in 1561 and studied in Cambridge. He devoted
himself to law and politics. He entered parliament in 1584 and became Lord
Chancellor in 1618. In 1621 he was accused of accepting bribes in his judicial
capacity. He was found guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment and payment of
fine. After a few days he was released and pardoned by the king. He retired to
private life and died in 1626.

5.1.2 Doctrines
“Instauratio Magna” (The Great Restoration)
Bacon, living at the time of the first discoveries of modern physics, became an
enthusiastic innovator in the methods of physical science. According to him, former
ages did not have many discoveries to their credit. Bacon held that the natural
sciences needed a new method, and that through this method discoveries could be
directly attempted. According to him human beings think in terms of operations
rather than seek for abstract truths. For him the aim of science is to endow human
beings with new power. He enabled science to become craft or craft or industry
producing results rather than a haphazard pursuit. He fought against the false
approaches of metaphysics and against superstition.

“Novum Organum”
The first and the best part of the Novum Organum aims at freeing the mind of all the
prejudices which prevents a successful study of natural phenomena. These prejudices
are four: (1) Idols of the tribe or prejudices arising from human nature; (2) Idols of the
cave or prejudices coming from the psychic condition of the human soul; (3) Idols of
the Market place, or prejudices resulting from social relationships; and (4) Idols of the
Theatre, or prejudices, deriving from false philosophical systems.
When the mind is freed of these idols, it is ready to receive knowledge. The
end in view is to discern the principles to find out how nature works. This is achieved
through induction. Bacon tries to ground human understanding in observation and
experience which leads to a harsh rejection of the popular Aristotelian a priori or
deductive method. The alternative that he proposes is an a posteriori or inductive
approach.
 24

5.2. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

5.2.1 Life
Thomas Hobbes was born on 5th April 1588, prematurely. John Aubrey tells
us that because his mother was alarmed by the news that the Spanish Armada was
approaching England. He lived to the magnificent age of 91. For several years he
was secretary to Bacon, and he shares many of Bacon’s concerns. Retaining his
clarity of mind and intellect until a few days before his death.

5.2.2 Works
The following are his major works: De Cive (On the Social and Political
organism), De Corpore (On the Body) and De Homine (On Man). De Cive was later
published under the little The Leviathan. The Leviathan is generally considered his
masterpiece. He is known mainly for his political philosophy.

5.2.2 The Doctrine of the state

Hobbes’ theory of the state presupposes the equality of all people. He believes
that all people aspire toward the same goal and that when they fail to achieve it,
enmity and hate spring up. Whoever does not obtain his desire distrusts the man, who
has met with success and, in order to ward off a possible attack, attacks him. Hence
arises Hobbes’ pessimistic conception of mankind: homo homini lupus est, man is a
wolf to man. Men have no direct interest in the company of their fellows, except to
the extent that they can reduce them to submission. The three motives of discord
among human beings are competition, which provokes aggression with gain as an
object. Mistrust, which makes men attack each other in order to achieve security; and
vanity, which creates enmity between rivals for fame.

5.2.3 Hobbes’ Social Contract Theory on the origin of the State and its
Absolute Power
For security man enters into a covenant forming a civil government or civil
state instead of his natural state. The theory of Hobbes on the origin of the State is
called the social contract theory. The social contract theory starts with two
assumptions – the “state of nature” and the “state of society.” The state of nature is
the period before the formation of society and the state of society, is the period after
the formation of the state. Though there is general agreement about the state of nature
thinkers differ about its details; Hobbes gave a gloomy picture of the state of nature.
In his opinion, it was a state of war, a savage state. Men were selfish and aggressive
brutes. Every man was the enemy of every other man. Might was right. To avoid the
fear and danger of this terrible situation, men agreed to set up authority. And thus the
state was formed.

Absolute power of the state: Now the state as thus constituted is absolute: just as
formerly the power of the individual knew no restriction, so it is now with the
authority of the state. When the state strips the individual men of their power, it
assumes all of itself and governs without limitations. The state is a mighty machine, a
monster which devours the individuals, and from which they cannot appeal to higher
authority. Hobbes finds no more suitable name for this monster than that of the great
beast of the Bible: Leviathan; this is the state, superior to all else, a moral God, as it
 25

were. The state decides upon everything, not only politics, but also morality and
religion.

5.2.4 Man’s seeking for Peace

Man wants to satisfy his passions and desires at other’s expense. Because of
this attitude men distrust each other. Man’s natural state is one of aggression. But
man realizes that this situation of insecurity is unsustainable. His life is wretched in
this state of struggle and he is compelled to seek peace.

5.2.5 Philosophy of Rights/jus, and the Political Community

Hobbes distinguishes between Jus, or right, which he interprets as freedom,
and lex, or Law, which signifies obligation. Man has the freedom-that is, the right- to
do anything he can or desires to do; but three things can be done with a right: it may
be exercised, renounced or transferred. The mutual transfer of a right is called a pact,
contract or covenant. This leads to the idea of a political community.

