Unit 1 Tutorials Great Philosophers

Unit 1 Tutorials: Great Philosophers
INSIDE UNIT 1
Introduction to Philosophy and the Pre-Socratics
What is Philosophy?
Why Study Philosophy?
Cosmology and the First Philosophers
The Atomistic Worldview
Parmenides and the Doctrine of Permanence
Heraclitus and the Doctrine of Impermanence
Socrates and Dialectic
Socrates: The Father of Western Philosophy

The Socratic Approach
Introducing Arguments
Evaluation and Analysis of Arguments
Evaluating an Argument in Action
The Apology: A Defense of Philosophy
The Apology — Socrates' Arguments
The Crito: The Duties of the Social Contract
The Phaedo: The Death of Socrates
Plato and Aristotle
Plato: An academic approach to concepts

Plato's Forms: The Objects of Knowledge
Plato Forms: The Foundations of Being
Applying Plato's Metaphysics
The Footnotes to Plato
Aristotle: The Dissection of Reality
Aristotle on What There Is
Plato vs. Aristotle: The Mathematician or the Biologist
Philosophy as a Way of Life
© 2020 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 1
Aristotelianism: The Naturalistic Worldview
Aristotle's Highest Good
Applying Aristotle's Ethics
Stoicism: The Ethics of Dispassion
Philosophical Analysis as a Way of Life
What is Philosophy?
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Philosophy is a field of study that many people (including students) don't know much about. This
course enables you to increase your knowledge of philosophy by examining its origins in ancient
Greece, as well as some of the areas that are studied by philosophers today, including logic,
epistemology, ethics, and metaphysics.
This section responds to the question, "What is Philosophy?" in three parts:
1. The Beginning of Western Philosophy

2. The Big Picture and a Contemporary Definition
3. Some Major Branches of Philosophy
1. The Beginning of Western Philosophy

Western philosophy is traditionally thought to have started when a mathematician named Thales of Miletus
successfully predicted an eclipse in 585 BCE. Although this may seem to have been an accomplishment in
the field of astronomy, not philosophy, astronomy, like many other sciences, was once considered to be a
branch of philosophy.
Imagine for a moment that you lived in Greece 2600 years ago, but Thales had not made his famous
prediction about the eclipse. What would people have thought caused the eclipse? Would they have
concluded that the gods were angry, or bringing the world to an end? Whatever conclusions might have been
reached about the meaning of the event, it's likely that it would have been connected to the gods. By making
his prediction based on analysis of his observations, Thales demonstrated that humans were capable of
interpreting reality on their own, without divine assistance.
Thales demonstrated that the world was fundamentally understandable and predictable. Human beings do
not need to appeal to the gods to learn about the world, or to use what they learn. By applying reason to
observations, people can solve many of life's puzzles. The desire to know and learn is the foundation of
philosophy.
Thales, illustrated here, was a pre-socratic philosopher. In addition to philosophy, Thales also had a
strong interest in mathematics and astronomy.
2. The Big Picture and a Contemporary Definition

To better understand what philosophy involves, consider the etymology of the word, “philosophy.” It comes
from two Greek words, philos and sophia. Philos means "love." It is the basis of a number of common words,
including “philanthropy” and “Philadelphia.” Sophia, which is also part of “sophisticated” and “sophomore,”
means “wisdom” (and before you sophomores start feeling too proud, sophomore means “wise fool”).
Philosophy, at a fundamental level, is the love of wisdom.
Wisdom is not the same as knowledge. One can have all of the knowledge in the world but still lack wisdom.
Rather than referring to information retained in memory (i.e, knowledge), wisdom refers to the ability to apply
reason to knowledge, in order to make use of it in beneficial ways. Wisdom focuses on how we use what we
learn, rather than on what we learn.
The highest degree one can earn in biology is a PhD — a doctorate in philosophy. A PhD in biology not only
means that you know facts and concepts in the field (i.e., knowledge), but that you can use that knowledge to
make new contributions — in biology or a related field. You can evaluate the body of biological knowledge
and determine how parts of it can be used in new ways. As a result of philosophy's focus on wisdom, science
and philosophy share a similar methodology.
Defining philosophy as “love of wisdom” helps us to begin to understand it, but it lacks precision. Here is the
definition of philosophy that we will use in this course:
 TERM TO KNOW
Philosophy
The pursuit of truths that cannot be wholly determined empirically.
Philosophy seeks to find truth in areas where science cannot.
 EXAMPLE Consider this philosophical question: “Is there a creator god of a certain description?" We
cannot answer this question by looking for a god through a telescope. In this instance, science cannot help
us to find the truth. There are two possible answers to this question: "there is" or "there isn’t."
In seeking to arrive at the truth, philosophy is not mere opinion. If two people disagree, this doesn’t mean that
it is not possible to find an answer and that they must agree to disagree. With respect to the example above, If
two people disagree as to what is true, one of them is simply wrong. Philosophy helps us to determine which
one.
Since we cannot use a telescope, a microscope, etc. to discover who is right and who is wrong, we must make
inferences: We take the evidence we have and ask whether it supports one position or the other. We use
logic to decide which position is better-supported and, therefore, more reasonable. It is for this reason that
logic is the backbone of philosophy.
3. Some Major Branches of Philosophy

Philosophy encompasses a number of branches/sub-disciplines. The three most significant branches involving
the philosophers we'll study in this course are ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics.
 TERM TO KNOW
Ethics
The branch of philosophy that analyzes and defends concepts of value, and thereby determines right and
wrong.
Questions of right and wrong fit within the definition of philosophy provided above. Consider this action:
punching a small child. The sciences can tell us a lot about this action. Medicine can predict the damage it
would cause. Political science can determine its legal consequences. Psychology can provide insight into the
mind of the perpetrator. But no scientific analysis can tell us that this action is wrong.
Of course, it is wrong, and anyone who claims that "wrong" is merely an opinion, and that this action is not
something that can be true or false, should be ignored. Science can tell us that this action would cause pain,
but it is a philosophical truth that causing pain unnecessarily is wrong.
Although questions of right and wrong are the prerogative of philosophy, science has a role. Later in the
course, we will consider philosophical approaches to ethics, including the philosophy of Socrates, who was
not only deeply interested in determining how to live a morally upright life, but was willing to die to uphold his
beliefs.
Philosophy provides a benefit to science through epistemology.
 TERM TO KNOW
Epistemology
The branch of philosophy that analyzes and defends concepts of knowledge and the methodologies by which
it is attained.
Philosophy is sometimes called the "mother of the sciences" because it determines what constitutes
knowledge. For example, it helps biologists determine what is biological knowledge (versus mere opinion),
and what methods can generate knowledge. Philosophers of science were the driving force behind the
development and refinement of the scientific method. Socrates distinguished knowledge from opinion, while
Plato gave the first clear account of knowledge. Aristotle, the father of physics, biology, and astronomy, used
philosophy to develop and enhance these disciplines.
The largest and, perhaps, the most fundamental branch of philosophy is metaphysics.
 TERM TO KNOW
Metaphysics
The branch of philosophy that seeks to uncover and describe the ultimate nature of reality.
The prefix “meta” means “beyond.” Metaphysics works on fundamental issues that are beyond science —
principles in which science may be grounded. For instance, although science identifies and describes the
laws of physics, what is a law? What is its status? What kind of a thing is it? These are metaphysical questions.
Metaphysics also considers questions including, is there a god? Are we free to make decisions, or are all of
our choices predetermined? What is the ultimate nature of time? What is causation? All of the philosophers
included in this course have something to say about these topics. Additionally, we'll learn how metaphysics
informs other philosophical disciplines, such as ethics.
These three branches of philosophy will be a major focus of this course. Other branches of philosophy (e.g.,
natural philosophy and cosmology), have been largely relegated to the sciences.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Natural Philosophy
The branch of philosophy that examines nature and the universe
Cosmology
The branch of philosophy that studies the universe in its totality
The subjects studied in what was called "natural philosophy" have moved from philosophy to physics,
astronomy, and other sciences. Cosmology is now a branch of astrophysics (cosmogony is a branch of
cosmology that focuses on the origin of the universe).
 SUMMARY
Since philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, it supports all pursuits of knowledge. To discover wisdom,
philosophy uses logic, reason, and critical thinking, and studies topics including ethics, epistemology,
and metaphysics. In this course, we’ll learn about these branches of philosophy, practice logic, and
examine philosophical approaches to questions including “What is knowledge?” “What is real?” and
“What is a good life and how should I live?”
Source: Image of Thales, PD,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus#/media/File:Illustrerad_Verldshistoria_band_I_Ill_107.jpg
 TERMS TO KNOW
Cosmology
The branch of philosophy that treats the universe in its totality
Epistemology
The branch of philosophy that analyzes and defends concepts of knowledge and the methodologies that
attain it
Ethics
The branch of philosophy that analyzes and defends concepts of value and thereby seeks to determine
right and wrong
Metaphysics
The branch of philosophy that seeks to uncover and describe the ultimate nature of reality
Natural Philosophy
The branch of philosophy that treats nature and the universe
Philosophy
The pursuit of truths that cannot be wholly determined empirically
Why Study Philosophy?
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Philosophy is sometimes stereotyped as an "ivory tower" discipline that does not apply to the "real"
world. In this lecture, we will cover four areas in which the benefits of philosophy are easy to see:
higher education, the sciences, society, and the people who study philosophy.
This section answers the question, "Why Study Philosophy?" in five parts:
1. Philosophy and Higher Education

2. Benefits of the Philosophical Mindset
3. Benefits Through the Sciences
4. Benefit to Society
5. Benefit to the Individual
1. Philosophy and Higher Education

Recall that philosophy is the pursuit of truths that cannot be wholly determined empirically. Philosophy
pursues wisdom, and is therefore crucial in defining methods for the development and refinement of
knowledge in all fields. As a result, philosophy is nearly synonymous with higher learning. Indeed, the words
“academia” and “academic” come from the name of Plato’s school of philosophy, the Academy. The highest
degree attainable in academia is the PhD, Latin for philosophiae doctor, or doctor of philosophy.
 TERM TO KNOW
Philosophy
The pursuit of truths that cannot be wholly determined empirically.
Asking “why care about philosophy” is like asking “why care about higher education?” Philosophy is a
collegiate activity that signifies intellectual maturity. One can question the status quo — not to be belligerent,
but out of a genuine desire to understand it. All you have learned previously becomes a starting point, not an
end.
2. Benefits of the Philosophical Mindset

In enumerating the advantages of philosophy, 20th century philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed out that it
enlarges our thoughts and frees us from the “tyranny of custom.” How does philosophy do this? By asking
“why” questions, and determining whether the answers are satisfactory. Philosophy requires that all beliefs be
justified. What does this mean?
 TRY IT
State a belief: “I believe (fill in the blank) is true.” Next, ask “why” you believe what you've stated. Why do you
think your belief is true? If you can provide a good answer, one that is good enough to convince a reasonable
skeptic, then you have justified your belief and, therefore, know it. If you cannot provide an answer, or only an
answer that a skeptic would find unsatisfactory, you have an opinion, but do not know. You should not believe
what you've stated, or should believe it only provisionally.
Philosophy's requirement that beliefs must be justified leads to regular questioning of beliefs and refinement
of answers.
 EXAMPLE For thousands of years, people believed that only certain organic matter (composted plants
and excrement) were adequate fertilizers. In the 20th century, someone finally asked the crucial question:
“Why do we think that we can only use organic matter as fertilizer?” No one could provide a good answer
to this question. What people had believed for thousands of years was opinion, not knowledge —
something handed down through generations of farmers. It was Russell’s “tyranny of custom.” When freed
from this tyranny, scientists developed nitrogen-based fertilizers, more land was farmed, and every acre
produced more crops. Millions of people were spared famine and starvation, thanks to the philosophical
mindset and its determination to hold only justified beliefs.
This is only one example, but it represents how progress has taken place over the centuries.
3. Benefits Through the Sciences

As the last example demonstrated, the philosophical mindset is key to progress in the sciences. However, the
connection between philosophy and science is deeper than that.
Philosophers have made the significant contributions to scientific methodology, and have contributed to the
formation of science as we know it today. Epistemology set the standards of knowledge, and the philosophy
of science developed methods to attain it. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, is considered to be the father of
physics and biology. He contributed to the development of the foundations of science. His concepts were
later refined and incorporated into the modern scientific method by Francis Bacon, who was also a
philosopher.
 TERM TO KNOW
Epistemology
The branch of philosophy that analyzes and defends concepts of knowledge and the methodologies used to
attain it.
Images of Aristotle and Francis Bacon, key contributors to the foundations of science and to the
modern scientific method.
Philosophy has inspired breakthroughs in theoretical science. Isaac Newton’s Principia is, in part, a text on
natural philosophy. Albert Einstein cites the work of philosopher David Hume as the primary influence on his
development of the Theory of Relativity. Hume’s work also inspired much of Adam Smith’s economics.
Many philosophers were also mathematicians and/or scientists, including René Descartes (perhaps you have
heard of Cartesian coordinates), and G.W. Leibniz, who developed the binary number system and symbolic
logic, without which we would not have computers. When someone’s passion is knowledge, and that
knowledge is groundbreaking, distinctions between philosophy and theoretical science disappear.
4. Benefit to Society
Although you may have hesitated to give philosophy any credit for developments in theoretical science, you
need only look around you to see what it has done in ethics and political philosophy. As a result of its
influence in these areas, philosophy has led to improvements in society and culture.
 DID YOU KNOW
The U.S. Constitution, including much of the Bill of Rights, is based on the political philosophy of John Locke.
Many of the Founding Fathers were Lockeans.
General acceptance of democracy as the fairest form of government was a philosophical development.
Similarly, most of our modern concepts and advancements with respect to justice, fairness, and equality
originated with political philosophers. If you appreciate the end of slavery, the fight for racial equality,
women’s suffrage, or other instances of social progress, thank a philosopher.
Philosophy has also contributed to advancement in ethics. Philosophers are often employed as consultants
on hospital ethics boards, as well as in other fields of applied ethics including environmental and business
ethics. Philosophy has influenced societies' views on right and wrong for millennia.
5. Benefit to the Individual

Do you think you would benefit from being wiser? More moral? A better critical thinker? Being better
equipped to distinguish knowledge from opinion? Making decisions based on reason instead of emotion?
Acting according to your beliefs? Having a consistent worldview? Recognizing value? Minimizing bias while
maximizing objectivity?
The study of philosophy does all this and more. It makes you a better person, but it can also have more
immediate, tangible results. The study of philosophy has been shown to increase standardized test scores
and performance in other courses. And, despite opinions to the contrary, philosophy degrees are highly
sought by business employers because "thinking outside the box" is vital to business solutions and strategy.
Like your other courses, you will get out what you put into a philosophy class. If you make an effort in "Ancient
Greek Philosophers," you will be rewarded.
 SUMMARY
Philosophy brings value from the global level to the individual. A philosophical mindset is required for
any sort of progress. Philosophy has advanced (and continues to advance) the sciences; it has
contributed to the growth of more ethical and just societies; and has broadened and improved the
minds of those who study it.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Image of Francis Bacon | License: Public Domain

Image of Aristotle | License: Public Domain
 TERMS TO KNOW
Epistemology
attain it
Philosophy
The pursuit of truths that cannot be wholly determined empirically
Cosmology and the First Philosophers
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this section, we will examine the very first western philosophers, the Pre-Socratics. After discussing
why they are considered philosophers, we'll learn about some of the major figures and their ideas,
and how those ideas shaped the world as we know it.
This tutorial examines Cosmology and the first philosophers in three parts:
1. Who Were the Pre-Socratic Philosophers?

2. Some Pre-Socratic Philosophers and their Influential Ideas
3. Intellectual Legacy of the Pre-Socratics
1. Who Were the Pre-Socratic Philosophers?

A group of philosophers now known as the Pre-Socratics were active In Greece between (approximately)
600- 450 BCE.
 TERM TO KNOW
Pre-Socratics
A collective term used for Greek philosophers who practiced philosophy before Socrates
The influence of the Pre-Socratics is limited because most of their work has not survived. What remains of
their beliefs and teachings are fragmenta: mostly quotations from other philosophers whose works were
preserved, and testamonia: references to them and their work (but not quotations) in other ancient texts. Our
access to their work, therefore, is limited, but their work remains important. They influenced and inspired
those whose ideas changed our science, culture and intellectual traditions. They were true philosophers, even
though what we know about them and their work is limited to their major ideas.
They are categorized as Pre-Socratics, not only because of their limited influence, but also because much of
their work can be assigned to natural philosophy or cosmology, branches of philosophy that have been
largely relegated to the sciences.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Natural Philosophy
The branch of philosophy that considers nature and the universe
Cosmology
The branch of philosophy that considers the universe in its totality
Natural philosophy has moved from being a branch of philosophy to an area that is studied in physics,
astronomy, and other sciences. Cosmology is now a branch of astrophysics (cosmogony is a branch of
cosmology that focuses on the origin of the universe). When we take this into account, we can see that the
Pre-Socratics were practicing theoretical science when science was still part of philosophy.
Why then was their work once considered philosophy? To answer this question, recall that philosophy is the
pursuit of truths that cannot be determined empirically. Questions like, “what are stars made of” could not be
answered empirically 2,500 years ago. The theories, discoveries, and tools required to answer those
questions had not been developed. All that the Pre-Socratics had to work with was their observations, and
what they could conclude based on those observations.
Their methodology was philosophical in two ways: First, they used argument and reason to identify the best
answers to the questions. Second, their methodology was naturalistic. They did not rely on divine mechanisms
to support their answers. Also, they did not only work on these topics. Their findings in natural philosophy
influenced their views in other areas of philosophical inquiry.
2. Some Pre-Socratic Philosophers and their

Influential Ideas
Following is a list of some of the most influential Pre-Socratic philosophers, and their major ideas. The list is a
sample; it is not comprehensive. Two significant Pre-Socratics, Heraclitus of Ephesus and Parmenides of Elea,
have been omitted because they will be examined in detail in separate tutorials.
The Milesians
This group, usually considered to be the first Pre-Socratic philosophers, consisted of Thales and his pupils,
Anaximander and Anaximenes. It was said that Thales claimed that everything in the cosmos was made of
water, but Anaximenes held that everything was made of air. Anaximander maintained that the cosmos was
initially apeiron (i.e., “boundless” or “without qualities”), but became differentiated.
If these theories seem far fetched, note that their methodology was sound. These philosophers used
empirical data (i.e., information obtained by observation) to formulate theories of reality that best fit that data.
What these three theories have in common was the positing of a single cosmos: the claim that all matter was
united according to a single arrangement/order, governed by universal laws. This was the Milesians’ true
philosophico-scientific advancement. They were essentially correct in taking this position. Science worked out
the details over the next 2,500 years.
Pythagoras
Pythagoras (long thought to be the discoverer of the Pythagorean Theorem) and his followers incorporated
mathematics into his philosophical worldview.
 MAKE THE CONNECTION
The Pythagorean Theorem, a basic component of algebra courses today, has been around for thousands of
years!
To the Pythagoreans, the world was a mathematical entity of perfect harmony. They assigned great
importance to certain numbers found in nature (e.g., the number of heavenly bodies). A human’s job was to
find his or her proper place in this harmonious system. They also formulated and defended a reincarnation
doctrine related to their worldview.
Xenophanes of Colophon
Xenophanes, a traveling poet, was also a philosopher who lived to a great age. Secularization played a major
role in his philosophy. He reassigned divine mechanisms to naturalistic causes, such as the rainbow, which
ancient Greeks believed to be a manifestation of the messenger goddess Iris. Xenophanes identified
rainbows as phenomena produced as a result of meteorological causes.
Xenophanes maintained that it is better to rely on observation and reason than on signs from the gods. He
was not an atheist, but objected to then-common conceptions of the gods, faulting earlier poets for depicting
deities as treacherous and deceitful beings who constantly interfered in human affairs. He also opposed
theories that relied on “the god of the gaps,” in which a miracle is used to support an otherwise-scientific
explanation because there was no known natural cause. To Xenophanes, the gods controlled all things, but
acted predictably, not miraculously. Indeed, science is close to impossible if gods constantly interfere with
natural phenomena.
Xenophanes characterized this as anthropomorphism — the application of human attributes to something that
is non-human (like the gods). In some ways, the Greek gods were depicted as the worst of humans. Zeus
used his powers to change his form and rape women. Hera, his wife, punished those women. The gods
sometimes helped the strong to defeat the weak, and the unreasonable to kill the reasonable. As depicted,
the gods often behaved in ways that humans might behave if they had divine power. In these depictions,
therefore, humans projected their attributes onto the gods. As Heraclitus stated:
Any gods worth their titles would be the authors of the laws of nature. Their actions in the world would take
place through nature, not above and beyond it.
Anaxagoras of Clazomenae
Anaxagoras was primarily interested in cosmology. Denying that celestial bodies were gods, he interpreted
the world around him in natural terms, and formulated one of the first cosmogonies. Before there was a known
universe, he theorized that everything began as an undistinguished mixture that took form and definition
when a force called nous began to spin the mixture. The literal translation of nous is “mind,” but ancient Greek
had such a small vocabulary that a word was often used for several things. As a result, it is not clear whether
Anaxagoras defined nous as a deity or as a force of order (like the laws of nature). Either way,nous is the force
which gives form to the universe, a process which Anaxagoras believed to be ongoing. He was condemned in
Athens for maintaining this naturalistic concept.
Empedocles of Acragas
Empedocles was a physicist who was deeply religious. He was probably a Pythagorean. As a physicist,
Empedocles maintained that there were four “roots” — what Aristotle would later call the elements — earth,
air, fire, and water. These were combined by love, and separated by strife. In this system, there were six
metaphysical entities that formed everything in the cosmos. Instead of coming into existence and passing
away, Empedocles viewed the universe in terms of mixing and separating. (He thought this process also
occurred on the physical level, involving the flow of blood.) He was concerned with religious purity and
purification, and defended the Pythagorean notion of reincarnation.
Protagoras of Adera
Protagoras was a member of the “Older Sophists,” a group of traveling intellectuals. He made two significant
intellectual contributions, which are interrelated. Protagoras was perhaps the first outspoken agnostic. He
argued that we could not know whether the gods existed or not. This led him to make a second claim: “man is
the measure of all things.” This statement is usually interpreted to mean that knowledge is relative to the
knower. This implies that we cannot escape our biased perspective. We cannot know what it is like to walk in
another person’s shoes.
3. Intellectual Legacy of the Pre-Socratics

It might be tempting to dismiss some of the ideas of the Pre-Socratics as quaint and outdated, but they mark
the beginning of science. By observing the natural world and using reason to explain phenomena, the Pre-
Socratics' provided a basis for all subsequent advances in the sciences.
Notice that there are common themes shared by the Pre-Socratic philosophers. The first is a consistent
worldview, in which one or a few laws and elements are used to account for a variety of phenomena. The
second is methodological naturalism. Most Pre-Socratics did not deny the existence of the gods, but
maintained that we should not invoke them to explain phenomena. This (as a method, not with respect to
belief) has enabled scientific progress from their time until the present day.
The Pre-Socratics viewed natural philosophy and theology as separate disciplines, with different standards of
knowledge, and different applications. Their commitment to natural philosophy enabled them to think in new
ways. In a number of areas, it took science millennia to catch up with them (e.g., thought described as a result
of physical processes; Anaximander hinting that humans evolved from lower animals).
 SUMMARY
The Pre-Socratics were the first Western philosophers. In this tutorial, we examined the contributions
of some of the most influential philosophers in this group. The Pre-Socratics took a philosophical
approach to questions that are now of interest to the sciences. Their ideas were a starting point for
philosophic and scientific investigation.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Heraclitus Image | License: Public Domain
 TERMS TO KNOW
Cosmology
The branch of philosophy that treats the origin of the universe in its totality
Natural Philosophy
The branch of philosophy that treats nature and the universe
Pre-Socratics
A collective term for the group of Greek philosophers practicing philosophy before the influence of Socrates
The Atomistic Worldview
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this lecture, we will examine the notion of a philosophical worldview, and present an influential
worldview from ancient Greece: philosophical atomism.
This tutorial investigates the philosophical worldview and atomism, in three parts:
1. Philosophy as a Worldview
2. The Atomistic Worldview
3. Atomistic Influence
1. Philosophy as a Worldview
Perhaps you have been asked, “What is your philosophy?” In light of our definition of philosophy — the pursuit
of truths that cannot be wholly determined empirically — you may find this question difficult to answer.
However, the question and our definition may be more closely related than they seem to be. Since
metaphysics, a branch of philosophy, considers first principles and the ultimate components of reality, there is
a sense in which everything falls within the purview of philosophy.
A cohesive and defensible system of metaphysics enables provides one with a way to interpret reality — a
worldview . For example, if you answer “what is your philosophy?” by stating your belief that physical reality is
the only reality, your answer impacts how you view the world. As a result of your answer, you must reject or
radically reinterpret religion and belief in a deity. You must also interpret thought as a purely physical
phenomenon, and deny the existence of a brain-independent mind or soul. You must likewise take a position
on other abstract entities that many people believe exist.
 EXAMPLE Numbers are abstract entities that many people believe exist independent of the human
mind. If your philosophy only allows for physical entities, you must reject the existence of mind-
independent numbers, since they are not physical things. (You would also have to equate “mind” with part
of the brain.)
Lastly, you must ensure that your actions are consistent with your beliefs. Hence, in developing a
metaphysical view, you have also developed a worldview.
2. The Atomistic Worldview

An early and extremely influential worldview was developed by the ancient Greek atomists. According to
atomism, reality is composed of atoms in a void.
The word "atom" comes from the Greek atomon, which means "uncuttable." An atom, therefore, is matter
which is indivisible and without parts. This is not the definition of atom used in contemporary chemistry and
physics. We now know that atoms are divisible and have parts (i.e., subatomic particles).
At the time when these atoms (think of them as “chemical atoms”) were discovered, scientists thought they
had found a basic, indivisible entity, so they took the name from ancient Greek philosophy and applied it to
their discovery. It was later determined that chemical atoms are divisible, but the name (i.e., atom) continues to
be used. As a result, we must distinguish a philosophical atom from a chemical atom.
 TERM TO KNOW
Philosophical Atom
An indivisible physical entity
Since chemical atoms do not fit this description, they are not the same as philosophical atoms.
The chief defenders of philosophical atomism in ancient Greece were Leucippus and his student Democritus.
It is through the latter that we have received most of what we know about ancient Greek atomism. (It is
important to note that, in addition to Greek atomism, there were other ancient atomist philosophies, including
Indian and Islamic traditions.)
Greek atomism states that everything that exists is either an atom or a collection of atoms. Atoms are the
smallest entity, but they are not infinitely small. Aristotle, when attempting to solve one of Parmenides’
(another philosopher) metaphysical puzzles involving change, referred to the atomistic view that new things
don’t come into existence. Instead, existing things change their organization: they take new forms.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Have you ever seen something begin to exist? Matter doesn’t seem to come into being. It only seems to
change form. Consider, for instance, a human coming into being. The cellular material doesn’t come from
nowhere. It comes from nutrients consumed and processed by the mother. Matter (the nutrients) is reordered
into a new form (a human).
The atomists believed that there were different kinds of atoms. They came in different shapes and sizes, and
could be combined in a variety of ways. In the atomistic view, different atomic textures were used to explain
how different sensations were produced. Different bonding configurations accounted for the degree of
solidity of objects and other phenomena. Since, at that time, action at a distance was believed to be
impossible, the atomist account was used to solve other puzzles (as in the following example).
 EXAMPLE The ability to perceive odors — to smell — was explained as the transfer of atoms from an
object into the nose. Different shapes and configurations of atoms produced a variety of smells.
It is important to note that the atomist philosophy is rich in explanations. Starting with a few simple
assumptions, the atomists described and explained a variety of complex phenomenon.
3. Atomistic Influence
As was the case with the work of the Pre-Socratics in natural philosophy, science has had to "catch up" with
philosophy. With some revisions (including how molecules form bonds), the atomist worldview has been
adopted by contemporary science.
However, it is important to keep in mind that, in addition to its influence on the sciences, atomism is a
philosophical worldview, and that worldviews impact your perception of reality. The natural explanations for
phenomena provided by philosophical atomism provoked religious and theological responses. Some
theologians viewed atomism as an attack on religious belief. Others embraced it. In general, the worldview
provided by Greek atomism, which is rich in satisfactory explanations of reality, requires us to consider, and
even accommodate it. We are compelled to incorporate the tenets of atomism into our own worldviews, just
as we are obliged to incorporate contemporary breakthroughs in physics and astrophysics.
 SUMMARY
Ancient Greek atomism is an example of a successful worldview. It provides a metaphysical system

that is defensible and rich in explanations of phenomena. It is based on a belief in philosophical
atoms of different qualities (e.g., shape, texture) that are the fundamental components of reality.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Philosophical Atom
An indivisible physical entity
Parmenides and the Doctrine of Permanence
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Parmenides of Elea was an influential Pre-Socratic philosopher, often considered the father of
metaphysics. He and his school had a profound impact on later philosophy, especially that of Plato.
Though, as with other Pre-Socratics, we have only fragments and testemonia of his philosophy, they
indicate that he was an original thinker. What remains of Parmenides' work is part of a single,
extended metaphysical poem in which a student travels to meet a goddess, who lectures him about
truth and belief. The proper interpretation of the poem has been the subject of scholarly debate. In
this tutorial, Parmenides' ideas regarding "the turn to metaphysics," and his doctrine that the universe
is one unchanging entity, will be examined.
This tutorial investigates the philosophy of Parmenides, including the doctrine of permanence, in
three parts:
1. The Turn to Metaphysics

2. The Doctrine of the Unchanging One
3. Zeno’s Paradoxes
1. The Turn to Metaphysics

Parmenides was deeply influenced by Xenophanes (Parmenides may have been his student). Recall that
Xenophanes criticized the pre-philosophical tradition of relying on the gods to explain natural phenomena.
Xenophanes maintained that there was a strict division between mortal and divine knowledge that cannot be
crossed. Parmenides upheld this distinction, but went even further by claiming that the opinions of mortals are
universally unreliable.
If mortals do not have access to divinity, but cannot attain knowledge without divine aid, how can they move
beyond their flawed opinions and discover the nature of reality? Parmenides' answer is that there are signs we
can follow, which point to genuine reality: signs that "turn to metaphysics."
Recall that metaphysics seeks to uncover and describe the ultimate nature of reality. In this context, it is a
quest to look beyond the mortal world, the world of the senses and of unreliable opinion, to perceive reality as
it truly is. Metaphysics is the answer to how humans can take a god’s-eye view and discover what is real.
 TERM TO KNOW
Metaphysics
2. The Doctrine of the Unchanging One
Substance monism is a component of Parmenides’ metaphysics, that has been attributed to him by later
sources. It is the view that all of reality is one object, usually translated as the “what-is.” The "what-is" is a term
for the way things are: The True. Parmenides also posited a corresponding “what-is-not.” This can be thought
of as The False. Together, these two concepts create a duality in Parmenidean metaphysics.
In this metaphysical system, what-is, is, but what-is-not, cannot be. That this must be so becomes evident
when basic questions are asked: where would what-is-not come from? How would it come into being?
What-is-not cannot come from what-is. The False cannot come from The True. Non-being cannot come from
being. However, it is also impossible for what-is-not to come from nothing, since nothing cannot produce
anything. As a result, the universe cannot change from what-is to what-is-not. If "The True" is true, it cannot
become "The False." At the same time, what-is cannot cease to be, since transformation from being to non-
being is metaphysically impossible, according to Parmenides.
In this system, what-is is eternal and unchanging, because change would require the universe to pass from
what-is to what-is-not. Although this is the conclusion to which Parmenides’ metaphysical analysis leads, it is
not the universe with which we are familiar. Our universe is changing and impermanent. This creates a duality
between the genuine, unchanging realm of reality, and the changing world of appearance. Parmenides’ way
focuses on the former, but the way of opinion, in which observers do not realize that this transient world of
change is illusory, is focused on the latter.
 THINK ABOUT IT
What are some advantages in seeing the world as unchanging? How might they account for our ability to
know and learn?
3. Zeno’s Paradoxes
Maintaining that change is illusory, as Parmenides does, seems to run counter to common sense. You may be
tempted to dismiss Parmenides’ view for that reason alone, but you would be wise to avoid a quick dismissal
of his conclusions. Think about all of the things we know are true, despite what "common sense" tells us.
 EXAMPLE Right now, you are moving at 67,000 miles per hour while standing on a round surface that
is rotating at up to 1,000 miles per hour. Space itself is expanding, and it curves around heavy objects.
These examples show that “strange” cannot be equated with “false.” This is especially true when you are
forced to choose between two peculiar options. For example, when you think about the origin of the universe,
it seems as if you must choose between a Big Bang, in which all matter in the universe comes randomly into
being, and a creator god who waited for an infinity before deciding to create the cosmos 13 billion years ago.
In this debate, one side calling the other’s view “strange” is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Such
accusations are not significant challenges to any view. When considering big questions, things sometimes get
weird.
One of Parmenides’ most famous students, Zeno of Elea, wrote a short book describing paradoxes. He
demonstrated that motion was a far stranger phenomenon than the "commonsense" view of it held by most
people would allow. By doing so, Zeno showed that rejection of Parmenides’ explanations of how things work
simply because they're "strange," and because they refuted "commonsense" opinions based on what seemed
to be obvious and apparent, was illegitimate criticism.
 TERM TO KNOW
Paradox
Situations in which seemingly reasonable assumptions lead to a contradiction or an absurdity
Consider this claim: “This sentence is false.” This claim seems reasonable because it is presented in the same
structure as many claims we make. However, if the sentence is true, then it’s false; if it’s false, then it’s true!
Instead of describing contradictions, Zeno’s paradoxes of motion show that simple assumptions about motion
lead to absurdity.
There are many kinds of paradoxes, as a result of how slippery the notion of “absurdity” is (e.g., is the
presence of absence an absurdity?). “Paradox” covers a large number of logical and metaphysical oddities.
Socrates and Plato, who we'll discuss later in this course, emphasized precise definition of important words
including “justice,” “craft,” and “piety.” They believed that precise definitions were required in order to be
clear about the concepts being discussed. However, it can be difficult to define terms like these with
precision. In contrast, the oddities uncovered by Zeno are relatively straightforward.
Zeno explained a number of paradoxes, but only a few of them have been preserved. His paradoxes of
motion fall into two categories: those which demonstrate the difficulties involved in positing time as a
continuum, and those which demonstrate the difficulties involved in positing time as being composed of
discrete moments.
To argue against a continuum, Zeno raises considerations which include the following:
If time is a continuum, how could we ever get from one place to another? To move from A to B, we must first
halve the distance, then halve it again, then halve it again, and so on. That is, we must complete an infinite
task through a series of finite actions.
 BRAINSTORM
If you haven't grasped this paradox yet, imagine an additional feature: a light turns on when you move half the
distance from A to B. It turns off when you halve it again, and so on. When you finally arrive at B, is the light on
or off?
To argue against a discrete notion of time, imagine an arrow being fired. Consider one point in time (i.e., one
moment), and label it T1. At time T1, the arrow will have a specific position, P1. At the next moment, T2, the
arrow has moved to a new position, P2. When did the motion occur? Between moments? There is no such
thing as "between moments," if time is discrete. If we assume that time is composed of discrete moments, the
arrow didn’t move, even though it is no longer at P1, but is now at P2. This is also absurd.
 SUMMARY
Parmenides saw metaphysics as a way to transcend opinion and examine the world as it really is. But
his analysis, based on the use of reason, led him to conclude that this world is unchanging, unified,
and eternal. Such a world does not correspond to the world of appearances, which means that the
latter is an illusion. Zeno modified this extreme claim by pointing out some of the strange features of
the illusion.
Source: Archer by damar bintang from the Noun Project (CC), bullseye by Dinosoft Labs from the Noun Project
(CC), Arrow by Valeriy from the Noun Project (CC). All retrieved from The Noun Project
:www.thenounproject.com
 TERMS TO KNOW
Metaphysics
Paradox
When seemingly reasonable assumptions lead to either a contradiction or an absurdity
Heraclitus and the Doctrine of Impermanence
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Heraclitus of Ephesus was another influential Pre-Socratic philosopher. Like Parmenides, he was
interested in metaphysics and the realm of appearances, and thought that the gods could not guide
humans in these areas. However, he reached some conclusions that differed greatly from those
reached by Parmenides, arguing that the impermanence of the world of the senses was the true
nature of reality.
This tutorial examines Heraclitus and impermanence in three parts:
1. Heraclitus on the Secular

2. Heraclean Flux and the Unity of Opposites
3. Parmenides and Heraclitus
1. Heraclitus on the Secular

Though he was not affiliated with any philosophical school, Heraclitus, like Parmenides, was influenced by the
rational theology established by Xenophanes. Recall that Xenophanes disparaged the practice of turning the
gods into fickle meddlers in human affairs, and thought that actions taken by the gods were constant (i.e.,
according to the laws of nature). Heraclitus went further than his predecessors by emphasizing the human role
in affairs. His approach to reality was entirely secular. He maintained that there was one true version of reality
which he called the Logos.
 DID YOU KNOW
The Greek word “ logos” is translated as “account.” Hence, “biology” means to give an account of life.Logos
was translated by ancient Greek Christians as "the Word," as in, “in the beginning was the Word” — a
surprisingly Heraclitean notion.
Heraclitus believed that the Logos governed and/or organized all things, and.that it did so independently —
without the participation of the gods. Although it is not clear whether he intended Logos to be distinct from
reality (like a god), or dispersed through everything in the universe, all things in the cosmos are unified
according to the Logos.
The Logos belongs in the realm of metaphysics because it is not in the world we experience, but underlies it.
Though difficult to understand, the "Logos" can be comprehended by humans, even though not all of them
are capable of grasping it. The Logos is always true, whether anyone is aware of its reality or not. It is
independent of knowledge and language, and belongs in the realm of metaphysics.
2. Heraclitean Flux and the Unity of Opposites
The two most significant principles through which Heraclitus’ Logos governs are the Unity of Opposites and
the Doctrine of Flux.
The Unity of Opposites is an assumption that the world is composed of opposites, and that opposites are
linked in a system of connections.
 EXAMPLE There cannot be a mountain without a valley, and vice-versa. People cannot awaken if they
have not first been asleep, and vice versa. Things are linked to what they are not. Heraclitus points out, for
example, that ocean water is toxic to humans but necessary for fish. The opposite is true of fresh water.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Can you think of more unities of opposites? One that is frequently cited, especially in the philosophy of
religion, is the importance of good and evil. Do you think this is a unity of opposites? Why or why not?
Beyond simply pointing out these unities, Heraclitus locates them inside us. He maintains that youth and age,
life and death, are already within us. One quality becomes the other. Each of them changes into its opposite
— young becomes old, life becomes death, healthy becomes ill.
Human beings occupy a privileged position in the universe according to Heraclitus. He indicates that our
souls are connected to the Logos through language, a human phenomenon.
Heraclitus’ Doctrine of the Flux is closely related to the unity of opposites. It states that all things change over
time. Everything is impermanent, and is in a constant state of change, moving from what it is to what it is not.
He famously declared that you cannot step into the same river twice, since, as water passes ceaselessly, the
river becomes new. (The Heraclitans later pointed out that you cannot step into the same river once.) You are
not the same person you were yesterday.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Have you encountered anything in the world (other than metaphysical objects, such as numbers, laws of
nature, etc.) that does not change?
Heraclitus holds that change is the ultimate nature of reality. All is flux. However, when reading the philosophy
of Heraclitus, we must be careful to avoid taking some statements too literally. For example, Heraclitus'
assertion regarding change is sometimes translated as a claim that all is fire. This should be read
metaphorically, and in light of the rest of the text. Fire flickers, and in doing so it changes constantly. Saying
that all is fire is a metaphorical way of saying that all is changing.
 DID YOU KNOW
The metaphorical use of words — like using “fire” for “change” — was common in ancient Greek writing,
because the language had a small vocabulary.
3. Parmenides and Heraclitus
Recall that Parmenides claimed that the ultimate nature of reality is static, and that change is illusory.
Heraclitus, on the other hand, asserted that the ultimate nature of reality is change. It may be tempting to view
them as polar opposites, philosophically speaking. In doing so, however, we would ignore significant points
on which they agree.
Both Parmenides and Heraclitus join Xenophanes in turning from divine causation and oracular knowledge to
a secular concept of reality. For both of them, this involved examination of what is universal and regular in
nature, rather than what is random. Both of them studied metaphysics, searching for the first principles and the
ultimate nature of reality. They both recognized that the world of appearances is in constant flux, and that it is
impermanent.
Parmenides and Heraclitus believed that something constant underlies the impermanent world of change.
Parmenides identified it as the realm of being, the realm of what-is Heraclitus posited a Logos that contains
the universal principles of the Doctrine of Flux and the Unity of Opposites.
 BIG IDEA
What is the significant difference between the philosophy of Parmenides, and that of Heraclitus? It seems to
be the status of change. Parmenides states that change is illusory, while Heraclitus claims that change is not
only genuine, but essential to reality.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Do you agree with Heraclitus or Parmenides? Start by answering a smaller question: Which of the following is
more important to reality: what changes, or what is permanent? If you believe that reality is somehow a
combination of the two, you will begin to see the metaphysical problem that Plato inherited, and some of what
underlies his philosophy. We will investigate Plato and his solution in a subsequent tutorial.
 SUMMARY
Heraclitus, like Parmenides, was interested in metaphysics as a way to examine the true nature of
reality without involving the gods. He maintained that a Logos governs all things, and does so via the
Unity of Opposites and the constancy of Flux. Although his philosophy is in some ways similar to that
of Parmenides, they are ultimately at odds regarding the ultimate status of change — essential or
illusory.
Socrates: The Father of Western Philosophy
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Socrates (circa 470-399 BCE) was one of the most important philosophers of all time. Although he
was not the first western philosopher, he is known as the “Father of Western Philosophy.” This is not
only because of his influence on other significant historical figures, but also because he re-oriented
philosophy to focus on the areas studied today. He was completely dedicated to living his philosophy,
even though it cost him his life.
This tutorial investigates Socrates' life and work in four parts:
1. Socrates, Patriarch of Western Thought

2. Socrates, Seeker of Wisdom
3. The First Step on the Path to Wisdom
4. Socrates, a Martyr for Wisdom
1. Socrates, Patriarch of Western Thought

Socrates lived until the age of 70. For most of his adult life, he was a teacher of philosophy. He did not charge
tuition, but his ability, wisdom, and pedagogy attracted Athenian pupils, many of whom came from wealthy
and noble families. One of these pupils was Aristocles, better known as Plato.
Bust of Socrates in the Vatican Museum. Socrates is known as the "Father of Western Philosophy." His
impacts on the field of philosophy and on other historical figures were numerous.
Socrates taught Plato philosophy: not only how to seek wisdom, but also its importance. Plato started the
Academy (and, arguably, higher education), and laid the foundations for western philosophy (and, perhaps,
theology and political science). Plato’s influence and accomplishments were vast, but some portion the
accolades he receives belongs to Socrates.
Plato also taught an important pupil: Aristotle. Aristotle was a philosopher and scientist. He may have done
more to advance science than anyone else. He is known as the father of physics, biology, and logic, and was
a major contributor to the development of western thought. His work influenced the doctrine of the medieval
Catholic Church, and was disseminated throughout the western world as a result.
Like Plato, Aristotle's accomplishments and influence cannot be overstated. However, he could not have
achieved what he did without his teacher, Plato, and Plato's teacher, Socrates. These philosophers and their
accomplishments are discussed in more detail in later tutorials.
It is in no way an exaggeration to say that Socrates was one of the most influential people in history. Like
some of the other significant ancient thinkers, he did not produce any written work. The accounts we have of
his life and teachings were primarily recorded by Plato.
2. Socrates, Seeker of Wisdom