5.2.6 Conclusion:
Hobbes’ system, acute and profound in many points, represents the
authoritarian and absolutist conception of the state, based simultaneously on the
principle of equality and on a thoroughly pessimistic view of human nature. Although
Hobbes speaks of God at times, the outlook of his work is basically atheistic. In
contrast to the ideas of spirituality and freedom, Hobbes’ political system is
dominated by naturalistic mechanics and the affirmation of the universal power of the
state.

5.3 John Locke (1632-1704)

5.3.1 Life
John Locke is popularly called the father of British Empiricism. He was born
at Wrigton near Bristol. While a student at oxford, from where he graduated in
physics in 1652, he was exposed to scholasticism and the Classics, which did not
fascinate him very much. Scholasticism, in particular, he found to be filled with
obscure terms and useless questions. He lived in Holland and France for number of
years. Locke’s influence has been extremely important, greater than that of any other
English philosopher. Through his leadership, empiricism, which found in him its
most able and fortunate expounder, came to dominate eighteenth-century thought.
5.3.1 His Works
Locke’s most important work is the Essay Concerning Human Understanding,
Published in 1690. He also wrote political works-Two Treatises on Government and
Letters on Toleration, which defined his position on religious matters.
5.3.2 His Rejection of Innate Ideas
Locke says that ideas are not innate, as continental rationalism had thought.
According to him, the soul is a tanquam tabula rasa, like a clean slate on which
nothing has been written. His denial of the innate ideas does not mean the denial of
the truths of science, morals and religion. Locke believes in the knowledge which he
thinks, can be explained by his thesis of empiricism. Knowledge, like two and two
are equal to four or sweet is not bitter, is not gained by having innate ideas but by
having clear and distinct ideas through experience.
 26

5.3.3 His Epistemology

He speaks of three degrees of knowledge:
Intuitive knowledge: This knowledge is most clear and certain and is the highest
kind of knowledge which human faculty is capable of reaching. We’ve intuition of
our existence.
Demonstrative Knowledge: This is a knowledge which is indirect, which is attained
by proof, in contrast to intuition which is immediate knowledge. Locke and Hume
speak of this.
Sensitive Knowledge: Anything that comes to acquire the certainty of intuitive or
demonstrative knowledge and anything which comes short of it is not knowledge but
is an opinion. This knowledge regarding the particular external objects is called
sensitive knowledge.
5.3.4 Two Types of Experiences: Sensation and Reflection
All ideas are ultimately derived from experience, which can be of two classes:
external perception obtained by means of senses (sensationalism); and internal
perception of physical states, (reflection). In either case reflection operates on
material introduced by sensation. Through sensation we receive ideas of the sensible
qualities of physical objects; though reflection we receive ideas about the operations
of the mind.
5.3.5 Educational Theory:
Locke held that education plays an important role in the integral development
of the human being. The goal of education, he says, should be to form a ‘sound mind
in a sound body.” He held that in order to be effective education must be pleasant and
interesting. It must help foster creativity and freedom. It should be functional rather
than theoretical and must have to do with the business of living. He emphasized the
fact that in education the personal example of the teacher is indispensable. He
influenced not only philosophical debates, but also developing disciplines like
psychology and education theory. The four fold aim of education is virtue, good
breeding, wisdom and learning.

5.3.6 Ethics
He argued that there are no innate moral principles ‘written on the heart.’ All
our moral knowledge, he says, comes from experience. He defined good as anything
that produces pleasure in us or decreases pain in us. His definition of evil is just the
opposite. However he also speaks of three kinds of law: (1) the divine law, (2) the
civil law, (3) the law of opinion or reputation. The last two are of human origin,
hence we should not be surprised that their details differ from society to society and
that they sometime deviate from the divine law. The divine law is most important,
and conformity to it tends to advance the general good of human kind. He was of
the view that the divine law may be discovered either through ‘the light of nature’ or
the ‘voice of revelation’. Hence, we are not entirely dependent on revelation to know
moral truths, for it is possible to discover them using our reason and experience as
well. In general he is a determinist, and does not grant that human will is free. He
however allows certain indifference, which allows men to decide.
5.3.7 On State
He has a liberal ideology. He rejected the advocacy of patriarchal institution and the
doctrine of the divine right and absolute power of kings. According to him the proper
 27

form a state is the constitutional and representative monarchy, independent of the

church, tolerant of matters of religion.

5.4 George Berkeley (1685-1753)

Following the empiricism of Locke, many 18 th century writers believed that
knowledge is not innate, but comes only from experience and observation guided by
reason. Berkeley was one such. Born in the year 1685 in Ireland, Locke’s common
sensical approach to philosophy influenced him to formulate his philosophical
position. Berkeley was severely criticized and ridiculed for denying the existence of
matter (outside perception). His formula was “esse-est-percipi” (to be is to be
perceived). He is generally regarded as the founder of the modern school of idealism.
He made realism a powerful school in Anglo-American thought by combining it with
the skepticism and empiricism that had become influential in British philosophy. His
major works are: Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710);
The Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous (1713)