Socrates' historical influence has continued to this day, but it is important to understand that, during his life, he
oriented philosophy in new directions. Recall that the Pre-Socratics were given their name because their
methods, and the topics they investigated, were different than those that are the focus of contemporary
philosophy. Socrates redirected philosophy to consider topics that are studied to this day.
The Pre-Socratic philosophers primarily studied cosmology and natural philosophy, fields that were later
appropriated by the sciences. Ethics and epistemology, on the other hand, have not (and probably cannot) be
appropriated by other fields of study. These were the topics of greatest importance to Socrates. He sought
wisdom. How to live according to ethical principles, and how to differentiate knowledge from opinion, were
questions that must be answered to attain true wisdom. Socrates was the first moral philosopher and the first
epistemologist.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Epistemology
The branch of philosophy that analyzes and defends concepts of knowledge and the methodologies used to
attain it
Ethics
The branch of philosophy that analyzes and defends concepts of value and thereby seeks to determine right
and wrong
 BIG IDEA
Though all of these thinkers investigated many areas of philosophy, the ways in which Socrates changed the
direction of philosophy can be simplified as follows:
Pre-Socratics’ Primary Focus Socrates’ Primary Focus
Key areas of philosophy Cosmology and Natural Ethics and Epistemology

Philosophy
The most important philosophical What is real? What is knowledge?
questions What is the nature of the What is right?
universe? What is the good life and how should
I live?
3. The First Step on the Path to Wisdom

How did Socrates distinguish knowledge from opinion? First, it is a distinction inbelief. But secondly, the
distinction is not in what you believe, but in why you believe it. Two people can believe the same thing, but
one knows why he or she believes; the other merely believes.
What’s the difference? The answer involves the all-important philosophical question — why? If you ask
someone, “why do you believe x?”, and he or she provides a reasonable answer that is grounded in fact, that
person knows x. If you ask why, and receive no answer, or a bad answer (i.e., one that is not grounded in
reason or fact), that person has an opinion about x, but does not know it.
Here are some of the most common sources of bad answers:
Source Example Why it falls short of knowledge
Belief based on I think we should keep capital This is opinion, not knowledge, because it costs far more
falsities punishment because it saves to execute someone than to imprison him/her for life.
money.
Belief based on I think that a certain race is This is opinion, not knowledge, because the statement is
tradition/culture inferior because that’s what not grounded in fact or reason.
people previously believed or
that’s what my parents told
me.
Belief based on I believe this about the The celebrity may very well be right, but that does not
false authority economy because a celebrity justify the belief. This person has an opinion about climate
said so, or I believe that about change, rather than knowledge on this topic. Difficult
climate change because a subjects require expertise, not hearsay.
politician (or lobbyist) said so.
Belief based on I believe there is an afterlife A well-documented fact about human psychology is that
confirmation because I cannot bear to think we lower our evidentiary standards when we like the
bias of death as the end. conclusion. We raise them when we dislike the
conclusion. “I want x to be true, therefore, x is true” is an
invalid, and sometimes dangerous, inference.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Think of answers to “why” questions that fall into these four categories.
First, think of examples of each in politics or a national issue.
Next, think of personal examples of each (e.g., people you have interacted with in your family or on social
media).
See if you can do what Socrates requires — to shift from thinking about these mistakes in others to
thinking about them in ourselves.
Think of one example of when you have defended opinions in each of these ways. Socratic wisdom
requires us to be wise by realizing that we are not wise.
4. Socrates, A Martyr for Wisdom

As the previous thought experiment demonstrates, it is easier to recognize the mistakes of others than those
we make. It is easier to say than to do, to "talk the talk" than "walk the walk." One of the most important
aspects of Socrates’ legacy is that he lived what he taught, no matter the cost.
While teaching (and learning) philosophy in Athens, asking “why” questions (he referred to himself as a
gadfly), Socrates irritated people, and it got him into trouble. He was charged with corrupting the youth, and
put on trial (this trial will be examined in detail in a subsequent tutorial). Socrates presented his own defense,
but did so in philosophical terms. He refused to use rhetorical tricks like the sophists, and did not appeal to
emotions (e.g., by bringing in crying family members before sentencing). He refused punishment by exile that
would have required an implicit admission of regret for his conduct, and an end of his teaching. Had he
accepted exile, he would have avoided execution.
It's unnecessary to speculate whether he was willing to die for his beliefs, or just believed that he was
doomed either way. Later, his friend Crito provided him with an opportunity to escape from prison before his
execution, but Socrates did not take it because he believed that it would be morally wrong for him to do so.
It may be tempting to reason as Crito did and point out how much good Socrates could have done if he had
escaped and resumed teaching. However, if Socrates had, in opposition to his teachings, escaped, would we
be reading about him today? Would he have inspired Plato to pursue philosophy? Would we revere him for
acting in a self-serving way, instead of doing what he believed was right?
We remember and revere Socrates because he was one of the few who lived, and died, according to his
beliefs.
 SUMMARY
In this tutorial, we introduced Socrates, the patriarch of western philosophy, and compared his
methodologies to the philosophers who preceded him. His intellectual offspring, including Plato and
Aristotle, were incalculably important to the development of western civilization. Socrates reinvented
philosophy as the discipline that it is today. He taught by example, and lived what he taught even
though it cost him his life.
 ATTRIBUTIONS
Bust of Socrates, PD
 TERMS TO KNOW
Epistemology
attain it
Ethics
The branch of philosophy that analyzes and defends concepts of value and thereby seeks to determine
right and wrong
The Socratic Approach
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Socrates, the father of western philosophy, used different approaches to discover the truth,
depending on whether a situation involved opposing viewpoints, or students who wanted to learn
from him. His way of teaching continues to influence the manner in which philosophy is taught today,
because it is a way that leads to understanding.
This tutorial investigates the Socratic approach in three parts:
1. The Character of Socrates

2. Dialectic
3. The Socratic Method
1. The Character of Socrates

Socrates was a man of virtue. He is remembered and revered because he lived according to his principles,
which he believed were correct. His life was guided by what sound reasoning led him to conclude was right.
He was a man of keen intellect and upstanding moral character.
Socrates’ life was completely involved in the pursuit of philosophy, truth, and wisdom. What he did not know,
he sought to discover. The Symposium describes Socrates standing outside a building before entering a party
that was being held there, thinking about something that had been puzzling him. His extreme dedication to
learning led him to become a teacher. Although he was an excellent instructor, he did not charge his students
for the lessons they received. He shared wisdom with all who sought it.
Socrates dedicated his life (and death) to doing what he thought was right, to his quest for wisdom and ethics.
His final moments are recorded in a dialogue called the Phaedo, which will be covered in a subsequent
tutorial. The last line of the Phaedo summarizes how he is regarded by those who knew him: “Such was the
end…of our friend; concerning whom I may truly say, that of all the men of his time whom I have known, he
was the wisest and justest and best.”
2. Dialectic
Socrates sought wisdom through philosophy. He believed that philosophy was best pursued by a method
(carried on by Plato) called dialectic.
 TERM TO KNOW
Dialectic
A discourse between two or more people of opposing viewpoints, the goal of which is to discover truth
through reasoning
Dialectic is a somewhat more noble endeavor than debate. The goal of a debate is to win — to use arguments
in a way that enables your side to prevail. (The skill used to win debates is rhetoric.) Winning, however, is not
the goal of dialectic.
Dialectic is used to find the truth. When opposing viewpoints are involved, one is wrong, and the other is right.
It is the dialectician's job to determine which is which. This is a philosophical endeavor: not only because
philosophy pursues truth and seeks to separate knowledge from opinion, but also because of the importance
of logic and reasoning in dialectic.
Unlike the process of rhetorical debate, only good reasoning prevails in philosophical dialectic. Since logic,
like mathematics, is universal and dispassionate, when the truth is discovered, both sides in a dialectic can,
should, and do recognize it. Since the emphasis is on truth and reason, bias, emotion, upbringing, and
worldview are set aside. This makes dialectic an objective process, motivated by a genuine desire for truth on
all sides.
Imagine contemporary political debates being conducted in this way. If two political opponents were united in
a search for truth, they would engage in genuine, open-minded inquiry as to what is the best course of action
for their country, instead of the familiar quest for personal advantage and victory.
If this seems unrealistic, focus on your own experience.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Consider whether you have ever had a discussion, perhaps with a friend or sibling, that resembled a dialectic.
What influenced the way in which this discussion took place? First and foremost, respect. You didn’t assume
the worst about the person with whom you were chatting. You did not immediately dismiss his/her position as
wrong. Also, since you did not dismiss his/her position, you questioned your own view. The discussion was a
dialectic because you disagreed respectfully, and it was fruitful because you held your own view as being
subject to questioning, rather than as inviolable. Neither of you tried to prove the other wrong. Together, you
were simply searching what is true.
Socrates conducted all of his inquiries in this way and did not assume that any of his beliefs were inviolable.
When following this standard, it does not matter whether you respect the person with whom you disagree, or
whether you respect his or her point of view. All that matters is that you respect truth. If you do, you will
ensure that all of your beliefs are true (or not) by questioning them. You will care enough about truth to share
it with others.
3. The Socratic Method

Dialectic is used by those who hold opposing viewpoints to dispassionately search for truth. Although the
opponents initially disagree, they do so respectfully. A different method is required when one who knows a
truth wants to teach it to others. When teaching, Socrates used the Socratic Method.
 TERM TO KNOW
Socratic Method
The pedagogical method of teaching by asking questions to which the student knows the answers, thereby
leading them, step by step, to the truth being taught
Suppose a teacher has taught students how to multiply using flashcards, and is moving on to more
complicated multiplication problems.
Example of the Socratic Method

Teacher: Do you know what 8 times 72 is?
Student: No, I don’t.
Student: Of course, it’s 16.
Student: Of course, it’s 24.
Teacher: And what about 8 times 5?
Student: It’s 40.
Teacher: And 3 plus 2?
Student: 5, of course.
Teacher: And 3 times 8 plus 2 times 8.
Student: …40.
Teacher: So to compute 5 times 8, we can add two numbers that equal 5, eight times, then add their
products?
Student: It seems so.
Teacher: Does it work with 1 times 8 and 4 times 8?
Student: Yes!
Teacher: It should always work, since we know that multiplication is a complex form of addition. How
might we multiply 72 times 8?
Student: Multiply some numbers that add to 72 by 8 and add their products.
Teacher: And which numbers might be easier?
Student: The ones I know.
Teacher: Good, so you already know 8 times 2.
Student: Yes, 16.
Teacher: What would we have to add to 2 to get 72?
Student: 70.
Teacher: What is 8 times 70?
Student: I don’t know.
Teacher: What is 8 times 7?
Student: 56.
Teacher: So if 70 is seven tens, isn’t 8 times 70, 56 tens?
Student: It must be!
Teacher: So what is 8 times 70?
Student: 560!
Teacher: And what is 8 times 72?
Student: 576!!!
In this example, the teacher has taught the student something new. This new knowledge will be the basis for
solving longer multiplication problems. The teacher demonstrated how new knowledge can be achieved,
starting from what the student already knows. This teaching method has two advantages: Student who have
accomplished some basic learning don't need to "reinvent the wheel" when attempting to answer more
difficult questions. They can leverage what they already know.
Additionally (and more importantly, with respect to philosophy, and to life), by beginning with what he or she
already knows, and comprehending why the answer is what it is, students understand that an answer is true.
This is the advantage of the Socratic Method. It is still used in schools, from the elementary through the
doctoral level. It is an effective tool for teaching understanding because it leads the student to knowledge,
instead of dictating it. It shows students how to achieve knowledge on their own, rather than simply giving
them a collection of facts.
 SUMMARY
Socrates is not only known for his constant quest for wisdom, and his rigorous commitment to right
living, but also for his teaching method. He believed that truth and wisdom should be shared, not
hoarded. He used dialectic to discover truth, and the Socratic Method to help others find it.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Quotation from "The Phaedo" | Author: Project Gutenberg | License: Public Domain
 TERMS TO KNOW
Dialectic
A discourse between two or more people of opposing viewpoints, the ultimate goal of which is to discover
the truth of the matter through reasoning
Socratic Method
The pedagogical method of teaching by asking questions to which the student knows the answer and
thereby leading them to the truth being conveyed
Introducing Arguments
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Philosophy uses argumentation to attain truth. To learn how to evaluate arguments, we must first
define argument.
This tutorial examines argumentation and its role in philosophy, in two parts:
1. What is an Argument?
2. The Basics of Evaluation
1. What is an Argument?
In philosophy, arguments provide justification for proposed positions. When successful, an argument provides
a reason (or reasons) to believe that something is true. Aristotle provided the following example of a simple
argument:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Think of the argument as an equation. The first two statements (both of which are called premises) combine to
yield the third (the conclusion). Hence, if we know the two premises, we also know the conclusion.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Premise
A statement presented in an argument for acceptance or rejection without support, but that is intended to
support a conclusion
Conclusion
A statement that is intended to be supported by the premises of an argument
As we will see, the argument above provides justification for thinking that Socrates is mortal. To do so, it must
accomplish two things. Every argument makes both a factual claim and an inferential claim.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Factual Claim
A claim that some fact (or facts) corresponds to reality
Inferential Claim
A claim that the premises support the conclusion
Note that we are currently defining what makes an argument, not what makes a good argument. It is important
to understand that claiming that a fact corresponds to reality does not guarantee that it does (“Socrates was a
fire-breathing lizard who ravaged the streets of Tokyo” is a factual claim), and claiming that premises support a
conclusion does not mean that they do. These two claims must be evaluated to determine the success of an
argument, as will be discussed below. An argument is defined as follows:
 TERM TO KNOW
Argument
A group of statements containing both a factual claim or claims and an inferential claim or claims
An argument must contain both types of claims; and all groups of statements that contain both types of claims
are arguments. Regarding the statements provided above, in order for them to form an argument, they
(together) must make a factual claim or claims.
 TRY IT
See if you can find the factual claims in Aristotle's argument, above.
 HINT
Factual claims are submitted as true, but without support. The argument itself (i.e., the three sentences
provided above) includes no reasons to support the claims made in it.
The two factual claims in this argument are “All men are mortal” and “Socrates is a man”. Notice that they are
presented as givens with no support or reason to believe them. However, “Socrates is mortal” is not a factual
claim. Why not? Think in terms of support. Does Aristotle's argument (just those three sentences, not your
beliefs) provide any reason to believe that “All men are mortal” is true? It is simply an assertion about the way
the world is.
The same can be said about “Socrates is a man.” However, we are provided with a reason to believe that
Socrates is mortal: it follows from the two claims which precede it. In an argument, a factual claim is the same
as a premise.
 THINK ABOUT IT
See if you can find the inferential claim.
 HINT
Although a premise is the same as a factual claim, a conclusion is not the same as an inferential claim. Why
not? Look at the definition of an inferential claim. Since the inferential claim links the premises and the
conclusion, it cannot be synonymous with either.
In this argument, the inferential claim is the word, “therefore.” An inferential claim is the assertion that the
premises support the conclusion. That’s what “therefore” does in this argument. It tells you that an inference is
being made, that something has been supported rather than simply presented. However, not every argument
uses “therefore.” It's best to think of the parts of an argument in terms of how they support (the premises) and
supported (the conclusion). The inferential claim asserts that such support is available.
All men are mortal. Premise/Factual Claim
Socrates is a man. Premise/Factual Claim
Therefore, Inferential Claim
Socrates is mortal. Conclusion
 TRY IT
Identify the factual and inferential claims in the following argument by first identifying the premises and the
conclusion:
No dogs are crocodiles, because all dogs are mammals and no crocodiles are mammals.
 HINT
The conclusion is not always at the end.
 HINT
Does “because” indicate that something is supported or supporting?
In the argument above, “all dogs are mammals” and “no crocodiles are mammals” are the premises and are,
therefore, factual claims. The conclusion is “no dogs are crocodiles”, since it follows from the two premises.
What is the inferential claim? In this argument, it is implicit. The word, “because” indicates that the latter two
statements are premises which support the prior statement. As a result, the inferential claim would be
something like, “the fact that no dogs are crocodiles follows from the facts that all dogs are mammals and no
crocodiles are mammals.” It is important to understand that not every argument will include inferential
indicators. Readers must recognize what supports what.
All dogs are mammals. Premise/Factual Claim
No crocodiles are mammals. Premise/Factual Claim
No dogs are crocodiles. Conclusion
The fact that no dogs are crocodiles follows from the facts that all dogs are Inferential Claim
mammals and no crocodiles are mammals.
2. The Basics of Evaluation

As mentioned above, every argument makes both a factual and an inferential claim. It must do both of these
things well in order to succeed (i.e., to provide reason to believe the conclusion). This means that we must
evaluate both the factual and inferential claims, separately. The inferential claim must be evaluated first, for
two reasons: 1) it is the fastest way to evaluate an argument; 2) if the inference is bad, the facts don't matter.
Consider the following argument:
There are 21,354,751 people in Ohio. Therefore, there are more than 10,000,000 people in Ohio.
It is simple to check the inference — that 21,354,751 is greater than 10,000,000 — but checking the fact would
require more research. We’d have to determine whether there are truly 21,354,751 people in Ohio, a time-
consuming task. However, there is a much more important reason to check the inference first. Suppose
someone made the following argument:
Kim Kardashian wore a purple hat today. Therefore, there will be a blizzard in the Northeast tomorrow.
Suppose you lived in the Northeast, and were planning your activities for next few days. If someone made this
argument to you, would you check the color of Kim Kardashian’s hat to see whether you need to change your
plans? Probably not, because if the inference is bad, the facts do not matter. Even if the hat claim is true (i.e.,
Kim Kardashian wore a purple hat today), it provides no reason to believe the conclusion (i.e., that there will be
a blizzard). The inferential claim of the argument must be evaluated first.
When evaluating an inference, the question is never, “Are the premises true?” Instead, questions of inference
ask, “Assuming the premises are true, do they support the conclusion?” Consider this argument:
All Republicans are space aliens.
Barack Obama is a Republican.
Therefore, Barack Obama is a space alien.
Obviously, there is something wrong with this argument. However, let’s check the inference. We ask,
“Assuming it's true that all Republicans are space aliens and Barack Obama is a Republican, would this
support the conclusion that Barack Obama is a space alien?” The answer is yes. This inference here is sound
(notice that it is the same inference used by Aristotle in his argument above). The problem with this argument
is the factual claim.
To test the factual claim, ask, “Are all of the premises true?” Aristotle's argument contains a good inferential
claim and a good factual claim. The Obama argument includes a good inferential claim but a bad factual claim.
See if you can provide the proper (but separate) evaluations of the inferential and factual claims of the
following three arguments:
 TRY IT
LeBron James is over five feet tall. (Premise)
Therefore, LeBron James is over seven feet tall. (Conclusion)
The inference in this argument is unsound. From the fact that a person is over five feet tall, it does not follow
that he or she is over seven feet tall, (or that he or she is over six feet tall). However, the factual claim is sound,
because LeBron James is over five feet tall (note that the factual claim verifies the premises, not the
conclusion).
 TRY IT
LeBron James is over twelve feet tall. (Premise)
Therefore, Lebron James is over seven feet tall. (Conclusion)
We can determine whether the inference is sound by asking, “Assuming that it is true that LeBron James is
over twelve feet tall, does it follow that he is over seven feet tall?" In this case, the answer is "yes," so the
inference is a good one. However, since he is not over twelve feet tall, the factual claim falls short.
 TRY IT
LeBron James is over five feet tall. (Premise)
Therefore, LeBron James is over six feet tall. (Conclusion)
This argument can be evaluated in the same way as the first argument in this example. Even though LeBron
James is over six feet tall, it does not follow from the fact that he is over five feet tall. Therefore, even if you
believe that he is over six feet tall, this argument provides no support for that belief.
Why bother trying to understand philosophical arguments? Whether or not you realize it, you make arguments
in everyday life. Even something as simple as this qualifies as an argument: “When it is cold outside, I wear my
jacket. Today it is cold outside. Therefore I should wear my jacket.” Understanding and evaluating arguments
are useful abilities. See if you can recognize examples of arguments in your day-to-day life.
Philosophical analysis is not required to evaluate the argument involving your jacket. As we begin to realize
when we (or others) are making an argument, we will also begin to evaluate them: to determine when their
conclusions follow from their premises, and when they do not.
Suppose someone told you, “We should use capital punishment because it is cheaper than imprisonment for
life.” They have made an argument. They only support their conclusion that we should use capital punishment
by claiming that it is cheaper. If we were only interested in financial costs, this would be a good inferential
claim. However, since it costs more money to execute someone than to imprison them for life, it is a bad
factual claim. This could be the focus of further discussion of the issue.
 SUMMARY
Argumentation is the way that philosophy seeks truth. Understanding how to evaluate an argument is
an important skill. Every argument makes both a factual and an inferential claim. In order to be
successful (i.e., to provide reason to accept the conclusion), it must do both well. Therefore, every
argument requires two independent evaluations.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Argument
Conclusion
Factual Claim
A claim that some fact or facts obtained in the world is true
Premise
A statement presented for acceptance or rejection in an argument (without support) but that is intended to
Inferential Claim
Evaluation and Analysis of Arguments
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Every argument must make both an inferential and a factual claim. To succeed, an argument must do
both things well, but each must be evaluated separately. However, before we can precisely evaluate
an argument, we must know whether it is deductive or inductive. Knowing this tells us how strict the
standards are for the inference, and enables us to evaluate each argument accordingly.
This tutorial examines the evaluation and analysis of arguments in three parts:
1. Deduction and Induction