5.4.1 His Epistemology

According to Berkeley knowledge may be reduced to two kinds: One that of
ideas and the other that of spirits. The ideas are also of two kinds, namely a) the ideas
imprinted on the senses and b) the ideas formed by memory and imagination. The
ideas of senses are either ideas of particular sensible qualities like heat, colour, smell
or else they may be a collection of such qualities called thing.
Condition for the Existence of Material Things: According to Berkeley for a
material thing, such as a chair or tree, to exist is to be perceived by the senses-often
quoted in his Latin phrase esse est percipi. This his views on the existence of material
things were published in the first and only surviving part of his main work The
Principles of Human Knowledge 1770.
Existence of Non-Material Things: For a non-material thing, such as the mind or the
spirit of man or God, to exist is to perceive, by either the senses, the feelings,
imagination, or thought – in Latin esse est percipere. We have ideas of that which is
perceived, and notions of the mind or spirit that does the perceiving.
5.4.2 His Rejection of General Ideas
Locke’s theory of ideas leads Berkeley into the realm of Metaphysics.
Berkeley does not believe that general ideas exist; for example, according to him there
cannot be a general idea of a triangle, because any triangle imagined is necessarily
equilateral, isosceles or scalene, where as the general idea of a triangle does not
involve such distinctions. Berkeley refers to the intuition of the triangle, but he does
not believe in the concept or thought of the triangle, which is truly universal.

5.4.3 Berkeley’s Idealism or the Principle of ‘To be is to be Perceived’, and its

Problems
What is Berkeley’s Idealism? The principle that to be is to be perceived is
sometimes called Berkeley’s Idealism. According to Berkeley sensible things are
nothing but clusters of ideas. He says, ‘when I see a thing, I don’t see the thing, but
the idea of that thing in my mind.’
 28

5.4.3.1 The Consequences of this Idealism:

1. This denies the commonly held view that such objects as chairs and trees are
composed of not only perceivable qualities like colors, smells and sounds-
which may depend on being perceived- but also of some unperceivable matter
like atoms and molecules which is the cause of the perceivable qualities.
2. Another consequence of this idealism is that objects such as trees and chairs
cease to exist when not being perceived by any mind or spirit.
3. This idealism further leads to question that if the existence of the chairs and
trees we perceive around us depends on their ‘being perceived’, what causes
these perceptions of ours on which this existence depends?
4. And yet another question was if these chairs and trees continue to exist when
we ourselves do not perceive them how can we agree with Berkeley?

5.4.3.2 Berkeley’s answer to the problems that result from his Idealism
His answer to these questions was to introduce an infinite mind or spirit,
which he identified with God, as one, who on the one hand, causes us to have the
perceptions we do have when we perceive chairs and trees, and who on the other
hand, perpetually and continuously perceives those chairs and trees when we do not
perceive them. Berkeley thought that this answer avoided the difficulties about the
nature of the matter according to scientific analysis and also explained the cause of an
object’s perceivable qualities-atoms and molecules or unperceivable matter-such as
color, smell, sound etc.

5.4.3.3 Regarding Confusion in Philosophy

According to Berkeley, the confusion in philosophy is due to ignorance about
the precise meaning of terms. If you know the meanings, then there would be fewer
conflicts. Therefore it is important to remove the vagueness or veil of words.
Conclusion
Berkeley’s Empiricism is spoken of as empiricism of Locke made consistent.
Hume’s empiricism in relation to Berkeley’s empiricism can be spoken of as an effort
to make Berkeley’s empiricism consistent. Thus we turn now to Hume whose
philosophy is the culmination of classical empiricism and whose analysis of
knowledge has contributed much to contemporary logical empiricism, positivism,
pragmatism and so on.

5.5 David Hume

David Hume was a Scotsman, born in Edinburgh in 1711. He studied at the
university in his native city, revealing a passionate interest in philosophy and
literature. His empiricism was influenced by the ideas of Locke and Berkeley, that all
metaphysical assertions about things that cannot be directly perceived are
meaningless. He went even further, however, endeavoring to prove that reason and
rational judgments are merely habitual associations of distinct sensations and
experiences.
According to him we are fundamentally creatures of instinct and habit whose
mental lives are dominated by passion rather than reason, whose beliefs are formed by
mechanisms of association and custom rather than by a priori reflection, and whose
moral lives are the product of feeling trained by convention. He wrote his Treatise on
Human Nature, in three volumes, which were published in 1739 and 1740. This was
not welcomed much due to its radical views and strong attack on dogmatic zealots. In
 29

1742 he published Essays: Moral and Political, which revealed his atheistic and
skeptical views. Some of his other works are, Political Discourses (1752), History of
England (1754 to 1762); Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779)
5.5.1 The Illusion of Causation
In a revolutionary step in the history of philosophy, Hume rejected the basic
idea of causation, maintaining that reason can never show the connection of one
object with another. According to him, no logical justification exists for believing
that any two events are causally connected, or for making any inference from past to
future. Hume’s rejection of causation also implied a rejection of scientific laws,
which were based on the general premise that one event necessarily causes another
and predictably always will. According to Hume, knowledge of matters of fact is
impossible; though as a practical matter he acknowledged that people had to think in
terms of cause and effect, and had to assume the validity of their perceptions, else
they would go mad.
5.5.2 His Theory of Knowledge
He in his epistemology speaks of the mind, the contents of the mind, and the laws of
mind.
Content of the mind: Content of the mind is called ‘Perceptions’.
Perceptions are divided into two parts: Impressions and Ideas
Impressions: These are sensations and feelings. Impressions are vivid and lively.
Impressions are sensations, passions or emotions.
Ideas: These are copies or images of sensations and feelings. Ideas come to us
through simple impressions. Ideas are the faint images of these impressions. Just like
Locke, he divides ideas into simple and complex ideas. Complex ideas are formed
out of the simple ideas.
5.5.3 His Skepticism
Hume’s skeptical approach also denied the existence of substance, spiritual or
material. He argued that no observable evidence is available for the existence of a
mind substance or God. He also denied the existence of the individual self,
maintaining that because people do not have a constant perception of themselves as
distinct entities, they “are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions.”