2. Evaluating Deductive Arguments
3. Evaluating Inductive Arguments

Consider this argument: “People are under seven feet tall, so the next person to come through the door will
be under seven feet tall.” Is this reasonable or unreasonable? The answer depends on what was intended. If
the intention was to assert that “All people are under seven feet tall, so it is guaranteed that the next person
to come through the door will be under seven feet tall,” then this is a foolish argument. However, if the
intended meaning was “People are generally under seven feet tall, so the next person to come through the
door will likely be under seven feet tall,” the argument is reasonable. Note that these two different evaluations
depend on whether the claim was about certainty or likelihood.
These considerations are closely linked to the concepts of deductive and inductive arguments. Reviewing the
terms below will help you to understand these concepts.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Argument
A group of statements containing both a factual claim (or claims), and an inferential claim (or claims)
Factual Claim
A claim that some fact (or facts) corresponds to reality
Inferential Claim
Deductive Argument
A type of argument in which the inferential claim is a claim of logical certainty
Logical Certainty
A state in which it is inconceivable that the conclusion is not supported by the premises
Inductive Argument
An argument in which the inferential claim is of less than logical certainty
Premise
A statement presented for acceptance or rejection in an argument without support, but that is intended to
Conclusion
You cannot properly evaluate a sophisticated argument without first identifying whether it is deductive or
inductive. This is so because the evaluations are different. All evaluation is based on kind.
 EXAMPLE When someone asks, “Is 6’10” inches tall?” the only proper answer is, “It depends on what
kind of thing you're asking about” because “tall” is an evaluative term. Is 6’10” tall? For a human, yes. For a
giraffe, no. Similarly, if someone asks, “is this a good inference,” the only proper answer is, “it depends on
the kind of inference.” And as the first argument in this section demonstrates, we evaluate differently
depending on whether we are trying to achieve logical certainty or probability.
For the original example, a statement that “People are generally under seven feet tall, so the next person to
come through the door will likely be under seven feet tall” indicates that most people who pass through the
door will be shorter than seven feet tall, but some of them may be taller.
People are generally under 7 feet tall. Premise/Factual Claim
So, Inferential Claim
the next person to come through the door will likely be under 7 feet tall. Conclusion
Is this argument intending logical certainty? Does it assert that, because people are usually under seven feet
tall, it is not possible that a person over seven feet tall will walk through the door? It does not. Therefore, this is
an inductive argument (a generalization) that does not convey logical certainty, only probability. We must
evaluate it accordingly.
Now consider the following argument:
The sun has risen every day for the past billion years.
Our current understanding of the laws of astrophysics tell us that this phenomenon should continue.
Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.
The sun has risen every day for the past billion years. Premise/Factual Claim
Our current understanding of the laws of astrophysics tell us that this phenomenon Premise/Factual Claim
should continue.
Therefore, Inferential Claim
the sun will rise tomorrow. Conclusion

Before we evaluate this argument, we must first determine whether it is deductive or inductive: whether the
conclusion is intended to follow with logical certainty. Can you imagine not only that the premises are true
(which should not be difficult because they are true), but also the conclusion being false (at the same time)?
You can.
Imagine that a meteor obliterates Earth tonight, or a religious apocalypse occurs, or the sun enters the "red
giant" phase of its life-cycle and consumes Mercury, Venus, and Earth. In all of these cases the conclusion will
not be reached.
Based on what we have just learned, this argument is inductive because it makes no claim to logical certainty.
However, certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow is inductive certainty. This indicates two things: First, there is
nothing wrong with induction, just because it is induction. It is not unreasonable to believe that the sun will rise
tomorrow. (Problems generally arise only when people evaluate induction deductively, or vice versa.) Second,
the vast majority of our reasoning is inductive, so the vast majority of our beliefs are justified inductively.
Consider some more of your beliefs that are based on induction: that your parents really are your parents; that
Julius Caesar lived; that summer is warm and winter is cold; that your arm won’t fall off in the next 30 seconds;
etc.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Consider the arguments that you would use to justify these beliefs, and why none of them achieve logical
certainty.
But if the majority of our reasoning is inductive, what is deduction? Note that induction always involves cause
and effect, and the world, in making inferences. Deduction involves neither of these. The inferences of
deduction rely on definition and form.
 EXAMPLE LeBron James is over six feet tall. Therefore, he is over five feet tall.
It would be incorrect to assert that the fact that LeBron James is over six feet tallcauses him to be over five
feet tall. Instead, it is part of the definition of being over six feet tall, an entailment. Note that this type of
argument does attain logical certainty, but remember that logical certainty is about the relationship between
the premises and the conclusion, not just about the conclusion. Therefore, the question is not "can I imagine
LeBron James not being over five feet tall?" (you can). Instead, it is "can I imagine him being over six feet tall"
and "not being over five feet tall?" No, this is impossible. This argument attains logical certainty because it is
about definitions, rather than the world. Other common deductive arguments are categorical (from the
definitions of “all”, “no”, and “some”), hypothetical (from the definition of “if…then”) and disjunctive (from the
meaning of “either/or”).
2. Evaluating Deductive Arguments

Once we have determined whether an argument is deductive or inductive, the evaluation follows the pattern
discussed in previous tutorials, but with more precision. We still ask the inferential question first: “Assuming all
premises are true, do they support the conclusion?” However, now we understand the notion of support
deductively, that is, as guaranteeing or logically entailing the conclusion. When considering an inferential
claim deductively, we label the argument as valid or invalid.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Valid
A deductive argument in which the premise(s) logically guarantee their conclusion
Invalid
A deductive argument in which the premise(s) do not logically guarantee their conclusion
A valid argument must have good deductive structure; an invalid argument has bad deductive structure and
that is all. Whether the premises are true or false (i.e., whether the factual claim is a good one or not), does not
have anything to do with the argument's validity. Consider this categorical syllogism:
All Republicans are space aliens.
Barack Obama is a Republican.
Therefore, Barack Obama is a space alien.
This argument is valid. We ask, “If it is true that all Republicans are space aliens and it is true that Barack
Obama is a Republican, does that guarantee that Barack Obama is a space alien?” The answer is yes. We
must establish an argument's validity (or lack of it) before checking the factual claims. Now try to evaluate
these three arguments (the solutions are provided below):
 TRY IT
1. LeBron James is over five feet tall.

Therefore, LeBron James is over seven feet tall.
2. LeBron James is over twelve feet tall.

Therefore, Lebron James is over seven feet tall.
3. LeBron James is over five feet tall.

Therefore, LeBron James is over six feet tall.
Solutions
1. Ask yourself, if it is true that Lebron James is over five feet tall, then does it guarantee that he is over seven
feet tall?
The answer is “no”, so this argument is invalid.
2. Ask yourself, if it is true that Lebron James is over twelve feet tall, then does it guarantee that he is over
seven feet tall?
The answer is “yes”, so this is argument is valid.
3. Ask yourself, if it is true that Lebron James is over five feet tall, then does it guarantee that he is over six
feet tall?
The answer is no, so this is an invalid argument.
Whether or not the premises or conclusion are true doesnot enter into the determination of validity. However,
validity is important because it means that the premises guarantee the conclusion. When validity has been
established, we simply have to decide whether we accept the premises. If the argument is valid, we only need
to ask a question of fact: “Are all of the premises true?” This will determine the soundness or unsoundness of
the argument.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Sound
A deductively valid argument in which all premises are true
Unsound
A deductive argument that is not sound
Note that a sound argument must be valid. Think of a sound argument as a good deductive argument. Since
an argument must do two things, a sound argument is a deductive argument that does both of them well. It
makes a good (i.e., valid) inferential claim and a good factual claim. As a result, a sound argument has a
conclusion that is guaranteed, that cannot be resisted. That’s why soundness matters.
An unsound argument is a bad deductive argument. It falls short of soundness by either making a bad (i.e.,
invalid) inferential claim or by containing at least one false premise. It does not provide an adequate reason to
accept its conclusion. Invalid arguments — and valid arguments with at least one false premise — are
unsound. Each of these types of arguments gives reason to not accept its conclusion.
Note that if one wants to reject the conclusion of a valid argument, one must reject a premise. Try to evaluate
the following argument:
If there is gratuitous evil, there is no God.

There is gratuitous evil.
Ergo, there is no God.
This is a deductively valid argument known as the Logical Problem of Evil. To reject the conclusion, that is, to
maintain that there is a God, we must show that a premise is false or (as is more generally the case in a
philosophical debate), that there is a better reason to believe that the premise is false than to believe it is true.
Because this argument is valid, we are left with no other options if we want to reject the conclusion.
3. Evaluating Inductive Arguments

With a few minor changes, everything that applies to deductive arguments also applies to inductive
arguments. The inferential question must be asked first: “Assuming all premises are true, do they support the
conclusion?” However, in the case of inductive arguments, the notion of support is understood inductively,
that is, as making probable the conclusion. When considering an inferential claim inductively, we say that the
argument is strong or weak.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Strong
An inductive argument in which the premises render the conclusion probable
Weak
An inductive argument in which the premises do not render the conclusion probable
Hence, a strong argument has a good inductive structure; a weak argument has a bad inductive structure and
that is all. Whether the premises are true or false does not have anything to do with an argument's strength.
Consider the following argument:
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that there is climate change caused by humans.
Therefore, there is climate change caused by humans.
This is an inductive argument called an "argument from authority." To determine its strength, the question to
be asked isn’t whether scientists believe such a thing but, if they do believe such a thing, does that make the
conclusion probable? In this case, the answer is yes, so the argument is strong.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Arguments from authority are some of the strongest we have. Consider the following things you believe that
are based on authority:
You’ve never met Julius Caesar, but you believe he existed

You’ve never been to Uranus, but you believe it exists
You cannot predict the weather, but you believe the meteorologist’s prediction
The fact that authorities are occasionally wrong doesn’t make the argument weak, it makes it inductive.
Now consider three more inductive arguments and see if you can determine their strength or weakness:
 TRY IT
Kim Kardashian says X about healthcare.

Therefore, X about healthcare.
 HINT
“X” doesn’t need to be filled in because that is only relevant to the factual claim.
The answer is that this argument is weak. Kim Kardashian may be an authority about some things, but she is
not generally considered an authority on healthcare, even if you agree with her. Agreeing with her means that
you accept the conclusion, not that the argument establishes it. If the only reason we have to believe X about
healthcare is that Kim Kardashian said X, that is not enough for us to believe that X is true.
 TRY IT
The Browns have played terribly so far this season.

Therefore, they will lose this week.
This argument is strong (it is a prediction, in which we use the past to assert the future). If it is true that the
Browns have played terribly all season, we might bet (perhaps literally) that they will lose this week. It is a
good bet. If we lose our bet, it’s because induction involves chance, not because our bet is irrational.
 TRY IT
Some people got sick from eating at the restaurant.

Therefore, I will get sick from eating there.
This argument is weak because the conclusion is possible, not probable. Because induction deals in
probability, it also involves scaling, because it makes sense to talk about stronger arguments and weaker
arguments. This is unlike a deduction, in which premises establish their conclusion with either 100% or 0%
certainty. For example, both the conclusion that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that the Browns will lose this
week, are supported by strong arguments, but we should be more certain of one than the other.
After we have determined strength, we must check the factual claim and ask, “Are all of the premises true?” to
establish whether the final evaluation is cogent or uncogent.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Cogent
An inductively strong argument in which all premises are true
Uncogent
An inductive argument that is not cogent
Note that a cogent argument must be strong. Cogent arguments are good inductive arguments. Since an
argument must do two things, a cogent argument is an inductive argument that does both of them well. It
makes a good (i.e., strong) inferential claim and a good factual claim. Therefore, a cogent argument provides
us with reason to believe that its conclusion is probably true (how probable is proportionate to how strong).
An uncogent argument is a bad inductive argument. It falls short of cogency by either making a bad (i.e.,
weak) inferential claim or by containing at least one false premise. It does not provide an adequate reason to
accept its conclusion. Therefore, weak arguments, and strong arguments with at least one false premise, are
uncogent. Either of them gives us reason to not accept their conclusions.
The flow chart below is a useful tool to which you can refer when evaluating arguments.
 SUMMARY
Before we evaluate an argument, we must first determine whether it attempts to establish its
conclusion using logical certainty, which (therefore) makes it deductive, or something less, which
makes it inductive. Once we have determined this, we can check the inferential claims in a more
refined way, using the concepts of valid and invalid for deduction, and strong and weak for induction.
We then consider the factual claim to arrive at a final evaluation of the argument: sound and unsound
for deductive arguments; cogent and uncogent for inductive arguments.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Argument
Cogent
Conclusion
Deductive Argument
Factual Claim
A claim that some fact or facts obtained in the world is true
Inductive Argument
Inferential Claim
Invalid
Logical Certainty
A state in which it is inconceivable that the conclusion is not supported by the premises
Premise
A statement presented for acceptance of rejection in an argument without support but that is intended to
Sound
Strong
Uncogent
Unsound
Valid
Weak
Evaluating an Argument in Action
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this tutorial, we will use what we’ve learned about arguments to evaluate an argument. We will
review the types of arguments and related terminology, and evaluate several sample arguments in
context.
This tutorial considers the evaluation of arguments in three parts:

2. Evaluating Inductive and Deductive Arguments
3. Practice Evaluating an Argument

Recall the definitions of inductive and deductive, as they relate to arguments.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Deductive
An argument in which the inferential claim is a claim of logical certainty
Inductive
An argument in which the inferential claim is a claim of less than logical certainty
When determining whether an argument is inductive or deductive, ask this question: “Is the inferential claim a
claim of logical certainty?” If the answer is yes, the argument is deductive. If the answer is no, the argument is
inductive.
You cannot properly evaluate a sophisticated argument without first identifying whether it is deductive or
inductive.
2. Evaluating Inductive and Deductive Arguments

Once you have determined whether an argument is inductive or deductive, ask this question: “Assuming all
premises are true, do they support the conclusion?” For deductive arguments, is it possible for all of the
premises to be true, and the conclusion false? For inductive arguments, is it probable for all premises to be
true and the conclusion false? You are essentially trying to determine whether the premises guarantee the
conclusion, or not.
For deductive arguments, we use the terms valid and invalid. For inductive arguments we use the terms
strong and weak.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Valid
Invalid
Strong
Weak
A valid argument has a good deductive structure, and an invalid argument has a bad deductive structure and
that is all. Whether the premises are true or false (i.e., whether the factual claim is a good one or not), does not
have anything to do with validity. Likewise, a strong argument is one that has good inductive structure; a weak
one has bad inductive structure and that is all. Whether the premises are true or false does not have anything
to do with strength.
Here are some examples:
Sample Argument Deductive Valid, Invalid, Strong, or Weak?

or
Inductive?
All Republicans are Deductive. Valid. Ask yourself, “If it is true that all Republicans are space aliens,
space aliens. Barack and it is true that Barack Obama is a Republican, does that guarantee
Obama is a that Barack Obama is a space alien?” The answer is yes. The argument
Republican. Therefore, is valid.
Barack Obama is a
space alien.
LeBron James is over Deductive. Invalid. Ask yourself, "If it is true that Lebron James is over five feet tall,
five feet tall. does it guarantee that he is over seven feet tall?" The answer is “no”,
Therefore, LeBron so this is an invalid argument.
James is over seven
feet tall.
Some people got sick Inductive. Weak. This argument is weak because the conclusion is possible, but it
eating at the is not probable.
restaurant. Therefore, I
will get sick eating
there.
The Browns have Inductive. Strong. Ask yourself, "Is it probable for all of the premises to be true
played terribly all and the conclusion to be false?" The answer is no, so it is a strong
season. Therefore, argument. If it was true that the Browns have played terribly all season,
they will lose this I would bet they would lose. it is a good bet. If I lose my bet, it's
week. because induction involves chance, not because I have done
something irrational.
The last step in evaluating an argument is to check the factual claims. Whether the premises or conclusion are
true or not does not enter into the determination of validity (deductive arguments) or strength (inductive
arguments). However, validity and strength are important because they indicate that the premises lead to the
conclusion.
After that, we simply have to decide whether we accept the premises. If the argument has been determined to
be valid or strong, we simply need to ask our question of fact: “Are all of the premises true?” This will
determine whether a valid argument is sound or unsound (deductive arguments), or a strong argument is
cogent or uncogent (inductive arguments).
 TERMS TO KNOW
Sound
Unsound
Cogent
Uncogent
This flow chart can be a helpful tool when evaluating an argument.
3. Practice Evaluating an Argument
Let’s apply what you’ve learned to a few examples. In these examples evaluate the argument by determining
if it is:
1. Inductive or deductive
2. Valid, invalid, weak, or strong
3. Sound, unsound, cogent, or uncogent
 TRY IT
Evaluate the following two arguments by first determining whether they are deductive or inductive, then
evaluating their inferential claim and, finally, evaluating their factual claims.
 EXAMPLE If you are in Texas, you are in the United States. You are in the United States. Therefore,
you are in Texas
This is a deductive argument. The conclusion follows from the meaning of an if-then statement, not from facts
about geography. Note that the argument includes nothing related to causation. It is about definition. Next,
evaluate the inferential claim: does the inference attain logical certainty, or can you imagine the premises
being true, and the conclusion false? For most students, both premises are true and the conclusion is false
(e.g., if you are in Michigan). This means that it is invalid, because even if you happen to be in Texas, that is
not entailed by the premises. Since it is invalid, it must be unsound because it is not a satisfactory deductive
argument.
 EXAMPLE In the past, when I have had more than five drinks, I have become ill. Therefore, if I have ten
drinks, I will become extremely ill
This argument is inductive because it relies on cause and effect (it is a prediction, because it is forecasting a
similar cause and effect in the future). When we ask our inference question, we see that the conclusion is
likely, given the premise. Therefore, the argument is strong. If the single premise is true, it is cogent;
otherwise, it is uncogent.
 EXAMPLE All birds can fly. Polly is a bird. Therefore, Polly can fly
This is a deductive argument because it proceeds from the definition of “all” rather than facts about biology.
Next, evaluate the inferential claim. Can you imagine an instance in which the premises are true, but the
conclusion is false? The answer is no, therefore, this argument is valid. Finally, evaluate the factual claims.
While “Polly is a bird” might be true, the statement that “all birds can fly” is not. There are several species of
flightless birds (penguins, ostriches, kiwis, etc.). Therefore, this argument is unsound.
 SUMMARY
Before evaluating an argument, we must determine whether it tries to establish its conclusion using
logical certainty (which makes it a deductive argument), or something less (which makes it an
inductive argument). Once we have made this determination, we check the inferential claim in a more
refined way, using the concepts of valid and invalid for deduction, and strong and weak for induction.
We then consider the factual claim to render a final evaluation of the argument: sound or unsound for
deductive arguments; cogent or uncogent for inductive arguments.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Cogent
An inductively strong argument with all true premises
Deductive
An argument whose inferential claim is a claim of logical certainty
Inductive
An argument whose inferential claim is a claim less than logical certainty
Invalid
Sound
A deductively valid argument with all true premises
Strong
Uncogent
Unsound
Valid
A deductive argument whose premise(s) logically guarantee their conclusion
Weak
The Apology: A Defense of Philosophy
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
The Apology, a mistranslation of apologia, Greek for "defense," is a transcript of the defense Socrates'
presented at his trial on charges of "denying the gods" and, more seriously, "corrupting the youth of
Athens." As Socrates pointed out, however, his real crimes were unpopularity and making enemies of
the wrong people. Since his practice of philosophy led to the charges against him, Socrates sought to
prove his innocence by demonstrating that philosophy is a right and worthwhile pursuit. He made
concise arguments to support his claim that he did not corrupt the youth of Athens, and let his
accusers know that he did not fear death. This tutorial examines The Apology in four parts:
1. The Apology
2. Socrates’ Argued That He Did Not Corrupt the Youth
3. The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living
4. Death Is Nothing or Something
1. The Apology
The Apology takes the form of a long, complex dialogue. It is Plato’s account of the defense Socrates'
presented at his trial. Remember, Socrates produced no written work. Most accounts of his life and philosophy
were recorded by Plato.
The Apology begins after the prosecution presented its case, as Socrates offered his defense. He started by
distinguishing between the “old charges” and the “new charges.” By “new charges,” he meant the official
charges: denying the gods and corrupting the youth of Athens. But what were the “old charges?”
To grasp their significance, understand that Athens, at that time, was a direct democracy with no constitution.
This resulted in mob rule, or rule by the bottom 51%. If someone was sufficiently unpopular, an enemy could
make up charges against him and demand a court hearing. This is what happened to Socrates. The “old
charges” were, collectively, an attack on his reputation as a philosopher, teacher, and honorable man.
Socrates’ unpopularity, for the most part, was the result of a peculiar occurrence. One of his friends was told
by the Oracle of Delphi, who was believed to speak for Apollo, that there was no one wiser than Socrates.
Socrates was puzzled by this message. He had always thought of himself as being without wisdom. He asked
the philosopher’s question — why? — and worked to decipher the Oracle's proclamation. He began by
attempting to discover why three groups that were thought to be wise — the poets, the politicians, and the
craftsmen — weren’t, according to the Oracle, wiser than Socrates.
Socrates found the poets to be unwise because, although they created beautiful poems, they relied on others
to interpret and provide meaning (poetry was composed differently at that time). As to the politicians, consider
who would be elected in a direct democracy with no constitution. Those who could sway the mob to support
them would win. Most successful politicians were members of a group of private tutors called sophists, who
taught rhetoric. The goal of rhetoric is persuasion, not the attainment of truth. Socrates believed that winning
at any cost, without regard for truth, was unwise and immoral. He made enemies of the sophists when he
revealed that they would say anything to gain political power. The sophists turned the masses against
Socrates, and originated the charges against him.
The artisans, the remaining group that was thought to be wise, but wasn't, regularly made a particular mistake.
They believed that their expertise within their fields of endeavor made them experts in other fields. Anyone
who has been condescended to by an I.T. expert, or who has watched an actor lecture about economics,
knows why Socrates found this group to be unwise.
Upon completing his investigation of the three groups, Socrates discovered why the Oracle declared that he
was wise: It was because he knew that he was not wise. He knew what he did not know, a concept that is now
called Socratic Wisdom. Socrates solved the Oracle's puzzle but, in doing so, made many influential enemies.
 DID YOU KNOW
Another source of Socrates’ reputation is The Clouds — a play by the comedic playwright Aristophanes. It
portrays an over-the-top (fictitious) school of philosophy, led by a comedic, highly-exaggerated Socrates.
2. Socrates’ Argued That He Did Not Corrupt the

Youth
After explaining why he had been charged (and was being tried), Socrates focused on the new charges:
denying the gods and corrupting the youth of Athens. After indicating why anyone who cares about ethics
and wisdom (and oracles) pays homage to the divine, he addressed the charge of corrupting the youth of
Athens. Socrates raised two arguments against the charge, directing a dialectic against the chief prosecutor,
Meletus.
In the course of his arguments with Meletus, Socrates proves that he did not corrupt the youth of Athens.
Unfortunately, the jury did not agree. We will examine Socrates' arguments in detail in a subsequent tutorial.
3. The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living

Socrates failed to persuade the jury, which found him guilty. Meletus asked for a penalty of death; Socrates
did not suggest an alternative. As a result, he was sentenced to die. However, both before and after his
sentence was pronounced, Socrates presented compelling reasons why he did not fear death.
Most importantly, he had done what he thought was right: he had pursued wisdom and taught others to do so;
he had lived according to the moral principles of his philosophy. Socrates stated that “The difficulty, my
friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death.” He maintained
that a good person does what he or she knows to be right, regardless of personal consequences.
The possibility that he might be executed should not influence his determination of what he ought to do.
Socrates believed that he, and everyone, should perform the “godly” pursuit of philosophy, of seeking wisdom
and right living. This kind of life can only be lived by humans, but without it, we fall short of humanity. As
Socrates famously said, “the unexamined life is not worth living.”
4. Death Is Nothing or Something

Determined to do what he knew was right, Socrates made a final,deductive, either-or argument to show why
we should not fear death:
Death is either nothing or something.