5.5.4 God and Religion

His philosophy of God is just a collection of questions. ‘Why are Christians
so sure of monotheism?’ ‘Why not polytheism?’ He was especially critical of the
various proofs offered for God’s existence. He says that the ‘theistic argument’ based
on analogy has serious faults. ‘Look at life’, he says ‘Look at the suffering, torture,
the cruelty of man. See the disasters that befall the world. Now what happens to
God?’ he asks, ‘why should a perfect God allow man to suffer?’ “How can we explain
God’s benevolence?’ ‘How can we defend God’s power?’ He held that neither proof
nor miracles can establish God’s existence. According to him, the best intellectual
attitude in religion is a healthy skepticism. The traditional religions, he says, arose
due to superstition. In his private life, it seems like he did accept the elementary
truths of religion. He was only against their rationalistic explanation.
 30

5.5.5 Ethical Relativism

In his ethical thinking, Hume held that the concept of right and wrong is not
rational but arises from a regard for one’s own happiness. His ethics is based on
instinctive feelings, since he refused to accept any such things as nature, natural law
and so on. According to him, man seeks instinctively what is useful to the common
good. He says that it is only passions, including particularly the desires, that can
move is to action, and that reason must be their ‘slave’ operating in their interest.
According to Hume, the supreme moral good is benevolence, an unselfish regard for
the general welfare of society, which he regarded as consistent with individual
happiness.

5.5.6 Imagination and Memory

According to him a past impression may be “made to appear” (recall) in two
ways: 1) with the help of memory. 2) With the help of imagination. Through memory
we are able to recall past impressions in a vivid manner. Whereas, imagination makes
past impressions appear in a faint way. There is one more difference: memory
faithfully recalls the past impressions in the same chronological order, whereas
imagination rearranges ideas in an arbitrary way.
5.5.7 Philosophy of History
As a historian Hume broke away from the traditional chronological account of
wars and deeds of state and attempted to describe the economic and intellectual forces
that played a part in the history of his country. His History of England was for many
years regarded as a classic.
5.5.8 Conclusion
His effort to focus on man in a world of progress and individualism is
praiseworthy. But his attempt which almost claims to reduce human nature to a
scientific understanding is questionable. Is it possible to have a ‘science of man’ as
we can have a science of the plant world? There is more to man than science can
think and predict about him. Man is a being endowed with free will and so he is not
mechanically directed. Human behavior cannot be scientifically put under a
paradigm. And man is not a being that acts instinctively.
 31

6. TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM:
IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804)

6.1 His Life

Born in Konigsberg, in what was then Prussia, he was a German philosopher,
known for his synthesis of rationalism and empiricism. He was such a popular
lecturer that students at the university had to arrive at six in the morning, one hour
before Kant was due to begin his lecture, in order to get a seat! After many years of
financial and professional insecurity he was appointed to the chair of Logic and
Metaphysics in the University of Konigsberg in 1770. He was known for his
punctuality and it is said that the housewives of Konigsberg corrected their watch
when Kant went for evening walk. He remained a bachelor in his busy pursuit of
philosophy. His philosophy is known as transcendentalism, an effort to bring together
empiricism and rationalism. Kant was the foremost of the German idealists. Hume’s
main positions expounded in his Treatise, in his own testimony Kant says, shook him
out of his dogmatic slumber. Thus Kant sought to evolve a critical philosophy that
would show the bounds or limits of reason/metaphysics and at the same time indicate
the role of reason in empirical enquiry.

6.2 His Works

His important works are: Critique of Pure Reason 1781 (edition A and 1787
edition Being-in-itself), the Critique of Practical Reason 1788, and the Critique of
Judgement 1790. Other important works of Kant are The Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals 1785, Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alone 1793, The
Metaphysics of Morals 1797.

6.3 Kant on Knowledge

For Kant, knowledge came from the synthesis of experience and concepts.
Without sense we would not become aware of any, object and without understanding
we would form no concept of an object. So the process of gaining knowledge is a
unified one involving perception (sensation), imagination, and understanding.

6.4 Phenomena, Noumena and his Theory of Knowledge

Kant’s epistemology is often described as a compromise between empiricism
and rationalism as his solution combined elements of each, the empiricist principle
that all knowledge has its source in experience, and the rationalist belief in knowledge
obtained by deduction.
He suggested that although the content of experience must be discovered
through experience itself, the mind imposes form and order on all its experiences, and
this form and order can be discovered a priori- that is, by reflection alone.
Kant’s metaphysical system may be summarized as follows: 1) The mind
furnishes the archetypal forms and categories (space, time, causality, and relation) to
its sensations, and these categories are logically anterior to experience, although
manifested only in experience. (2) Their logical anteriority to experience makes these
categories transcendental; they transcend all experience, both actual and possible. (3)
Although these categories (or structural principles) determine all experience, they do
not in any way affect the nature of ‘things in themselves’. (4) The knowledge of
which these principles are the necessary conditions of experience must not be
considered themselves (noumena). (5) This knowledge concerns things only insofar as
 32

they appear to human perception or as they can be apprehended by the senses

(phenomena).
The argument by which he sought to fix the limits or human knowledge within
the framework of experience constitutes the critical feature of his philosophy; his
point was to demonstrate the inability of the human mind to penetrate beyond
experience, strictly by knowledge, to the realm of ultimate reality.

6.5 The Categorical Imperative

In his Critique of Practical Reason and the Foundations of the Metaphysics of
Morals he gives an axiom of moral behaviour called the Categorical Imperative. The
Categorical Imperative is a moral law which holds true for every human being and
forms the basis of practical reason or moral understanding; it states that morality is an
imperative/command and that it is a law made by the individual on himself. At least
four forms of the Categorical Imperative are visible in Kant’s writings.
1. Universal Law: Act only on that maxim which you can will as a universal
law.
2. Respect for Persons: Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or
that of another, never simply as a means but always and at the same time as an
end.
3. Autonomy: So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making
universal law through its maxims.
4. Kingdom of Ends: Act on the maxim of a member who makes law for a
merely possible kingdom of ends.
The Categorical Imperative makes practical judgment possible, just as the
categories of substance, quality, etc. make understanding possible.

He held that moral principles are categorical imperatives, absolute commands

of reason that permit no exceptions and are not related to pleasure or practical benefit.
He formulates the categorical imperatives thus; ‘So act as to threat men and yourself
as ends not means. ‘So act that all your actions may become maxims for universal
human behavior.’ In political and social thought he was a leading figure of the
movement for reason and liberty against tradition and authority.

6.5 God, the Immortality of the Soul and Freedom:

In his critique of Practical Reason (1788) Kant described his belief in the
fundamental freedom of the individual. This freedom was not the lawless freedom of
anarchy, but rather the freedom of self-government, the freedom to obey consciously
the laws of the universe as revealed by reason.
Kant’s religious views are stated in his Religion Within the Boundaries of
Pure Reason (1793), which emphasized individual conscience and represented God
primarily as a moral ideal. Kant maintained that God, freedom, and human
immortality are noumenal realities, concepts which are understood through moral
faith rather than through scientific knowledge.
The above notwithstanding, he does provide arguments for human freedom,
the immortality of the soul and the existence of God (from the point of view of
practical reason).
 33

He begins by arguing that to speak about moral life at all man must be free.
An imperative, a command or obligation means that there is a possibility for
disobeying. Otherwise it would be superfluous to give such a command. For him, ‘I
ought’ is equivalent to ‘I am free.’ After establishing the fact of human freedom he
goes to argue to the immortality of the soul. In this life there is seldom any
correspondence between virtue and happiness. Often those who are not at all virtuous
experience joy, where as those who are perfectly more are subject to all sorts of
frustrations and sufferings. Therefore, there should be a future life in which
retribution is made and correspondence between virtue and happiness is attained.
From the above, Kant goes on to argue to the existence of God. He says that
to achieve coherence and unity between happiness and one’s actions in this world, it
is necessary to postulate the existence of God. Only God can establish a balance
between reward and punishments and bring about perfect justice. Without God the
universe would have no meaning and the future life would be terribly dissatisfying.

6.6 Kant’s Influence

The questions that Kant raised – 1) the objectivity of knowledge, 2) the
relationship of the knower and the known, 3) the powers and limits of science and
reason, 4) the nature of the self, and 5) the status of moral judgments and religious
knowledge – became a central part of the philosophical dialogue of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries.