If it is nothing, it is akin to a long, dreamless sleep (which is nothing to fear).
If it is something, then it is a transmigration in which one can converse with those who have died (which is
nothing to fear.)
Therefore, either way, death is nothing to fear.
 TERM TO KNOW
Deductive Argument
Some have noted that, in maintaining the third premise, Socrates ignored the possibility of a negative afterlife
(e.g., hell). However, concepts of eternal damnation were not hypothesized until centuries after his death.
Additionally (and more importantly), it was then believed that the afterlife would be ruled by true judges, who
would not fault or punish him for having dedicated his life to the pursuit of wisdom and moral philosophy. If we
agree with Socrates that everyone should pursue wisdom, the third premise is appropriate.
 SUMMARY
In the Apology, Socrates defends himself from the charges that have been made against him and, in
so doing, defends philosophy. In pursuing truth — a pursuit that led to the discovery of Socratic
Wisdom — he made enemies of the sophists, who condemned him. He refuted the charge of
"corrupting the youth" with two good arguments but was sentenced to death. However, the sentence
did not upset Socrates, because he knew that he had lived rightly.
 ATTRIBUTIONS
Excerpt from "The Apology" | Author: By Plato, retrieved from Project Gutenberg | License: Public Domain
 TERMS TO KNOW
Deductive Argument
The Apology — Socrates' Arguments
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
This tutorial provides a review of the key points of The Apology, and demonstrates how to extract
arguments from it.
This review and consideration of the arguments in the Apology is provided in two parts:
1. Review of The Apology

2. Extracting Arguments from The Apology
a. Inductive Argument
b. Deductive Argument
c. Deductive Either-Or Argument
1. Review of The Apology

Recall that The Apology is a transcript (recorded by Plato) of Socrates' trial. In it, Socrates presents his
defense. He had been charged with denying the gods and, more seriously, corrupting the youth of Athens.
As Socrates indicates, the real charges against him were unpopularity and making powerful enemies. Since it
was his practice of philosophy that led to the charges, he needed to prove that his search for truth, and his
attempts to lead others to it, were good and worthwhile occupations. He had to prove that he did not corrupt
the youth and to let his accusers know that he did not fear death.
The Apology begins after the prosecution has presented its case. Socrates began his defense by making a
distinction between the “old charges” and the “new charges.” By “new charges,” he meant the official charges:
denying the gods and corrupting the youth of Athens. The “old charges” were, collectively, his reputation.
2. Extracting Arguments from The Apology

In addressing the “new charges,” particularly the charge that he had corrupted the youth of Athens, Socrates
(using his dialectic method), argued with the chief prosecutor, Meletus. In their exchange, Socrates makes two
arguments: one inductive, one deductive.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Inductive
Deductive
An argument in which the inferential claim is of logical certainty
Review the following text and see if you can reconstruct Socrates' arguments before evaluating them.
2a. Inductive Argument
In the first (inductive) argument, Socrates led Meletus to state his claim precisely:
Socrates: Then every Athenian improves and elevates them; all with the exception of myself; and I
alone am their corrupter? Is that what you affirm?
Meletus: That is what I stoutly affirm.
This passage indicates the direction Socrates’ argument would take. Meletus’s assertion was that everyone
else improved the youth; only Socrates corrupted them. Socrates next showed that this assertion was bizarre:
But suppose I ask you a question: How about horses? Does one man do them harm and all the world
good? Is not the exact opposite the truth? One man is able to do them good, or at least not many —
the trainer of horses, that is to say, does them good, and others who have to do with them rather
injure them?...Happy indeed would be the condition of youth if they had one corrupter only, and all
the rest of the world were their improvers. But you, Meletus, have sufficiently shown that you never
had a thought about the young: your carelessness is seen in your not caring about the very things
which you bring against me.
Extraction of premises and a conclusion from the preceding text produces the following:
1. If Meletus is correct, everyone else improves the youth. Only Socrates corrupts them
2. With horses, the opposite situation is in effect (i.e., one person, or very few people, improve them; most
do nothing to improve them)
Combining (1) and (2) yields the following:

3. It is easier to raise a good human than a good horse (a ridiculous conclusion).
The statement that it is much easier to raise a good human than a good horse is clearly false. As a result, we
must reject Meletus’ original assertion.
Socrates' argument is inductive because it is based on cause-and-effect relationships. The conclusion

resulting from Meletus' premise is logically sound. Absurd conclusions are improbable; they should not be
believed unless overwhelming evidence compels us to do so. No youth (or their parents) accused Socrates.
Therefore, there is no evidence to support the absurd conclusion (much less "overwhelming" evidence). We
must reject the premise which led to it.
2b. Deductive Argument
Socrates next made a deductive argument:
Socrates: And when you accuse me of corrupting and deteriorating the youth, do you allege that I
corrupt them intentionally or unintentionally?
Meletus: Intentionally, I say.
Socrates: But you have just admitted that the good do their neighbours good, and the evil do them
evil. Now, is that a truth which your superior wisdom has recognized thus early in life, and am I, at my
age, in such darkness and ignorance as not to know that if a man with whom I have to live is
corrupted by me, I am very likely to be harmed by him; and yet I corrupt him, and intentionally,
too….But either I do not corrupt them, or I corrupt them unintentionally; and on either view of the
case you lie. If my offense is unintentional, the law has no cognizance of unintentional offenses: you
ought to have taken me privately, and warned and admonished me.
Look for Socrates' main point in this passage: Corruption of the youth is either intentional or unintentional.
Socrates must show why either of those options leads to a not guilty verdict.
 TRY IT
See if you can reconstruct the argument, starting with the premise:
Corruption is either intentional or unintentional.
 HINT
There should be two more premises (one related to each option) leading to a conclusion
The argument may be reconstructed as follows:
This leads to a not guilty verdict either way. Note that these three premises deductively entail this conclusion
and Meletus has granted all three of them. This means that he has also granted the conclusion. Unfortunately
for Socrates, the jury did not agree.
The jury was not persuaded by Socrates’ arguments and found him guilty. Meletus asked for a penalty of
death; Socrates did not suggest a viable alternative. As a result, he was sentenced to death.
Before and after his sentence was pronounced, Socrates presented the reasons why he did not fear death.
Most importantly, he had done what he thought was right: he had pursued wisdom and taught others to do so,
and he had lived according to the principles of his moral philosophy.
Socrates stated, “The difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness; for that runs
faster than death.” He indicated that good people do what they know is right, regardless of negative personal
consequences. Even the risk of execution should not influence what good people ought to do.
Socrates maintained that all people are obligated to perform the “godly” pursuit of philosophy, of seeking
wisdom and practicing right living. These activities are peculiar to humans. Without them, we fall short of our
humanity. As Socrates famously stated, “the unexamined life is not worth living.”
2c. Deductive Either-Or Argument
As a final statement indicating his determination to do what he knows is right, Socrates made another
deductive, either-or argument about why we should not fear death.
[T]here is great reason to hope that death is a good; for one of two things — either death is a state of
nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul
from this world to another. Now if you suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the
sleep of him who is undisturbed even by dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain….Now if death
be of such a nature, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night. But if death is the
journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead abide, what good, O my friends and
judges, can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is
delivered from the professors of justice in this world, and finds the true judges who are said to give
judgment there….What would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and
Hesiod and Homer?...Above all, I shall then be able to continue my search into true and false
knowledge….What would not a man give, O judges, to be able to examine the leader of the great
Trojan expedition; or Odysseus or Sisyphus, or numberless others, men and women too! What
infinite delight would there be in conversing with them and asking them questions!
Like his deductive argument as to why he did not corrupt the youth, this argument is presented in an either-or
format.
 TRY IT
Reconstruct Socrates’ argument from the text.
 HINT
Its structure is very similar to the either-or argument that Socrates made to show that was not guilty of
corrupting the youth. Find the either-or statement, and show why neither option should be feared.
The argument can be reconstructed as follows:
In maintaining the third premise, Socrates ignored the possibility of a negative afterlife (e.g., hell). However,
concepts of eternal damnation were not hypothesized until centuries later. Additionally (and more
importantly), Socrates described an afterworld ruled by true judges, who would not fault or punish him for
dedicating his life to pursuing wisdom and moral philosophy. If we believed Socrates when he told us that we
should pursue wisdom, this third premise is appropriate.
 SUMMARY
In the Apology, Socrates defended himself against the charges directed at him and, in so doing,
defended philosophy. While pursuing truth that led to the discovery of Socratic Wisdom, he made
himself unpopular and enabled the sophists to condemn him. Although he refuted the charge of
corrupting the youth with two strong arguments, Socrates was sentenced to death. The sentence did
not upset him, because he knew he had lived rightly.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Excerpt from "The Apology" | Author: By Plato, retrieved from Project Gutenberg | License: Public Domain
 TERMS TO KNOW
Deductive
An argument whose inferential claim is a claim of logical certainty
Inductive
An argument whose inferential claim is a claim less than logical certainty
The Crito: The Duties of the Social Contract
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
The Crito continues Plato's account (begun in the Apology) of Socrates' trial, conviction and eventual
death sentence. It takes place in the prison where Socrates awaited execution. Crito, one of Socrates’
wealthy students, used his influence to provide Socrates with an opportunity to escape. Socrates did
not immediately seize the opportunity.
Remember that, as described in the Apology, Socrates was unwilling to compromise his ideals and
use rhetoric (instead of reason), to present his defense during his trial. His subsequent conviction,
sentence, and imprisonment did not increase his willingness to compromise them. Socrates stated
that he would only escape if it was the right thing to do (i.e., the "right thing" in a moral, rather than
legal, sense).
Crito tried to convince him to leave with arguments based on popular opinion regarding his (Crito's)
efforts (or lack of efforts) to free his friend, and the intrinsic value of human life. Socrates rejects Crito's
arguments, and makes a compelling argument of his own: one that may be the first expression of the
Social Contract in history.
This tutorial examines Socrates' view of the duties of the social contract in three parts:
1. Whose Opinion Counts

2. The Value of Human Life
3. The Social Contract
1. Whose Opinion Counts

In trying to free his friend Socrates, Crito first presented an argumentum ad populum; an appeal to the
majority. He told Socrates that people would think ill of him (i.e., Crito) if he, with all of his influence, allowed
his friend Socrates to die. (Note that Crito's appeal implied that public opinion may have shifted after Socrates
was convicted and condemned to death.) Crito told Socrates that, “the opinion of the many must be
regarded.”
Socrates, as always, begins to formulate his reply by asking the philosophical question: why? Instead of
immediately accepting the majority view, he referred to a concept that he discussed in the Apology: difficult
endeavors require expertise. We shouldn’t listen to the majority in complicated situations; we should listen to
the experts.
 EXAMPLE If you want to know about economics, ask an economist. If you want to know about climate
change, consult a climate scientist.
In this case, the question involved a matter of ethics. To gain the knowledge needed to answer it rightly, an
expert in ethics must be consulted (e.g., a philosopher). Socrates stated,
“In questions of just and unjust, fair and foul, good and evil, which are the subjects of our present consultation,
ought we to follow the opinion of the many and to fear them; or the opinion of the one man who has
understanding?”
 THINK ABOUT IT
Does ethics require expertise? Would cases involving abortion and capital punishment be best resolved by
experts — without the input of people who are not experts? Would this provide better results than Crito’s call
for ethical decisions based on majority vote? As you consider this, remember that Socrates’ position wasn’t
that non-experts can’t say anything about ethical matters, but that their input is opinion, while the contribution
of experts is knowledge. Socrates pointed out that we must always distinguish times when (and situations in
which) we possess knowledge, from those when all we can contribute is our opinion. Would it be better to
begin a debate on abortion with, “I don’t know, so this is only my opinion, but….” than with an emotional,
inflexible statement? This approach might at least reduce the shouting.
2. The Value of Human Life

After failing to convince Socrates to follow the will of the majority, Crito tried a different (and familiar)
approach. He made an appeal based on the intrinsic value of human life: “Nor can I think that you are at all
justified, Socrates, in betraying your own life when you might be saved; in acting thus you are playing into the
hands of your enemies, who are hurrying on your destruction.” He went on to tell Socrates that escaping
would enable him to accomplish much good. He would be able to continue to teach philosophy and instill
ethics in his pupils.
Socrates once again responded in a way that might seem strange to contemporary readers. He asked Crito
the following questions:
“…will life be worth having, if that higher part of man be destroyed, which is improved by justice and depraved
by injustice? Do we suppose that principle, whatever it may be in man, which has to do with justice and
injustice, to be inferior to the body?”
Socrates took a position that was commonly-held in ancient Greece: not all life has value. Only thegood life
has value. As a result, it is absurd to put the value of a life above what is right.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Is all life worth saving? Does all life have intrinsic value? Does something beyond our actions (and potential
actions) add value, or are we only the sum of what we do and might do? Saying that life has intrinsic value has
important repercussions in discussions regarding moral worth (e.g., discussions about capital punishment).
For example, was the state of New York wrong to execute Albert Fish, one of the evilest serial killers of all
time? If human beings have intrinsic worth, what gives them that worth? Your answer to this question will
inform your view on euthanasia and other topics. What is the "right" solution when someone who is suffering,
and can only look forward to more suffering, wants to die? What about a coma patient who will never regain
consciousness? What about someone who severely mentally disabled?
If Socrates was correct in believing that only the good life is worth saving, and escaping from prison was in
opposition to the principles of the good life he'd tried to live, then escaping from prison would make his life
one that was not worth living. This returns us to the original topic: it must first be determined whether escape
is the right thing to do before proceeding.
3. The Social Contract

The last argument Socrates made in the Crito is the most important: He imagines a dialogue between himself
and Athens, personified as the Laws, which ask him the following:
“‘And was that our agreement with you?... What complaint have you to make against us which justifies you in
attempting to destroy us and the state? In the first place did we not bring you into existence? Your father
married your mother by our aid and begat you…. Or against those of us who after birth regulate the nurture
and education of children, in which you also were trained? Were not the laws, which have the charge of
education, right in commanding your father to train you in music and gymnastic?’ Right, I should reply. ‘Well
then, since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny in the first place
that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you?.... Then the laws will say: ‘Consider,
Socrates, if we are speaking truly that in your present attempt you are going to do us an injury. For, having
brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in
every good which we had to give, we further proclaim to any Athenian by the liberty which we allow him, that if
he does not like us when he has become of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our
acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him. None of us laws will forbid him or
interfere with him. Anyone who does not like us and the city, and who wants to emigrate to a colony or to any
other city, may go where he likes, retaining his property. But he who has experience of the manner in which
we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do
as we command him.”
Here we have a first approximation of an extremely important concept in political philosophy and justice
studies, the Social Contract.
 TERM TO KNOW
The Social Contract

An implicit agreement between the citizen and the state in which the citizen agrees to follow the law in
exchange for benefits provided by the state
Based on the Social Contract, Socrates did not believe he should escape. Why?
 TRY IT
Try to construct a Socratic argument, the conclusion of which is that Socrates should not escape, and the
premises of which involve a social contract.
Consider that, of every entity on earth, your government is theonly one that can legitimately (i.e., without
doing anything wrong) take away your rights. It can (and does) claim some of your wealth, and can, in certain
circumstances, limit your freedom and take your life. Few people believe that the government does wrong
when it penalizes criminals and collects taxes, but where does the government's authority come from? A
thousand years ago, someone may have claimed that a god gave a king his authority. Today, the answer is
almost always the Social Contract, which is viewed as the sole basis for legitimate government authority. In
this respect, Socrates' conclusions regarding his relationship to the laws of Athens were over 2,000 years
ahead of their time.
What is the Social Contract? It is an agreement in which one side provides what the other receives. In most
cases, the government gives the citizen internal and external protection (by means of police and armed
forces), education (through public schools and universities), and infrastructure (roads, public utilities, hospitals,
regulations to ensure breathable air and drinkable water, courts, and more). If you consider everything the
government provides, you might conclude that the Social Contract is a very good deal for citizens. The
government asks one thing in return: follow the laws.
As Socrates indicated, in a democracy, the agreement is even better than the description provided in the last
paragraph. Citizens can leave the government's jurisdiction any time they want to do so, taking all of their
property with them. If a law is unjust in the view of one or more citizens, (i.e., if a citizen — or citizens — does
not like the current terms of the social contract, they can attempt to change it through a political process).
However, consider the situation in which Socrates found himself. The state had upheld its obligations. It had
provided him with protection, education, and infrastructure. In addition, Socrates did not leave the jurisdiction,
and did not seek to change the laws (including the laws he was found to have broken). The state upheld its
end of the contract, and Socrates made no effort to get out of, or change, it. As a result, the Social Contract
was still binding. It would not only be illegal for him to escape, but alsoimmoral. Because the contract was still
in effect, Socrates must abide by its terms.
Socrates' argument as to why he should not try to escape can be reconstructed as follows:
A contract is binding when the terms are agreed upon and the other party involved has met Premise
them.
By neither leaving nor seeking to change the laws, Socrates gives consent to the terms of the Premise
Social Contract with Athens.
Athens upheld its terms of the Social Contract. Premise
Therefore, Socrates is still bound to his obligations in the Social Contract with Athens. Conclusion
 THINK ABOUT IT
Should Socrates have left Athens when he had an opportunity to do so? Answer by deciding when a Social
Contract with the state is binding, and when it is not. Does the contract require anything of the government
besides protection, infrastructure, and education? What about rights? A reasonable court of law? Are you
bound to obey a law to which you have strenuously objected and tried to change? What is the role of civil
disobedience and nonviolent protest with respect to the Social Contract?
 SUMMARY
Crito wanted to save Socrates, but could not convince him to save himself at the expense of his moral
beliefs. Crito's argument did not convince Socrates that it would not be wrong to escape. When we
must resolve difficult problems, we rely on experts, not popular opinion. In the Crito, the ethical expert
(i.e., the philosopher, Socrates) concluded that only the good life — not all life — has value. So if it
would be wrong to escape, it would not add value to do so. Socrates provided a compelling concept
to support his position that escape would be wrong: a Social Contract between him and the state.
Socrates demonstrated that the state had upheld its end of the contract. He believed that he must do
his part by obeying its laws.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Excerpt from "The Crito" | Author: By Plato, retrieved from Project Gutenberg | License: Public Domain
 TERMS TO KNOW
The Social Contract

An implicit agreement between the citizen and the state in which the citizen agrees to follow the law in
exchange for all the benefits provided by the state
The Phaedo: The Death of Socrates
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
In the Apology, Socrates is (wrongfully) convicted of denying the gods and corrupting the youth of
Athens, and is sentenced to death. In the Crito, Socrates is provided with a chance to escape his
sentence, but chooses not to do so because it would be wrong.
In the Phaedo, the sentence is carried out. Socrates is executed by imbibing hemlock (i.e., drinking
poison). Before his demise, however, he taught a large group of his students one last time.
In the Phaedo, the conversation is about death, although it takes place in a manner that may seem
backwards. Socrates attempted to console his friends, rather than the other way around. He made a
more nuanced argument than he did in the Apology regarding why we should not fear death, and
defined death as the separation of the soul from the body.
This tutorial investigates the death of Socrates in two parts:
1. A Philosopher Does Not Fear Death

2. On Souls and Bodies
1. A Philosopher Does Not Fear Death

Socrates accepted his death sentence, although he had at least three opportunities to delay it. He considered
the topic of suicide (which was taboo at that time) philosophically. One of his students asked him, “Why do
you say…that a man ought not to take his own life, but that the philosopher will be ready to follow the dying?”.
Socrates responded with a religious answer: Our bodies are not our own. It is up to the gods, not us, to decide
when and how to end our lives. We don’t have a right to take what belongs to them.
This raises an interesting (and perennial) question: why don’t the gods take better care of those who are
under their protection? (Note that, in the Phaedo, the student who asked the question was referring to the
gods' protection of Socrates, but the question can also be asked about all of those who serve the gods, e.g.,
good people.) Since the gods didn’t seem to take good care of good people, why couldn’t Socrates take
better care of himself by avoiding (or at least delaying) his death?
Socrates answered by relying on the rationale he developed in theApology and the Crito: he does what is
right because it is right and because, following his death, he will be judged by the "true" judges, gods who are
wise and good. For this reason, a philosopher not only does not fear death (and is willing to die when it is right
for him to do so), but can even look forward to it.
2. On Souls and Bodies
Why might a philosopher look forward to death? To answer, it is important to recognize what death is.
According to Socrates, death is “the separation of soul and body. And to be dead is the completion of this;
when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is
this but death?”
Socrates challenged his students to consider what a philosopher cares about. He or she is not concerned with
sensory pleasure. Instead, the philosopher “is entirely concerned with the soul and not with the body.” This
establishes that a philosopher doesn’t lose anything by resigning his or her body and entering a state of pure
soul.
But why think that it is an advantage to do so? Why think that a philosopher improves his or her position by
doing so? Socrates answered these questions in the following dialectic with the student:
“What again shall we say of the actual acquirement of knowledge? — is the body, if invited to share in the
enquiry, a hinderer or a helper? I mean to say, have sight and hearing any truth in them? Are they not, as the
poets are always telling us, inaccurate witnesses? and yet, if even they are inaccurate and indistinct, what is to
be said of the other senses? — for you will allow that they are the best of them?
Certainly, he replied.
Then when does the soul attain truth? — for in attempting to consider anything in company with the body she
is obviously deceived.
True.
Then must not true existence be revealed to her in thought, if at all?
Yes.
And thought is best when the mind is gathered into herself and none of these things trouble her — neither
sounds nor sights nor pain nor any pleasure, — when she takes leave of the body, and has as little as possible
to do with it, when she has no bodily sense or desire, but is aspiring after true being?
Certainly.
And in this the philosopher dishonours the body; his soul runs away from his body and desires to be alone and
by herself?
That is true.
Well, but there is another thing, Simmias: Is there or is there not an absolute justice?
Assuredly there is.
And an absolute beauty and absolute good?
Of course.
But did you ever behold any of them with your eyes?
Certainly not.
Or did you ever reach them with any other bodily sense? — and I speak not of these alone, but of absolute
greatness, and health, and strength, and of the essence or true nature of everything. Has the reality of them
ever been perceived by you through the bodily organs? Or rather, is not the nearest approach to the
knowledge of their several natures made by him who so orders his intellectual vision as to have the most
exact conception of the essence of each thing which he considers?
Certainly.
And he attains to the purest knowledge of them who goes to each with the mind alone, not introducing or
intruding in the act of thought sight or any other sense together with reason, but with the very light of the
mind in her own clearness searches into the very truth of each; he who has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes
and ears and, so to speak, of the whole body, these being in his opinion distracting elements which when
they infect the soul hinder her from acquiring truth and knowledge….”
What Socrates alluded to in the preceding excerpt from the Phaedo is of deep and abiding interest to
philosophers: the notion of an essence. An essence is what makes a thing what it is.
 EXAMPLE The essence of humanity is what makes humans human. The essence of justice is what
makes just acts just.
This is what Socrates meant when he mentioned “absolute justice.” This is the philosopher’s genuine interest.
We know when an act is obviously just, and we know when an act is obviously unjust. However, to make true
judgments in difficult cases (i.e., cases in which it is not obvious), we must know justice as it truly is. We must
know the essence of justice independent of any particular act or just person.
In this endeavor, the empirical world may sometimes get in the way. We cannot access humanity in general,
only individual humans. Socrates maintained that, without these individual cases clouding our vision, we might
get a clear view of humanity in its pure form, justice in its absolute form, etc. This is a topic about which
Socrates’ student, Plato, had much to say, as we will see in subsequent tutorials. In death, Socrates believed,
the questions in which he was most interested would be answered. Having gained this insight, he drank the
hemlock with equanimity, and took the next step in his philosophical journey: death.
This painting, titled The Death of Socrates was painted by Jacques-Louis David in 1787. It depicts
Socrates, as he accepts the poison hemlock his sentence for being convicted as guilty for denying the
gods and corrupting the youth of Athens. Rather than trying to escape his fate, he uses it as a final
lesson to his pupils. The medium for the painting was oil on canvas and can be found in the
Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, NY.
 SUMMARY
In the Phaedo, Socrates instructed his pupils regarding death. Although human beings have no right
to end their own lives (because our lives are the property of the gods), the philosopher does not fear
death. He or she is not afraid to do what is right and, therefore, has nothing to fear from the "true"
judges he or she will face in the afterlife. Death is a separation of the soul and body, but the
philosopher’s primary interest is to cultivate the former. Without a body to impede the soul's progress,
we may see things as they truly are.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Excerpt from "The Phaedo" | Author: By Plato, retrieved from Project Gutenberg | License: Public Domain
Image of "The Death of Socrates" | License: Public Domain
Plato: An academic approach to concepts
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Plato was the most famous student of Socrates. Like his mentor, he was interested in clear and
distinct concepts: they were the cornerstone of his approach to philosophy. After a brief introduction
to Plato's philosophy, we will explore the basics of conceptual analysis and its application in one of
Plato’s best-known works.
This tutorial examines Plato's academic approach to concepts in three parts:
1. An Introduction to Plato
2. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
a. Defining Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
b. Determining Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
c. Practice
3. The Euthyphro
1. An Introduction to Plato
Plato, born circa 427 B.C.E., was Socrates’ pupil until Socrates’ was executed in 399 B.C.E. During their time
together, Plato recorded dialogues between Socrates and various Athenians. It is as a result of these written
records that we know the philosophy of Socrates.
After Socrates’ death, Plato wrote his own philosophical works, using the dialogue format that had been
employed by his teacher. To honor Socrates (and to present his ideas in an unbiased way), Plato’s fictional
dialogues involved Socrates, usually as the one pronouncing Plato’s philosophical views. As a result, Plato’s
early dialogues include historical conversations of Socrates. In his mature work, however, Plato used fictitious
Socratic dialogues to develop and defend his philosophy.
Roman copy of a portrait bust of Plato by Silanion for the Academia in Athens (c. 370 BC)
Plato founded a school of philosophy called the Academy.
 DID YOU KNOW
Plato (which means “broad” in ancient Greek) was a nickname. His birth name was Aristocles. Plato founded
the Academy in Athens, which was one of the first institutions of higher learning in the western world.
Although the Academy played a major role in the development of western philosophy, it is important to realize
that much of what Plato wrote was intended to educate his students (i.e., they were philosophical texts to be
read and discussed at the Academy). His books, including the Euthyphro, were teaching tools, used to impart
important lessons.
The Euthyphro enables us to begin to realize the importance of clear and accurate concepts, and how we can
identify them. In the Dialogue, Plato describes how Socrates engaged Euthyphro, an Athenian who charged
his father with murder in a case that was far from black and white. Socrates was interested in what he could
learn from this case regarding the essence of piety, or godliness.
 TERM TO KNOW
Essence
What makes a thing what it is
An essence is a concept of metaphysics, not of language. An essence is more than a definition. For example,
the essence of humanity is what makes a human, human. Whether or not an essence can be captured in
words is irrelevant to the fact that every human must possess the human essence in order to be human. Plato
was interested in essences, and they play an important role in philosophy. However, not every philosopher
agrees that essences exist. Those who believe they do, sometimes disagree on the details. This was true of
Plato and Aristotle, as will be discussed in other tutorials.
Why are essences so important to philosophy? Essences are not definitions because they are unchanging,
even when language changes. That which makes a human a human will always do so. It is irrelevant whether
“human” has been defined in different ways at different times. Essences are the grounds for truth and falsity.
If I ask, “Why are Bob and Sheila humans?” I am seeking an answer that is deeper than a dictionary definition.
Any claim that “Bob and Sheila are humans” is true will involve a human essence in some way. The same is
true if we replace “human” with important philosophical concepts including "justice" and "goodness."
In order to identify and make use of essences, it is essential to use clear, accurate terms. To identify the
essence of justice, we must make accurate claims of the form, x is just or y is unjust. We do not need to know
much about philosophy to know that grading student work based on hair color is unjust, or that assigning
grades based on merit is just. We don't need philosophical analysis in the easy cases. But what about the gray
areas? Is it just to give an oral exam — one that is ordinarily given as a written test — to accommodate one
student's disability? If we can accurately identify the essence of justice, we can eliminate gray areas and
provide the correct answer. Essences are crucial to philosophy because they enable us to clarify gray areas
and discover the truth.
 EXAMPLE Essences can help us to discover the truth in gray areas including the morality of abortion,
capital punishment, and wealth inequality.
2. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

2a. Defining Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
How can we identify essences? Examination of natural categories of how things are in nature is a good way to
begin. For example, what is the relationship between dogs and mammals? This is not a relationship between
words or statements, but between real things. When considering realities, there are two basic ways in which
categories can be related.
The first is a sufficient condition:
 TERM TO KNOW
Sufficient Condition
A is a Sufficient Condition for B, if membership in A logically guarantees membership in B
Note that a sufficient condition is a relation, like saying “taller than.” It always applies to two things, not one.
Since this is so, think of a sufficient condition as a logical guarantee. For example, getting caught stealing is a
guarantee that you were breaking the law. Therefore, getting caught stealing is a sufficient condition for
breaking the law.
What other types of things are logical guarantees? Recall the previous example of dogs and mammals. Being
a dog is a sufficient condition for being a mammal. In general, any subclass is a sufficient condition. Being a
square is a sufficient condition for being a quadrilateral, etc. Other examples involve a special type of
subclass. Being Sacramento is sufficient for being a state capital. Being Socrates is a sufficient condition for
being a philosopher. Being Socrates guarantees membership into the class of philosophers.
The other type of basic relation that may occur in the world is a necessary condition.
 TERM TO KNOW
Necessary Condition
X is a Necessary Condition for Y if membership in X is logically required for membership in Y
Think of a necessary condition as a logical requirement. Completing your coursework is a necessary condition
for receiving your degree. What kinds of things are logical requirements? First, a supertype is a rarely-used
word that means the opposite of a subtype or subclass. Being an animal is a necessary condition for being a
starfish. Another type of necessary condition is the “part of” relation. This can be a physical part (e.g., having a
spine is a necessary condition for being a human), or a conceptual component (e.g., fairness is a necessary
condition for justice).
2b. Determining Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
If this is confusing, there is a simple procedure for determining whether either of these relations exists
between two things:
 STEP BY STEP
Step 1: Set up the question as follows:
(1) is a (blank) condition for (2), where (1) and (2) are the two objects, concepts, etc. that you are relating.
Step 2: Ask two simple questions:
Question 1: "Are all cases of (1) also cases of (2)?”
If you answer yes, then (1) is sufficient for (2).

If you answer no, then (1) is not sufficient for (2).
 HINT
Note that this first question only determines sufficiency. To determine necessity, change the order.
Question 2: “Are all cases of (2) cases of (1)?”
If you answer yes, then (1) is necessary for (2).
If you answer no, then (1) is not necessary for (2).
Step 3: Determine conditions. Note that this produces four possible answers relating any two categories:
(A) Sufficient, not necessary

(B) Necessary, not sufficient
(C) Both necessary and sufficient
(D) Neither necessary nor sufficient
The whole of reality has just become a multiple choice question, because one of these four possible relations
must always exist between any two things.
The following table categorizes the four possibilities based on the answers to the above questions.
Sufficient Condition:
(1) is a (blank) condition for (2). Are all cases of (1) also cases of (2)?
Yes No
Both Sufficient Necessary,

Necessary Condition: Yes
and Necessary not Sufficient
Are all cases of (2)
also cases of (1)? Sufficient, Neither Necessary
No
not Necessary nor Sufficient
2c. Practice
Return to the examples of sufficient conditions above, and see how they all come out as option (A), sufficient,
not necessary.
Next, try all of the previous examples of necessary conditions and see how they come up as option (B),
necessary, not sufficient.
So we have seen some examples of relations that fall into the category of sufficient, not necessary and others
that are necessary, not sufficient. But what about the last two categories?
To answer (D) (i.e., neither necessary nor sufficient ) that there is no logical relation between two entities. For
example, being a pirate is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a ninja. This is an example of no relation
at all. Note that statistical relationships fall into category (D) as well. For instance, being tall is neither
necessary nor sufficient for being a professional basketball player. Why? There are tall people who are not
basketball players, and there are basketball players who are not tall. Being tall is neither a requirement nor a
guarantee for being a basketball player.
The most important category in conceptual analysis is (C) (i.e., both necessary and sufficient). What kind of
things are both necessary and sufficient? Cases of identity fall into this category. Being Socrates is both
necessary and sufficient for being Plato’s mentor. More important, however, are two things of interest to
philosophy: good definitions (linguistic) and essences (metaphysical). Being a bachelor is both necessary and
sufficient for being an unmarried male who has reached the age of consent. Using necessary and sufficient
conditions is a simple way to begin using conceptual analysis.
 TRY IT
Try the following six problems:
Problem Answer Explanation
Being furniture is a Necessary, Being furniture is a necessary, not sufficient condition for being a chair
(blank) condition for not because not all cases of furniture are chairs, but all cases of chairs are
being a chair. sufficient furniture.
Being a good driver is Neither Being a good driver is neither necessary nor sufficient for having a
a (blank) condition for necessary driver’s license. There are good drivers who do not have a driver’s
having a driver’s nor license and there are plenty of people with a driver’s license who are
license. sufficient not good drivers.
Being a regular Both Being a regular quadrilateral is both sufficient and necessary for being a
quadrilateral is a necessary square. This is a case of identity. When you do the test, one is trivially all
(blank) condition for and so you answer yes, yes.
being a square. sufficient
Having a heart is a Necessary, Having a heart is a necessary, not sufficient condition for being a human
(blank) condition for not because not all cases of having a heart are being a human, but all cases
being a human. sufficient of being a human are having a heart.
Eating Thanksgiving Sufficient, Eating Thanksgiving dinner is sufficient, not necessary for being full
dinner is a (blank) not because if you eat Thanksgiving dinner, you will be full. However, you
condition for being necessary just being full doesn't guarantee that you ate Thanksgiving dinner.
full.
Being enrolled in this Sufficient, Being enrolled in this course is sufficient, not necessary for being a
course is a (blank) not student because your enrollment guarantees you are a student, but
condition for being a necessary being a student doesn't necessarily mean you are enrolled in this
student. course.
3. The Euthyphro
Though the terminology used for these categories did not exist during Plato’s time, Plato taught his students
many of these concepts (and a few more) in the Euthyphro. In that dialogue, Socrates asked what is the
essence of piety (i.e., holiness or goodness). He therefore asked Euthyphro for the necessary and sufficient
conditions for piety. In the dialogue, Euthyphro presented six unsatisfactory definitions. Plato’s students
learned the fundamentals of conceptual analysis from Socrates’ rejection of the unsatisfactory answers. We
will examine some of them briefly.
The first definition Euthyphro proposed is that piety is to do what he was doing, that isprosecuting the
wrongdoer.
Socrates quickly pointed out that this was merely an example, or to use our terminology, sufficient, but not
necessary. There are other ways of being pious, so an example, while helpful, does not grasp the essence of
piety. (Imagine that someone asked you what it meant to be human and, in response, you pointed at a
passerby.)
Euthyphro next stated that piety is what is loved by the gods. Socrates replied that this wouldn’t do, because
the gods disagree (which probably makes it neither necessary nor sufficient). What is loved by Aphrodite,
goddess of love, is different from what is loved by Ares, god of war. The important lesson is that, when
dealing with concepts, say what you mean (i.e., say what you are willing and able to defend), nothing more,
nothing less.
 EXAMPLE Consider this claim: “Abortion is wrong.” Does this mean all abortions are wrong? What
about cases of rape? What about cases in which continuing the pregnancy will kill the mother? Surely it
was not intended to include cases in which continuing the pregnancy will kill the mother and the fetus.
Only claim what you are willing to support.
The third definition, therefore, is that piety is what is loved by all of the gods. Things which satisfy these
conditions may exist, (the Greek virtues of courage, wisdom, justice, and moderation, for example), but there
is a problem, which has come to be known as the Euthyphro Dilemma: Is a thing pious because the gods love
it, or do the gods love it because it is pious? The former makes piety arbitrary and uninteresting. The latter
means we must look beyond the gods to isolate the concept.
This is what Euthyphro tries to accomplish in presenting his fourth definition: piety is part of justice, and all that
is pious is just. Once more, however, the “part of” relation is incomplete (recall that “part of” is necessary, not
sufficient). In this instance, Euthyphro tried to define a tricky concept by introducing a trickier concept, which is
unhelpful.
Euthyphro moved on to another religious definition of piety: piety is doing what is required by the gods or care
of the gods. This is vague. Care how? We have not adequately defined the concept.
Euthyphro clarifies this in his sixth (and final) definition: piety isservice to the gods. This is also vague. Even
worse, we can remove the vagueness. We serve the gods by doing what they wish, but this is the same as
saying "doing what pleases them." Euthyphro has simply restated his third definition.
The results of the dialogue were not all failures, however; Socrates provided a positive notion of what the
essence of piety may be (i.e., the virtue of living in a way that fulfills one’s duties to humanity, and to the gods).
What is important to realize is how to approach precise philosophical concepts, while avoiding standard
pitfalls, and why precision matters.
 SUMMARY
Philosophy is a pursuit of truth, but this means we need to identify the truth-makers of categories —
essences. A good way to do this is to learn necessary and sufficient conditions: logical guarantees
and requirements that relate categories of being. In Plato’s Euthyphro, he taught his students in this
way, using the concept of piety. By doing so he emphasized the importance of precise concepts.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Bust of Plato | License: Public Domain
 TERMS TO KNOW
Essence
Necessary Condition
"X" is a Necessary Condition for "Y" if membership in "X" is logically required for membership in "Y."
Sufficient Condition
"A" is a Sufficient Condition for "B" if membership in "A" logically guarantees membership in "B."
Plato's Forms: The Objects of Knowledge
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Plato was interested in concepts — not just the terminology used to refer to them, but metaphysically.
He wanted to know how they exist in reality, their essences. Plato’s notion of essences was
connected to his epistemology, and is how knowledge becomes possible. Before discussing the
connection between essences and knowledge, we need to examine knowledge.
This tutorial considers forms, the objects of knowledge, in two parts:
1. The Platonic Conception of Knowledge

2. Plato’s Forms as the Grounds of Knowledge
1. The Platonic Conception of Knowledge

In a dialogue called the Theaetetus, Plato provided perhaps the first, and certainly the most influential,
account of knowledge in western philosophy. In it, he asserted that knowledge consists of three components.
What kind of thing is knowledge? To answer, let's consider an example. We know that the Titanic was over
100 feet long. However, this knowledge is something that exists in our minds, not in the world. It must be true,
because we know that the Titanic was over 100 feet long, but not everyone knows this. There are people who
don’t know what the Titanic was. There are many people who don’t know the English measuring system, and
don’t know what 100 feet is. However, since the Titanic was over 100 feet long independent of whether a
person or persons know it or not, then knowledge must be distinct from the object itself. Knowledge is in our
minds as a posture we hold toward the statement, “The Titanic was over 100 feet long.” Knowledge is a type
of belief. This was Plato’s first component of knowledge (“belief” is the term used now, but Socrates and Plato
sometimes used “opinion” instead).
However, people have believed lots of things. 1,000 years ago, people believed that the sun revolved around
the earth. Before that, some believed that the earth was flat. Children believe that Santa Claus exists.
Believers, however, don’t know these things. They can’t know them. They may think that they know them, but
they are wrong in thinking so. You cannot know that which is false. Therefore, Plato’s second component of
knowledge is truth. Knowledge must be a true belief (or true opinion).
However, this definition of knowledge is still insufficient. For example, suppose you are at a party chatting with
a stranger who makes a request. He puts his hands behind his back and asks you to guess (i.e., to form a
belief about) how many fingers he is holding up. Arbitrarily, you guess two. He takes his hand from behind his
back and shows you that he is holding up two fingers. In this case, you had a true belief, but you didn’t know
that he was holding up two fingers. Therefore, having a true belief falls short of knowledge. Something is
missing.
 BRAINSTORM
Think about the situation just described. Can you imagine a few alterations in the scenario that would enable
you to say that you knew how many fingers he was holding up behind his back?
There are many things we can imagine that might provide us with knowledge. Imagine if the stranger had
been standing by a bar, above which hung a large mirror, enabling you to view a reflection of his hand behind
his back. Or imagine that you have seen him ask the same question of everyone else at the party and noticed
that he always holds up two fingers. Or perhaps your friend is standing behind him and signals you that he is
holding up two. What do all of these possibilities have in common? They all provide good reasons to believe
that he is holding up two fingers.
 BRAINSTORM
Think about the situation just described. Can you imagine reasons that you might guess two, that are bad
reasons?
Imagine that you threw a dart at a dartboard and it stuck in the "two" area of the board. You used the dart's
landing location as your answer to the stranger when he asked how many fingers he was holding up. This is a
reason to answer "two," but is it a good reason? No, it is not. Does the fact that the dart landed on two enable
you to claim that you knew he was holding up two fingers? No.
Note what these two examples teach us. When we have good reasons for our true belief, we say we know it.
When we have bad reasons, we don’t (we can't) say we know it, even if it happens to be true.
Plato’s third component of knowledge is called justification. This term indicates situations in which we have
good reasons for our belief. (Note that, when talking about knowledge, justification always applies to beliefs,
not actions.) What makes a reason “good” is one of the main focuses of the field of epistemology.
 TERM TO KNOW
Epistemology
The branch of philosophy that analyzes and defends concepts of knowledge, and the methodologies by
which it is attained
Plato's Components of Knowledge