Transcendentalism in Comparison to Empiricism and Rationalism
Empiricism
1) The mind at birth according to
Empiricism is a tabula rasa. All
the characters of knowledge are
inscribed on it by experience
only. Thus knowledge begins with
and ends in experience.
2) Empiricism over-estimates
sense and under-estimates reason.
The intellect, according to Locke
can function only after simple
ideas have been supplies to it.
Similarly, according to Hume
intellect cannot create one single
simple idea of sense. The place of
intellect is at most secondary.
3) Empiricism holds that the data
supplied by experience are
discrete/separate, distinct and
unconnected. Any connection is
introduced by t process of
association and imagination. As
these connecting processes are
considered to be purely relative
and subjective, so knowledge
based on them is taken to be
lacking in certainty.
4) Empiricism is dogmatic, for it
uncritically assumes the
constitutive role of experience,
without reference to a priori
elements. In the end it sets no
limit to ignorance which finally
terminates in skepticism.
Rationalism
According to it, mind is
active and creative. As
soon as we begin to
reflect, we become
conscious of certain innate
ideas. Knowledge is
constituted exclusively of
innate ideas.
Real knowledge according
to rationalism consists in
clear and distinct ideas,
which are given by reason
alone. Sense experience
can neither constitute
knowledge nor can it ever
confirm or disconfirm
proposition given by
reason. Sense provides
only with an occasion for
thinking about innate
ideas.
Rationalism starts with
clear distinct ideas and
connects them with the
help of logical rules by
themselves have no
correspondence with facts.
Therefore, knowledge,
according to rationalism,
becomes purely
conceptual.
Rationalism is also
dogmatic, since it
confines knowledge to
innate ideas only, ignoring
the claims of sense
experience. In the end it
remains in the inconsistent
system of Spinoza and
Leibniz.
34
Transcendentalism
Knowledge begins with
experience but experience
stirs mind to become creative
as well. Hence in knowledge
sense experience is at once
moulded and transformed by
the a priori.
Knowledge proper is a joint
product of sense and
understanding. The material is
supplied by the sense and are
ordered and synthesized into
cognitive statements by the a
priori form of the mind.
True data by themselves are
discrete. But connection
introduced into them by a
priori forms is the same for
all persons. Hence though the
connection depends on the
Subjective constitution of the
human mind, yet it is valid for
all, for all human knowers
have the same constitution.
But of course, knowledge is
confined to phenomena only.
Transcendentalism points out
the importance of a priori
elements in knowledge.
However, it points out that
without sense materials, they
alone cannot constitute
knowledge. It successfully
reconciles the rival claims of
empiricism and rationalism
and maintains a golden mean
between the exaggerated
skepticism and excessive
claims of knowledge.
 35

7. POST KANTIAN IDEALISM

FRIDRICH SCHELLING (1775-1854)

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling, German philosopher, one of the
educated exponents of idealism and of the romantic tendency in German philosophy.
Schelling was born in Leonberg, Wittemberg, on January 27, 1775, and
educated at the University of Tubingen. He served on the faculties of most of the
leading universities in Germany and in 1841 was called to Berlin by Frederick
William IV, King of Prussia. He died in Bad Ragaz, Switzerlan, on August 20, 1854.
Schelling’s philosophy continually evolved. His original thinking was based
chiefly on a close study of the views of the German philosophers Immanuel Kant and
Johann Gottlieb Fichte and the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza. The distinguishing
principle of this phase of his work is identity of subject and object, which became the
basis of an identity philosophy that was pantheistic in its general nature, equating God
with the forces and laws of the universe. In the second period, rejecting pantheism as
negative, he developed what he called a positive philosophy, in which he defined
human existence as the model of self-consciousness on the part of the Absolute. The
essence of humanity is free creative activity.
Schelling’s many works include The Philosophy of Art (1807; trans. 1845), Of
Human Freedom (1809; trans. 1936), and fragments of a large, unpublished work that
were translated into English as The Ages of the World (1942)

GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL (1770-1831)

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, German Idealist philosopher, who became
one of the most influential thinkers of the 19th century.
Hegel proposed that truth is reached by a continuing dialectic, in which a
concept (thesis) always gives rise to its opposite (antithesis), and the interaction
between these two leads to the creation of a new concept (synthesis). Hegel employed
this dialectical method in such works as The Phenomenology of Mind (1807) to
explain history and the evolution of ideas.
Hegel was born in Stuttgart on August 27, 1770, the son of a revenue officer
with the civil service. He was brought up in an atmosphere of Protestant Pietism and
became thoroughly acquainted with the Greek and Roman classics while studying at
the Stuttgart gymnasium (preparatory school). Encouraged by his father to become a
clergyman, Hegel entered the seminary at the University of Tubingen in 1788. There
he developed friendships with the poet Friedrich Holderlin and the philosopher
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling. Having completed a course of study in
philosophy and theology and having decided not to enter the ministry, Hegel became
a private tutor in Bern, Switzerland. In 1797 he assumed a similar position in
Frankfurt. Two years later his father died, leaving a financial legacy that was
sufficient to free him from tutoring.
In 1801 Hegel went to the University of Jena, where he studied, wrote and
eventually became a lecturer. At Jena he completed The Phenomenology of Mind
(1807; trans. 1910), one of his most important works. He remained at Jena until
October 1806, when the city was taken by the French and he was forced to flee.
Having exhausted the legacy left him by his father; Hegel became editor of the
Bamberger Zeitung in Bavaria. He disliked journalism, however and moved to
Nurnberg where he served for eight years as headmaster of a Gymnasium.
 36