Knowledge is a type of belief
Knowledge must be a true belief
Knowledge is a justified true belief
 BIG IDEA
Plato defined knowledge as justified true belief. This definition (at least as an approximation) is still used and
defended 2,400 years later.
2. Plato’s Forms as the Grounds of Knowledge
How can we justify a belief? Consider the justifications included in the examples above: seeing the mirror,
being signaled by a friend, watching for patterns, etc. In broad terms, what they all have in common is that
they are grounded in the world. Justification is tied to seeing the world as it is, properly relating a belief to the
world as it exists. When you properly connect a belief to the world as it is, that belief is justified.
Therefore, in order to justify a belief, one must access the world as it really is. For Plato, this meant knowing
the essence of things. In order to say, “I know Jen is a human,” the speaker must know what a human truly is
(i.e., what makes a human, human: its essence). This is true of essences generally, but Plato developed a
nuanced and influential view of essences. It is called Plato's doctrine of the Forms or Ideas, or the Platonic
Forms (initial capitalization is used when referring to this concept).
In Plato's view, essences are real entities. A real thing that is the essence of goodness, called the Form of
Goodness, exists. The same is true of Justice, Humanity, and other important essences. These essences exist
not in the world, but in an intellectual realm sometimes called Platonic Heaven (because it is analogous to the
Christian heaven in many ways, including its lack of a physical location). Everything that is good is good
because it is related to this essence, the Form of Goodness.
It may seem strange to think that there is a Form of Goodness that is everywhere/nowhere in Platonic Heaven.
But let’s consider something more familiar. Do you believe in the law of gravity? If so, where is it?
Everywhere? Nowhere? Platonic Heaven? All we know is that, when something is dropped, we expect it to fall.
It always has, always does, always will.
Belief in the law of gravity is a standard, everyday belief. But if you replace “law of gravity” with “Form of
Justice,” you may begin to realize that, just as there is something that makes dropped objects fall, there is
something that makes a just act just. This "something" is the Platonic Form.
If there are such entities, they will play an important role in our theory of knowledge. Return to the law of
gravity analogy. If we can accurately describe the law of gravity, then we can also know the way an object
behaves when it is dropped. If we know the law of gravity, then our belief about what will happen when an
object is dropped is justified. Similarly, if we can describe the Form of Justice accurately, then we can be
justified in beliefs that particular acts, policies, or governments are just or unjust. If we know the Form of
Humanity, then we can be justified in believing that someone is or is not human (and what makes a good
human.)
Since Platonic Forms are the metaphysical grounding of reality, knowledge of reality is grounded in
knowledge of the Forms. The Forms are the entities through which all knowledge comes. If we can access
them and know their true nature, then we are justified in any beliefs to which they apply.
 SUMMARY
Plato’s epistemology was, and continues to be, significant and influential. He identified the crucial
components of knowledge: to have knowledge is to have a justified true belief. However, justification
involves properly relating a belief to the world. For Plato, this meant relating it to his metaphysical
notion of essences, the Forms. To have an accurate grasp of one of these metaphysically-real
essences is to be able to justify beliefs to which it applies.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Image of Plato | License: Public Domain
 TERMS TO KNOW
Epistemology
attain it
Plato Forms: The Foundations of Being
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Central to all of Plato’s philosophy is his Doctrine of the Forms (or, sometimes, Ideas — note the
capital letters). Forms are the basis of both his metaphysics and his epistemology: they are the
grounds for all truth. If I say that “Bruiser is a dog” is true, it is because there are truths about what
makes a dog a dog. This tutorial begins by providing an overview of Plato’s theory, before we
consider why we should believe that there are such truths, the roles they fulfill, and how they interact
with the world.
The tutorial examines forms as the foundations of being in Plato's philosophy, in three parts:
1. A Beginning Approximation
2. Forms as the Grounds for Reality
3. Participation and Particulars
1. A Beginning Approximation
Plato’s Doctrine of the Forms is central to his epistemology and metaphysics, because they ground both
knowledge and being. Recall that Plato considers essences as real entities. A real thing that is the essence of
goodness, and is called the Form of Goodness, exists. The same is true of justice, humanity, and other
important essences. These things exist in an intellectual realm sometimes referred to as Platonic Heaven
(because it is analogous in many ways to the Christian heaven — e.g., it has no physical location.) Everything
that is good is good because it has some relation to the Form of Goodness.
 TERM TO KNOW
Metaphysics
It may seem strange to think that there is a Form of Goodness that is everywhere/nowhere in Platonic Heaven.
But let’s consider something more familiar. Do you believe in the law of gravity? If so, where is it?
Everywhere? Nowhere? Platonic Heaven? All we know is that, when something is dropped, we expect it to fall.
It always has, always does, always will.
Belief in the law of gravity is a standard, everyday belief. But if you replace “law of gravity” with “Form of
Justice,” you may begin to realize that, just as there is something that makes dropped objects fall, there is
something that makes a just act just. This "something" is the Platonic Form.
Perhaps an even clearer example is provided by numbers and mathematical entities.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Have you ever considered what is a number? It isn't a physical thing, but we know it exists in some way. But
where and how does it exist?
What makes the truths of mathematics true? Considering all of the things that have been accomplished with
applied mathematics, it would be strange to claim that “the fact that two plus two is four is true because
concepts such as ‘two’ and ‘four’ are human inventions. They are completely dependent on the human mind,
human language and how we have chosen to designate things.”
Instead, most of us believe that the laws of mathematics were true even before humans existed, that the
number two is a genuine entity of some sort that has an independent reality, perhaps as a Platonic Form.
(Note that many mathematicians identify themselves as Platonists with respect to numbers, and make this
claim about numbers.) It can be helpful to consider mathematics in this way when attempting to understand
Forms and Platonic Heaven. Plato developed a theory of mathematical Forms later in his life.

Why believe that there entities? Plato proposed that they must exist in order for knowledge to be possible. In
the Cratylus, he argued as follows:
“Nor can we reasonably say, Cratylus, that there is knowledge at all, if everything is in a state of transition and
there is nothing abiding; for knowledge too cannot continue to be knowledge unless continuing always to
abide and exist. But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will
be no knowledge; and if the transition is always going on, there will always be no knowledge, and, according
to this view, there will be no one to know and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is
known exists ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I do not think that
they can resemble a process or flux….”
Plato agreed with Heraclitus that the world we encounter through our senses is in flux (in fact, Plato cited
Heraclitus when he made this point in the dialogue). However, if this applies to everything, then knowledge is
not possible. If every human is always changing, and humanity itself is changing, how can claims that “Bob is
human,” or “Bruiser is not human” be true?
Since we can attain knowledge, it must be true that not everything is in flux. However, since the world of the
senses is in flux as Heraclitus described, it follows that what is not in flux cannot be of this world, but must
belong to a metaphysical world, a world behind the world, a Platonic Heaven of essences. Plato accepted
Heraclitian Flux, but only in the world of the senses. Platonic Heaven, like the world posited by Parmenides, is
eternal and unchanging.
If we were to construct an argument about this, it would be as follows:
The world of experience is in flux. Premise/Factual Claim
If everything were in flux, knowledge wouldn't be possible. Premise/Factual Claim
Knowledge is possible. Premise/Factual Claim
Therefore, something outside our experience is not in flux. Conclusion
As we’ve discussed so far, Forms are essences that exist as individual entities in an intellectual realm. But
what are Forms like? What kind of things are they? Think of them as perfect objects — as paradigms or ideals.
The analogous relationship between mathematical objects and Forms can help us to understand what Forms
are like. Consider a circle. In all of the world, is there a perfect circle? The answer is “no.” If we examined the
most precisely-drawn circles with a sufficiently-powerful microscope, we would find that their curves are not
perfectly smooth. Also, we know that space itself curves slightly so, therefore, no Euclidian shape exists in the
world (i.e., the world of the senses). There are no perfect circles in the world. However, there is perfection in
Platonic Heaven. The Form of Circle is perfectly circular, and serves as the exemplar for all worldly circles.

What then, is the relation between the Form of Circle and worldly, imperfect circles? Plato’s answer is
“participation.” Worldly circles participate in the Form of Circle just as humans participate in the Form of
Human. But what does participation mean?
As indicated above, participation is grounding in truth. “Bob is human” is true, because Bob participates in the
Form of Human. In this way, Plato’s Forms are similar to other philosophical accounts of essences. Plato,
however, went beyond those accounts of essences by assigning a cause-and-effect relationship. For
example, the Form of Human is the cause of Bob, as a human. Bob only exists as a human because of the
Platonic Form. This relation is also one of imitation. The worldly human imitates the ideal Form of Human.
Key aspects of participation Example

include...
...a grounding of truth “Bob is human” is true because Bob participates in the Form of
Human.
...a cause-and-effect relationship The Form of Human is the cause of Bob, as a human.
...an exemplar The worldly human imitates the more genuine, more real Form of
Human.
These are complex concepts. As a result, they have been involved in many interpretive challenges and
scholarly disputes. For example, Plato insisted that there are mathematical Forms, ethical Forms (e.g., the
Forms of Justice and Goodness), and logical and metaphysical Forms (e.g., the Form of Being; the Form of
Equality). However, some of Plato’s works seem to establish a Form any time there is a universal (e.g., a Form
of Wheel or Taco), which has some undesirable consequences. There are also logical problems (e.g., Forms
participating in other Forms).
This does not mean that Plato’s system is indefensible or broken. However, It is not possible to consider all of
the details involved in this issue in this introductory course. We must be satisfied with acquiring an
understanding of the general concepts.
 SUMMARY
Plato’s Doctrine of the Forms is central to his epistemology and metaphysics, since Forms ground
both knowledge and being. Forms exist in an intellectual realm that, unlike the world of the senses, is
eternal and unchanging. There, they serve as both the cause and exemplar of the worldly entities that
participate in the Forms.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Excerpt from "The Cratylus" | Author: By Plato, retrieved from Project Gutenberg | License: Public Domain
 TERMS TO KNOW
Metaphysics
The branch of philosophy that seeks to uncover and describe the ultimate nature of reality.
Applying Plato's Metaphysics
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this tutorial, we’ll review both the central epistemological and metaphysical tenets of Plato’s
doctrine of the Forms, and consider these ideas in context.
This tutorial examines the application of Plato's Metaphysics in four parts:
1. Review of Plato’s Doctrine of the Forms

2. Forms as the Grounds of Knowledge
1. Review of Plato’s Doctrine of the Forms

Central to all of Plato’s philosophy is his Doctrine of the Forms (or Ideas — note the use of capitalization).
Forms are the basis of his metaphysics and epistemology, because they are the grounds for all truth. Recall
that Plato was interested in concepts, not only as terminology, but metaphysically. He wanted to understand
how they exist in reality, their essences.
Plato’s notion of essences is connected to his epistemology, and is the way in which knowledge becomes
possible. Recall that, in Plato's philosophy, knowledge is justified true belief. This definition (or an
approximation of it) is still used and defended 2,400 years later.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Metaphysics
Epistemology
The branch of philosophy that analyzes and defends concepts of knowledge, and the methodologies by
which it is attained
2. Forms as the Grounds of Knowledge

How can we justify a belief? Recall the examples provided in the previous tutorial, which involved guessing
the number of fingers held up behind someone's back: seeing the fingers reflected in a mirror, being signaled
by a friend, observing patterns, etc. What all had in common was that they were somehow grounded in the
world. Justification is tied to seeing the world as it is, to properly relating a belief to the world as it exists.
When you properly connect a belief to the world as it is, your belief is justified.
Therefore, in order to justify a belief, one must access the world as it really is. For Plato, this meant that he
must know the essence of things. If someone says, “I know that Jen is a human,” that person must know what
a human is, what makes a human a human: its essence. This is generally true of essences, but Plato held a
nuanced (and influential) view of essences, his doctrine of the Forms or Ideas (i.e., the Platonic Forms — note
how capitalization is used when referring to Plato’s concepts).
In Plato's philosophy, essences are real entities. A real thing exists that is the essence of goodness: it called
the Form of Goodness. The same is true of Justice, Humanity, and other important essences. The essences of
these things do not exist in the world, but in an intellectual realm sometimes called Platonic Heaven (because
it is, in some ways analogous to the Christian heaven — e.g., it has no physical location). Everything that is
good is good because it has some relation to this essence, the Form of Goodness.
It may seem strange that there is a Form of Goodness that is everywhere/nowhere in Platonic Heaven. Let's
consider an example that involves something more familiar. Do you believe in the law of gravity? If so, where
is it? Everywhere? Nowhere? Platonic Heaven? All we know is that, when an object is dropped, it falls. If you
replace “law of gravity” with “Form of Goodness,” Plato's concept may begin to seem less strange to you. Just
as there is something that makes objects fall when we remove support from them (e.g., when we drop them),
there is something that makes a good act good. This is the Platonic Form.
If there are such entities as Forms, they must play an important role in our theory of knowledge. Let's return to
the law-of-gravity analogy. If we can accurately describe the law of gravity, then we can also know the way an
object behaves when it is dropped. If we know the law of gravity, then we are justified in our belief about what
will happen when an object is dropped. Similarly, if we can describe the Form of Justice accurately, we can be
justified believing that a particular act, policy, or government is just or unjust. If we know the Form of
Humanity, then we can be justified in a belief as to whether someone is or is not a human being (and what
makes a good human being.)
Since Platonic Forms are the metaphysical grounding of reality, knowledge of reality is grounded in
knowledge of the Forms. They are the entities through which all knowledge comes. If we can access them
and know their true nature, then we are justified in any belief to which they apply.

Recall that it can be helpful to consider mathematical entities and the realm of mathematics when attempting
to understand Forms and Platonic Heaven. Plato himself developed a theory of mathematical Forms later in
his life.
Why should we believe that there are such entities as Forms? Plato maintained that Forms must exist in order
for knowledge to be possible. In an important way, Plato agrees with Heraclitus that the world we encounter
through our senses is constantly in flux. However, if this applied to everything, then knowledge would not be
possible. If every human being is always changing, and humanity itself is changing, then how can claims that
“Bob is human,” or “Bruiser is not human” be true?
Since we can have knowledge, not everything is in constant flux. Since the world of the senses is in flux (as
Heraclitus indicated), what is not in flux cannot be of this world: it must belong, instead, to a metaphysical
world, a world behind this world, a Platonic Heaven of essences. Plato adopted Heraclitan Flux, but only with
respect to the world of the senses. Platonic Heaven, like the world posited by Parmenides, is eternal and
unchanging.
As we’ve discussed, Forms are essences that exist as individual entities in an intellectual realm. But what are
Forms like? What kind of things are they? Think of them as perfect objects: as ideals, or paradigms. For
example, consider a circle. In all of the world, is there a perfect circle? The answer is no. Examination of the
most-accurately drawn circles with a sufficiently-powerful microscope will reveal that their curves are not
perfectly smooth. Furthermore, we know that space itself curves slightly. As a result, no flawless Euclidian
shape exists in the world. In the world, there are no perfect circles. But perfection exists in Platonic Heaven.
The Form of Circle — the essence of Circle — is perfectly circular, serving as an exemplar for circles in the
world of the senses.

What is the relationship between the Form of Circle and worldly, imperfect circles? Plato’s answer was
“participation.” Worldly circles participate in the Form of Circle, just as humans participate in the Form of
Human. But what is participation? As indicated above, it is a grounding of truth. “Bob is human” is true,
because Bob participates in the Form of Human. In this way, Plato’s Forms are similar to other philosophical
accounts of essences. Plato, however, went further by assigning a cause-and-effect relationship. According to
Plato, the Form of Human is the cause of Bob, as a human. Bob only exists as a human because of the Platonic
Form. This relationship also involves imitation. The human in the world of the senses imitates the real Form of
Human.
Key Aspects of Participation Example

include...
...a grounding of truth “Bob is human” is true because Bob participates in the Form of
Human.
...a cause and effect relationship The Form of Human is the cause of Bob, as a human.
...an exemplar The worldly human imitates the real Form of Human.
These are complex concepts and, therefore, there have been (and continue to be) interpretive challenges and
scholarly disputes. For example, Plato maintained that there are mathematical Forms, ethical Forms (e.g., the
Forms of Justice and Goodness), and logical and metaphysical Forms (e.g., the Form of Being and the Form of
Equality). However, some of Plato’s works seem to indicate a Form any time there is a universal (e.g., a Form
of Wheel or Taco). This can have undesirable consequences. Some logic issues are also involved, such as
Forms participating in other Forms. This does not mean that Plato’s system is indefensible. It is not possible
for us to consider all of the details of these disputes in this introductory course. We must be satisfied with
acquiring a general understanding of these concepts.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Think about the main metaphysical and epistemological tenets of Plato’s doctrine of the Forms. How can we
apply them to real-world examples? According to Plato, what makes it true that a tree is a tree? Or that
knowledge is possible? According to Plato, what makes you a human being, and not something else? How
does being able to answer these questions advance personal knowledge, and knowledge within the
sciences?
 SUMMARY
Plato’s Doctrine of the Forms is central to his epistemology and metaphysics, since they ground both
knowledge and being. Forms exist in an intellectual realm that, unlike the world of the senses, is
eternal and unchanging. There, they serve as both the cause and exemplars of worldly entities that
participate in the Forms.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Epistemology
attain it
Metaphysics
The Footnotes to Plato
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Alfred North Whitehead stated that the whole of European philosophical tradition “consists of a series
of footnotes to Plato.” To explain what he meant, Whitehead said, “I allude to the wealth of general
ideas scattered through them. His personal endowments, his wide opportunities for experience at a
great period of civilization, his inheritance of an intellectual tradition not yet stiffened by excessive
systematization, have made his writing an inexhaustible mine of suggestion.”
Plato’s philosophy is a mine from which other philosophers, thinkers, religions, and cultures have
extracted riches over the centuries. In this lecture, we will consider some of Plato’s legacies in
philosophy, mathematics, and how human endeavors ought to be pursued. This selection of topics is
not comprehensive, but is sufficient to convey the extent of his influence.
This tutorial considers the scope of Plato's intellectual legacy in three parts:
1. Philosophical Legacy
2. Platonism in Mathematics
3. Pursuing Truth Over Appearance
1. Philosophical Legacy
Plato left an indelible mark on philosophy. His Doctrine of the Forms was a landmark that connected
epistemology to the way things are, including essences. He was also (perhaps) the first to provide a
comprehensive, interconnected and coherent metaphysics, cosmogony, and ontology (i.e., the branch of
metaphysics that examines the nature of being). His historical legacy includes the foundation of the Academy
and his instruction of Aristotle. When studying Plato, we don’t only consider his work in terms of its depth, or
historical accuracy (a practice 20th century philosopher Gilbert Ryle disparagingly called “tombstone
polishing”). Instead, we rely on Plato when we attempt to understand the metaphysical realities of the world.
Methodologically, Plato taught the importance of conceptual analysis and how to conduct it. His metaphysical
accounts are also influential. Every philosopher who develops a notion of essences must begin with Plato.
Every epistemologist starts with Plato’s account of knowledge. Many theologians have adopted his account of
the Forms entirely, or have accepted aspects of his intellectual realm and intellectual objects. Some
theologians have gone so far as to define God as the personified Form of the Good.
Plato influenced (and continues to influence) many other areas of philosophy, too many to list here.
Whitehead did not overstate his case. Much of philosophy, and theology, implicitly or explicitly begins with
Plato. However, his philosophy has also impacted other disciplines.
2. Platonism in Mathematics
Recall that Plato’s Doctrine of the Forms is highly compatible with mathematical idealization. This applies to
geometry (Platonic Forms as the basis of geometric shapes) and arithmetic (numerals as Platonic Forms).
In higher mathematics, some have posited the existence of sets as Platonic objects. Positing Platonic objects
enables mathematicians to solve otherwise-unsolvable problems. For example, a Platonist account enables
the solution of a number of problems including why mathematical approximations seem to obtain in reality;
and why it seems like mathematical truths are discovered, not created (and that those discoveries seem to be
independent of the physical sciences — mathematical entities seem to be abstract, but also seem to exist).
Mathematical Platonism is so useful that even mathematicians who do not want to commit to Platonist
metaphysics sometimes take a position called “working realism.” This means that they perform their work in
theoretical mathematics as if Platonism is true. This methodology is helpful in many ways, including its
implication that all mathematical problems are solvable.
 DID YOU KNOW
A famous mathematical Platonist, Kurt Gödel, made such claims much more difficult by proving that
mathematical systems display a certain type of incompleteness.
3. Pursuing Truth Over Appearance