During the Nurnberg years Hegel met and married Marie Von Tucher. Three
children were born to the Hegels, a daughter, who died soon after birth, and two sons,
Karl and Immanuel. Before his marriage, Hegel had fathered an illegitimate son,
Ludwig, who eventually came to live with the Hegels. While at Nurnberg, Hegel
published over a period of several years The Science of Logic (1812, 1813, 1816;
trans. 1959). In 1816 Hegel accepted a professorship in philosophy at the University
of Heidelberg. Soon after that, he published in summary form a systematic statement
of his entire philosophy entitled Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in
Outline (1817; trans. 1959). In 1818 Hegel was invited to teach at the University of
Berlin, where he was to remain. He died in Berlin on November 14, 1831, during a
cholera epidemic.
The last full-length work published by Hegel was The Philosophy of Right
(1821; trans. 1896), although several sets of his lecture notes, supplemented by
students’ notes were published after his death. Published lectures include The
Philosophy of Fine Art (1835-38; trans. 1920), Lectures on the History of Philosophy
(1833-36; trans. 1892-96), Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (1832; trans. 1895),
and Lectures on the Philosophy of History (1837; trans. 1858).
Strongly influenced by Greek ideas, Hegel also read the works of the Dutch
philosopher Baruch Spinoza, the French writer Jean Jacques Rousseau, and the
German philosophers Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, and Schelling.
Although he often disagreed with these philosophers, their influence is evident in his
writings.
PHILOSOPHICAL AIMS
Hegel’s aim was to set forth a philosophical system so comprehensive that it
would encompass the ideas of his predecessors and create a conceptual framework in
terms of which both the past and future could be philosophically understood. Such an
aim would require nothing short of a full account of reality itself. Thus, Hegel
conceived the subject matter of philosophy to be reality as a whole. This reality, or the
total developmental process of everything that is, he referred to as the Absolute, or
Absolute Spirit. According to Hegel, the task of philosophy is to chart the
development of Absolute Spirit.
This involves:
1. Making clear the internal rational structure of the Absolute.
2. Demonstrating the manner in which the Absolute manifests itself in nature and
human history and
3. Explicating the teleological nature of the Absolute, that is, showing the end or
purpose toward which the Absolute is directed.

DIALECTIC
Concerning the rational structure of the Absolute, Hegel, following the ancient
Greek philosopher Parmenides, argued that “what is rational is real and what is real is
rational.” This must be understood in terms of Hegel’s further claim that the Absolute
must ultimately be regarded as pure thought, or Spirit, or Mind, in the process of self-
development. The logic that governs this developmental process is dialectic.
The dialectical method involves the notion that movement, or process, or
progress, is the result of the conflict of opposites. Traditionally, this dimension of
Hegel’s thought has been analyzed in terms of the categories of thesis, antithesis and
 37

synthesis. Although Hegel tended to avoid these terms, they are helpful in
understanding his concept of the dialectic. The thesis, then, might be an ideas or a
historical movement. Such an idea or movement contains within itself incompleteness
that gives rise to opposition, to an antithesis, a conflicting idea or movement. As a
result of the conflict a third point of view arises, a synthesis, which overcomes the
conflict by reconciling at a higher level the truth contained in both the thesis and
antithesis.
This synthesis becomes a new thesis that generates another antithesis, giving
rise to a new synthesis, and is such a fashion the process of intellectual or historical
development is continually generated. Hegel thought that Absolute Spirit itself (which
is to say, the sum total of reality) develops in this dialectic fashion toward an ultimate
end or goal.
For Hegel, therefore, reality is understood as the Absolute unfolding
dialectically in a process of self-development. As the Absolute undergoes this
development, it manifests itself both in nature and in human history. Nature is
Absolute thought or Being objectifying itself in material form. Finite minds and
human history are the process of the Absolute manifesting itself in that which is most
akin to itself, namely, spirit or consciousness. In The Phenomenology of Mind Hegel
traced the stages of this manifestation from t simplest level of consciousness, through
self-consciousness, to the advent of reason.

SELF-KNOWLEDGE OF THE ABSOLUTE

The goal of the dialectical cosmic process can be most clearly understood ate
the level of reason. As finite reason progresses in understanding, the Absolute
progresses toward full self-knowledge. Indeed, the Absolute comes to know itself
through the human mind’s increased understanding of reality, or of the Absolute.
Hegel analyzed this human progression in understanding in terms of three levels: art,
religion and philosophy.
Art grasps the Absolute in material forms, interpreting the rational through the
sensible forms of beauty. Art in conceptually superseded by religion, which grasps the
Absolute by means of images and symbols. The highest religion for Hegel in
Christianity, for in Christianity the truth that the Absolute manifest itself in the finite
is symbolically reflected in the incarnation.
Philosophy, however, is conceptually supreme, because it grasps the Absolute
rationally. Once this has been achieved, the Absolute has arrived at full self-
consciousness, and the cosmic drama reaches its end and goal. Only at this point did
Hegel identify the Absolute with God. “God is God,” Hegel argued “only in so far as
he knows Himself.”

PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY
In the process of analyzing the nature of Absolute Spirit, Hegel made
significant contributions in a variety of philosophical fields, including the philosophy
of history and social ethics. With respect to history, his two key explanatory
 38

categories are reason and freedom. “The only Thought,” maintained Hegel, “which
Philosophy brings… to the contemplation of History, is the simple conception of
Reason; that Reason is the Sovereign of the world, that the history of the world,
therefore, presents us with a rational process.” As a rational process history is a record
of the development of human freedom, for human history is a progression from less
freedom to greater freedom.

ETHICS AND POLITICS

Hegel’s social and political views emerge most clearly in his discussion of
morality (Moralitat) and social ethics (Sittlichkeit). At the level of morality, right and
wrong is a matter of individual conscience. One must, however, move beyond this to
the level of social ethics, for duty, according to Hegel, is not essentially the product of
individual judgement. Individuals are complete only in the midst of social
relationships; thus, the only context in which duty can truly exist is a social one.
Hegel considered membership in the state as one of the individual’s highest duties.
Ideally, the state is the manifestation of the general will, which is the highest
expression of the ethical spirit. Obedience to this general will is the act of a free and
rational individual. Hegel emerges as a conservative, but he should not be interpreted
as sanctioning totalitarianism, for he also argued that the abridgment of freedom by
any actual state is morally unacceptable.

INFLUENCE
At the time of Hegel’s death, he was the most prominent philosopher in
Germany. His views were widely taught, and his students were highly regarded. His
followers soon divided into right-wing and left-wing Hegelians. Theologically and
politically the right-wing Hegelians offered a conservative interpretation of his work.
They emphasized the compatibility between Hegel’s philosophy and Christianity.
Politically, they were orthodox. The left-wing Hegelians eventually moved to an
atheistic position. In politics, many of them became revolutionaries. This historically
important left-wing group included Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer, Friedrich
Engles, and Karl Marx were particularly influenced by Hegel’s idea that history
moves dialectically, but they replaced Hegel’s philosophical idealism with
materialism.
Hegel’s metaphysical idealism had a strong impact on 19 th century and early
20th century British philosophy, notably that of Francis Herbert Bradley, and on such
American philosophers as Josiah Royce, and on Italian philosophy through Benedetto
Croce. Hegel also influenced existentialism through the Danish philosopher Soren
Kierkegaard. Phenomenology has been influenced by Hegel’s ideas on consciousness.
The extensive and diverse impact of Hegel’s ideas on subsequent philosophy is
evidence of the remarkable range and the extraordinary depth of his thought.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1778 – 1860)

 39

Arthur Schopenhauer is a German philosopher, who is known for his

philosophy of pessimism. Born in Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland), February 22, 1788,
Schopenhauer was educated at the Universities of Gottingen, Berlin and Jena. He then
settled in Frankfurt, where he led a solitary life and became deeply involved in the
study of Buddhist and Hindu philosophies and mysticism. He was also influenced by
the ideas of the German Dominican theologian, mystic and eclectic philosopher
Meister Eckhart, the German theosophist and mystic Jakob Beoehme, and the scholars
of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. In his principal work, The World as Will
and Idea (1819; trans. 1883), he proposed the dominant ethical and metaphysical
elements of his atheistic and pessimistic philosophy.
Schopenhauer disagreed with the school of idealism and was strongly opposed
to the ideas of the German philosopher Gerog Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who believed
in the spiritual nature of all reality. Instead, Schopenhauer accepted, with some
qualification in details, the view of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant that
phenomena exist only insofar as the mind perceives them as ideas. He did not,
however, agree with Kant that the “thing-in-itself” (Ding an sich), or the ultimate
reality, lies hopelessly beyond experience. He identified it with experience and will
instead.
According to Schopenhauer, however, will is not limited to voluntary action
with foresight; all the experienced activity of the self is will, including unconscious
physiological functioning. This will is the inner nature of each experiencing being and
assumes in time and space the appearance of the body, which is an idea. Starting from
the principle that the will is the inner nature of his own body as an appearance in time
and space, Schopenhauer concluded that the inner reality of all material appearance is
will; the ultimate reality is one universal will.
For Schopenhauer the tragedy of life arises from the nature of the will, which
constantly urges the individual toward that satisfaction of successive goals, none of
which can provide permanent satisfaction for the infinite activity of the life force, or
will. Thus, the will inevitably leads a person to pain, suffering and death and into an
endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth and the activity of the will can only be
brought to an end through an attitude of resignation, in which the reason governs the
will to the extent, that striving ceases.

SOLUTION TO ESCAPE THE WILL

Though suicide would seem a fine solution, Schopenhauer rejects it as again a
desperate act of the will. The liberation from the will can be reached in specific corner
of the art world – that of music, but not any music but the pure formal music which
has no words or imagery, which he calls baroque music. This would take one to
Nirvana – escape from the world into pure form and hence a triumph over the will. It
was this toward which Plato and Buddha were striving to go.
This conception of the source of life in will came to Schopenhauer through
insights into the nature of consciousness as essentially impulsive. He revealed a
strong Buddhist influence in his metaphysics and a successful confluence of Buddhist
 40

and Christian ideas in his ethical doctrines. From the epistemological point of view,
Schopenhauer’s ideas belonged to the school of phenomenology.
Renowned for his hostile attitude toward women, 5 Schopenhauer subsequently
applied his insights to a consideration of the principles underlying human sexual
activity, arguing that individuals are driven together not by feelings of sentimental
love but by the irrational impulses of the will.

CONCLUSION
The influence of Schopenhauer’s philosophy may be seen in the early works
of the German philosopher and poet Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, in the music
dramas of the German composer Richard Wagner, and in much of the philosophical
and artistic work of the 20th century. Schopenhauer died on 21 September 1860.

5
He is claimed to have said, “You need to look at the way she is formed to see that woman is
not meant to undergo great labour, whether of the mind or of the body. His ridiculously vehement essay
On Women, which has probably been read more widely than anything else he wrote airs a deeply
personal resentment.