In a dialogue called the Gorgias, Plato asked (and attempted to answer) an interesting question: what is a
genuine techne, or “craft”?
 DID YOU KNOW
The term, “technology” comes from the Greek words techne and logos.
The question was important to Plato because it involves the distinction between philosophy and rhetoric. He
viewed the former as genuine craft, and the latter as a pseudocraft.
Plato argued that philosophy is a genuine craft because its subject matter is a Form or Forms, specifically, the
Forms of Wisdom and Truth. Rhetoric, which superficially resembles philosophy in its emphasis on
argumentation, fails to have a Form as its subject matter. As we have seen, rhetoric is concerned with
appearances. (Plato didn’t have a high regard for simply “winning debates,” so he relegated rhetoric to the
realm of appearances.)
Plato provided other pairs of activities in which the first is a genuinetechne or craft, and the second is a
pseudocraft. One of the genuine crafts is medicine, which takes as its subject the Form of Health. The
corresponding pseudocraft (which only looks like medicine) is called “cookery” — what we would call "quack
remedies." These remedies might create an appearance of health without really producing that state. Plato
also paired gymnastic or exercise, which aims to produce bodily Health, with a pseudocraft called
“beautification” or makeup. Makeup, like cookery, might create an appearance of physical health, but nothing
more. Consider people who visit a gym to build up their arms, but never another part of their bodies, or those
who inject substances to enhance muscle appearance (e.g., Synthol).
 THINK ABOUT IT
Try to think of some more pairs of crafts which seek to attain truth and corresponding psuedocrafts that focus
on appearances. Consider diets formulated by a dietician vs. fad diets; genuine relationship compatibility vs.
ineffective computer matching; using proper grammar vs. common slang expressions, etc. What all of these
pairs have in common is that the pseudocraft is focused on achieving what is appealing/marketable. This
describes the activity in which the sophists were involved in Socrates’ time: it was focused on appearances,
not truth.
These examples of genuine crafts have been presented to emphasize that philosophy, in light of its regard for
wisdom and truth, is a model activity for a human being, nourishment for the soul and the rational side of our
nature. Any craft should, as a proper human activity, involve the pursuit of truth.
 SUMMARY
Humanity’s debt to Plato’s philosophy cannot be overstated. Those who become involved in
metaphysics and epistemology in the course of studying philosophy and theology, are deeply
engaged with Plato's work — implicitly or explicitly. A Platonic conception of mathematical objects
has been of great value in theoretical mathematics. Plato’s account of techne helps us to distinguish
(and value) genuine human endeavor from mere marketing ploys.
Aristotle: The Dissection of Reality
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Plato’s student, Aristotle, was one of the most influential thinkers of all time. We say “thinker” rather
than “philosopher” because his influence stretches far beyond philosophy. His groundbreaking work
in astronomy, biology, physics, and formal logic had a greater impact on science than that of any
other individual in history. In this tutorial, we investigate Aristotle's work, focusing on the differences
and similarities between his philosophical approach and Plato's.
This tutorial examines Aristotle's approach to, and interpretation of, reality in two parts:
1. Aristotle’s Scientific Approach

2. The Mathematician and the Biologist
1. Aristotle’s Scientific Approach

When attempting to gain an overview of Aristotle's work, it is helpful to think of him as, first and foremost, a
biologist. Though not all of Aristotle’s writings have been preserved, he wrote twice as much on biology as he
did on philosophy (and he wrote a lot on philosophy). That is not to say that all of his philosophical questions
have been answered in terms of biology, but it does help us to understand his perspective.
Aristotle took a “hands on” approach to the search for knowledge.
 DID YOU KNOW
As far as we know, Aristotle was the first scientist to dissect animals. Also, he identified approximately 500
species of fish, mammals, and birds using binomial nomenclature, a method that is still used by biologists
today.
In philosophy, Aristotle began his investigations with specific knowns (i.e., examples found in the world). When
Aristotle wanted to understand goodness he began by researching past approaches to ethics (i.e., accounts of
goodness) to determine whether they were satisfactory, before developing a system of his own.
Aristotle can be credited with the invention of academic research. The school he founded, the Lyceum,
became a repository of knowledge. When his research led him to conclude that existing accounts were
unsatisfactory, he developed an account of his own. When he did so, Aristotle used a known (i.e., something
he knew could be, or was, true), as the starting point for his inquiry. If we want to know about the human
essence, Aristotle's research method directs us to begin with individual humans rather than an abstract Form
of Humanity. Aristotle held that starting with the known world (i.e., the one we encounter through our senses)
rather than an abstract realm of metaphysics, was the best way to begin a philosophical inquiry.
2. The Mathematician and the Biologist
When attempting to gain an understanding of Aristotle's approach and accomplishments, it may be helpful to
consider two later epistemological viewpoints: empiricism and rationalism. These two perspectives are
distinguished by their identification of the source of knowledge.
 TERM TO KNOW
Empiricism
The epistemological view based on the claim that all knowledge is grounded in experience
Note the “grounded” qualification included in this definition. Empiricists do not claim that everything one can
conceive of must have been experienced by that person. For example, a person does not have to have seen
a golden mountain in order to refer to, or think about, one. He or she only needs ideas of "gold" and
"mountain" to combine. Empiricism maintains that all of our building blocks come from experience, and that
those building blocks can be combined into ideas we have not experienced. This epistemological viewpoint is
contrasted with rationalism:
 TERM TO KNOW
Rationalism
The epistemological view based on the claim that humans can access certain conceptual truths independent
of experience
It is important to understand that rationalism is not the opposite of empiricism. Empiricism maintains that
knowledge only comes from the senses. That does not mean, however, that rationalism denies that the
senses are a source of knowledge. Instead, rationalism denies that knowledge only comes from the senses.
Empiricism claims that there is one source of knowledge. Rationalism asserts that there are two.
Empiricism and rationalism are in agreement on most issues. Rationalists grant all of the empirical truths of the
sciences learned through experience, all knowledge of the senses, etc. The area of disagreement is mostly
involved with concepts — but not all concepts. For example, empiricism and rationalism both grant that human
minds have the power of abstraction. Humans can conceive and discuss a concept of horse derived from
individual horses. What kind of concept, then, does the rationalist propose as knowable, independent of
experience? The primary area of digression involves large metaphysical concepts about causation. Many
rationalists hold that claims like “nothing comes into existence un-caused” are conceptual truths that must be
true independent of experience. However, empiricists maintain that this is something that is known only
through experience.
The following example provides only a rough overview of these distinctions, but if we think of epistemology
as a scale, with pure empiricism at one end and pure rationalism at the other, we can place Aristotle very
close to the empiricism end of the scale, and Plato close to the rationalist end.
Aristotle’s scientific approach is primarily empirical. He maintained that we learn about humanity by
abstracting from particular humans. This is what we would expect from a biologist. Plato, however, frequently
appealed to a realm of pure intellect, known as Platonic Heaven, where the Forms reside. Recall that the
Forms are analogous to mathematical objects or entities. Plato, in some of his writings, implied that we may
learn about the Forms in between lives and later recollect them, or access them through pure philosophical
reasoning. Either of these methods, as a result of the topics involved, are unsatisfactory to empiricists.
Empiricists don’t object to mathematical entities, but do not accept mathematical entities that interact causally
with the world.
Raphael di Santi captured the contrast of approaches between Plato and Aristotle in his painting,The School
of Athens.
Raphael's The School of Athens, painted between 1509 and 1511. The fresco painting resides in the
Apostolic Palace, Vatican City. It is a remarkable size, measuring approximately 16.5 feet across and 25
feet tall!
The painting depicts a number of Greek philosophers, each of them engaged in an activity related to their
philosophy and/or life. Take a look at the two figures in the middle of the painting.
Close-up view of Plato and Aristotle in Raphael’s The School of Athens"
 THINK ABOUT IT
Study the image above and consider the differences in approaches between Plato and Aristotle. Which of the
figures do you think is Plato, and which one is Aristotle? Why? In what ways has Raphael depicted the
differences between the approaches of Plato and Aristotle?
On the left is Plato, pointing to the heavens. Aristotle, on the right, gestures at the ground (trying to bring Plato
down to earth). This indicates the fundamental difference in their approaches to learning. For Plato, inquiry
begins in the metaphysical realm of the Forms. Aristotle's approach begins with the world around him.
 LEARN MORE
Click the link to explore Raphael’s painting “School of Athens” and learn more about the other Greek
philosophers depicted in it.
http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Science/en/SchoolAthens.html
 SUMMARY
Aristotle studied under Plato for years. Although he was a brilliant student, he was not an uncritical
disciple. The most fundamental difference between teacher and student was in their approaches to
learning, their starting points in the quest for knowledge. Plato, who was epistemologically closer to
what would later be called rationalism, sought knowledge in near-mathematical Forms and the realm
of metaphysics, the world behind the world. Aristotle began his search with the world around him.
Unsurprisingly, Aristotle’s work involves the sciences to a great extent. His epistemological view was
closer to what was later called empiricism.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Image "The School of Athens" | Author: Raphael | License: Public Domain

Plato and Aristotle from "School of Athens" | Author: Raphael | License: Public Domain
Bust of Plato | License: Public Domain
Bust of Aristotle | License: Public Domain
 TERMS TO KNOW
Rationalism
The epistemological view centering around the claim that humans can access certain conceptual truths
independently of experience
Empiricism
The epistemological view centering around the claim that all knowledge is grounded in experience
Aristotle on What There Is
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Recall that Aristotle based his philosophy on his perceptions of the material world, on what he could
observe. In this tutorial, we will consider Aristotle’s Categories, which provide his account of what we
can infer about reality, based on what we can observe.
This tutorial investigates Aristotle's conclusions about the nature of reality in five parts:
1. First Philosophy: Ontology

2. Universals and Particulars
3. Substance
4. Aristotelian Essences
5. Hylomorphism
1. First Philosophy: Ontology

Throughout history, philosophers have discussed first philosophy. This is a pedagogical concept, indicating
what must be studied and learned first in order to advance in the field of philosophy. Philosophers have
defended different candidates for first philosophy — many believed that it is logic. It has been asserted that
Plato’s rule was that no one could become a student of the Academy until he or she had first mastered
mathematics. Much later, Descartes said that epistemology was first philosophy. Aristotle's selection, however,
was ontology.
 TERM TO KNOW
Ontology
The branch of metaphysics that examines the nature of being
Ontological questions center around what kinds of things exist, and how they exist. “Does x depend on y in
order to exist?” is an ontological question. Ontology is, therefore, a good candidate for first philosophy.
Knowing what kinds of things exist is a good place to begin for anyone who wants to advance in any field.
This is especially important if you consider the nature of truth. What makes a statement true? Most people
would answer that it is because the statement corresponds with reality in some way. What makes “Don is
bald” true? Most would think that it is because a person named Don exists, and this person lacks hair on his
head. If our interest is in truth, then we must give an account of what is.
2. Universals and Particulars

Consider this assertion: “The chair is broken.” What is required in order to be able to say that this statement is
true? You would need to assert that there is an object that it is a chair, and that it exists in a certain state. But
notice that three things have been asserted in saying that the chair is broken:
There is a specific object that exists

That object is a chair
That object (the chair) exists in the state of brokenness
You need two concepts, the concept of “chair” and the concept of the state of “broken”, and you need an
existence claim, that the chair exists in this state, in order to make this assertion.
Let’s set aside brokenness and focus on the claims involved in saying “there is a chair” (i.e., “there is an object
that exists, and it is a chair”). To say “there is a chair” is to say that this specific object matches the concept of
chair. To say there is a chair, you therefore need “this object (chair)” and also the concept, “chair.” In terms of
philosophy, this illustrates the difference between a particular and a universal.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Particular
A concrete, extant entity
Universal
An ontological category that is common to multiple particulars
Aristotle’s definition of a particular is a little simpler than the one above. He called a particular a "this,” which
seems vague and unhelpful until you think it through. We can refer to “chair” (the universal entity which
applies to multiple chairs) or this chair (a particular chair). “Human” or “this human,” and so on. We can even
talk about properties, such as the universal “blue,” versus the particular, “this blue.”
As a result, a “this” is very helpful in thinking about particulars. Take any concept for which we have a general
term (e.g., “car”), and put “this” before it (i.e., “this car”). When you do so, you move from referring to the
universal concept to the particular. Note that “universal,” in this instance, means "more than one," not "all" or
"every."
This diagram helps to visually differentiate between universals and particulars. While the universal "car"
refers generally to cars, the particular "car" refers to one specific car.
All of this is to say that, if we grant that it is true that the chair is broken, we have entered three kinds of thing
into our ontology: particular chairs, the universal chair, and the universal quality of being broken. All are
required in order to say that the statement is true. Similar categories are involved whenever we make a claim
to truth. Consider claims like, “humans are rational.” We posit particular humans, humanity, and rationality. As
we continue to make claims to truth we will notice a pattern.
3. Substance
We should notice that these simple statements contain a subject and a predicate.
 HINT
Dust off those grammar skills! Remember that subjects and predicates are parts of a sentence. The subject of
a sentence is what (or who) the sentence is about. The predicate tells you what the subject is doing or has
done or will do. In this sentence — “The chair is broken.” — the chair is the subject, and “is broken” is the
predicate. The subject and predicate are used to describe reality accurately.
Likewise, in reality, we have a thing, and a property attributed to that thing. To accurately describe that
property as belonging to that thing is to speak truly. Therefore, our ontology includes a collection of things.
The technical term Aristotle used is for this category is “substance,” which indicates any subject. Shoes and
ships and sealing wax are substances, as are you and I. There are also ways (states or conditions in which)
those things can be: dented, blue, over 12 feet tall, etc. Aristotle established nine categories of ways things
can be:
Ways of Being Example
Quantity Five
Quality Blue
Relation Greater than
Place In front of the TV
Time Last year
Position Sitting
State Unarmed
Action Reading
Affection To be read
Anything that can be said to exist falls into one of these ten categories, either a substance or a way of being.
However, substance has ontological primacy over the other nine ways of being. That is, substance can exist
without the other nine, but they cannot exist independent of substance. They are, therefore, ontologically
dependent on substance.
 EXAMPLE There can be a fender without a dent, but there cannot be a dent without a fender.
Blueness cannot exist by itself: There are only blue things.
Note that by making individual substances ontologically primary, Aristotle disagreed significantly with Plato.
Plato posited a Form of goodness, for example, that is independent of any individual good person. Aristotle
asserted that there cannot be goodness without any good individuals.
4. Aristotelian Essences
Aristotle’s ways of being are related to his notion of essence. As an example, consider the essence of
humanity. Since it applies to many humans, it must be a universal entity. However, since you can truly assign
properties to the universal humanity (as in the assertion that “humanity is rational”), the universal humanity
must be substantial. But because humanity, like blueness, cannot exist independently, the human essence
(i.e., humanity) must exist in individual humans. Unlike Plato, Aristotle discovered humanity in people.
Aristotle’s ontology provides us with an easy way to identify an essence — a way to quickly identify what Plato
agonized over. If we want to discover and describe the human essence, all we need to do is isolate two
things: a genus and a differentia. The genus tells us what kind of thing it is. The differentia tells us what sets it
apart from other things of the same kind. Let’s take a look at two examples:
 EXAMPLE Suppose we want to identify the essence of a hammer. We can ask, what kind of thing is it?
Our answer would be that it is a tool. Next, we might ask, what distinguishes hammers from other tools?
The answer in this instance might be that they are used for pounding. Our investigation leads us to
conclude that the essence of a hammer (i.e., what makes a hammer a hammer) is that it is a tool used for
pounding.
 EXAMPLE Let’s try another example and identify the essence of a professor. What kind of thing is a
professor? A professor is a teacher. What distinguishes professors from other teachers? They teach at the
collegiate level. Therefore, to be a professor is to be a college-level teacher.
So what kind of thing is a human? A human is a biped (i.e., walks on two legs). What separates humans from
other bipeds? Rationality separates humans from other bipeds. Therefore, a human is a rational biped (or a
rational animal, depending on whether Aristotle was writing about philosophy or biology).
If this sounds familiar, it is because we still use Aristotle’s concept in biology. In the system of binomial
nomenclature, an organism is named with a genus and a species. Homo sapiens is Latin for rational biped, or
wise man, which distinguishes them from Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, and other hominids. We still use genus
and differentia to determine what kind of thing an organism is.
5. Hylomorphism
What is a human? According to Aristotle, a human is a union of form (essence) and matter. This is an instance
of hylomorphism.
 TERM TO KNOW
Hylomorphism
The metaphysical theory that posits being as a union of form and matter
This is the foundation of the concept, but more needs to be understood to define it fully. Although we have
been using humans as an example, this is a theory of being. It therefore applies to everything, to every
Aristotelian substance: any subject— animal, vegetable, or mineral; any individual item that is an instance of a
natural kind (i.e., species, in Aristotle’s system).
As a theory of being, hylomorphism involves an intimate, possibly essential, relationship. The standard
interpretation of Aristotle’s theory is that existence is a package deal: You don’t have formless matter waiting
to be shaped. Instead, you get matter and form, or nothing at all. There is no formless matter, we can only talk
about it conceptually (when doing so, it is referred to as “prime matter”). There is no matterless form either.
There is no such thing as humanity independent of individual humans (despite Plato's assertions).
Aristotle explains this by using an analogy with wax. Conceptually, we can separate wax into its matter, the
stuff of which it is composed, and its shape. However, this distinction is purely conceptual. There is no such
thing as shapeless wax (meaning that it has no shape whatsoever), and there is likewise no such thing as
shape without something to be shaped.
Based on this overview of hylomorphism, it is evident that there can be interpretive difficulties with this theory.
First, we need to inquire as to the nature of the form. Is the form of a living thing just a structure (i.e., a
blueprint for producing humans, like DNA), or is it more than this? In living things, Aristotle equated "form" with
"soul." However, it would be wrong to assume that Aristotle used “soul” in the same way we use it today.
The ancient Greek word he used was “anima,” which is etymologically related to “animal” and “animate.”
Aristotle’s notion of soul/anima is that which makes a living thing alive: an animating force. When considered
in this way, it is clear that he did not intend to define hylomorphism in quasi-religious terms. Aristotle was not
convinced that there was an afterlife (though in some of his works, he left open the possibility that intellectual
thought may survive physical death because thought does not belong to any part of the body, but is somehow
independent of it). However, that only tells us what the anima is not. We know that souls provide an
organizing principle. We don’t know what else, if anything, they provide.
 SUMMARY
Aristotle held that first philosophy was ontology: that we must determine what kinds of things exist in
order to progress in our studies. As grounds for truth, he posited ten categories of being, of which
substance was the primary category. One important kind of substance is species, which is a universal
entity that exists in particulars (e.g., universal humanity existing in particular humans). An easy way to
identify these essences is to discover the genus and differentia, a technique so useful that it is one of
the few that have continued to be used in science for over two millennia.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Car Image | Author: Xinh Studio | License: CC

Car Image | Author: Hopkins | License: CC
Car Image | Author: Alrigel | License: CC
 TERMS TO KNOW
Hylomorphism
The metaphysical theory that posits being as a union of form and matter
Ontology
The branch of metaphysics that examines the nature of being
Particular
A concrete, extant entity
Universal
An ontological category that is common to multiple particulars
Plato vs. Aristotle: The Mathematician or the
Biologist
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Plato and Aristotle, teacher and student, are two of the most influential thinkers in history. Their
systems of metaphysics are extremely different in some ways, but they have important commonalities
as well. In this tutorial, we will highlight their similarities, then contrast their differences.
This tutorial examines the similarities and differences between the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle
in two parts:
1. Some Important Similarities

2. Their Main Points of Disagreement
1. Some Important Similarities

At first, it may seem that Plato and Aristotle, the mathematician and the biologist, took radically different
approaches in searching for the truth. However, this is usually the result of over-emphasizing their differences.
It would be surprising if Plato and Aristotle were completely opposed in all of their beliefs, since Aristotle
studied under Plato at the Academy for 20 years. Clearly, Aristotle found the study of Plato’s philosophy to be
a good use of his time.
To identify their significant similarities then, we must understand that Plato taught Aristotle traditional
philosophy. As a result, there are more similarities in their views than differences. Those who study (and
teach) philosophy — as both of them did — pursue truth, above all else.
 DID YOU KNOW
When Aristotle criticized or disagreed with Plato in his writings, he sometimes prefaced his criticism with a
reminder that Plato taught him to value truth above all else, including friendship. Since Plato was also a
philosopher, he would have approved of Aristotle's reminder.
Plato and Aristotle agreed that we must pursue truth by using reason and logic, rather than passion, emotion,
and bias.
Both of them were metaphysicians, who proposed metaphysical entities which grounded the known world.
For example, both Plato and Aristotle were realists with respect to essences. They maintained that essences
existed, and that they were genuine truth-grounding entities.
However, not all philosophers believe this. Nominalists, for example, deny that essences exist in this way.
Instead, they maintain that “essences” exist in name only, as linguistic coincidences, or that they are
determined by biology, not metaphysics. Nominalists claim that what makes a just act just is that humans have
defined what justice means. Acts which satisfy the definition's criteria are just acts.
The work of Plato and Aristotle shares additional metaphysical commonalities. For example, their accounts of
the cosmos considered notions like cause-and-effect metaphysically, rather than scientifically (recall that this
is why we did not identify Aristotle as a complete empiricist). They also used metaphysics to explain how
entities in the world should be. These points continue to be debated by philosophers, but Plato and Aristotle
did not disagree on them.
 TERM TO KNOW
Essence
2. Their Main Points of Disagreement

The primary differences between the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle are differenceswithin metaphysics
and epistemology. Most of them are related to Plato’s Doctrine of the Forms, a doctrine that Aristotle rejects
almost completely.
Remember that Forms are Platonic essences. As mentioned above, both Plato and Aristotle believed that
essences exist, and that they are the grounds for truth. Plato’s essences are Platonic Forms — real,
metaphysical entities that exist in a non-physical realm. Individual entities are who or what they are because
of their participation in the relevant Form. For example, consider the Form of Humanity. It is the human
essence, which determines what it is to be a human. It represents humanity in its truest sense. Human beings
are human because they participate in (and are, therefore, imperfect imitations of) the Form of Humanity.
Although Aristotle agreed that humanity is a genuine entity (a substance in Aristotle’s terminology), it is not a
Platonic Entity. First, Aristotle maintained that humanity was not located in Platonic Heaven, but in every
individual human being. One human is different from another, not because they are both imperfect copies of a
perfect Form of Humanity, but because they are composed of different matter.
Another important difference between Plato and Aristotle regarding Forms is an ontological point. (Recall that
ontology is the branch of metaphysics that examines the nature of being.) In Plato's view, the Form of
Humanity (and, therefore, the human essence) exists whether or not there are any individual humans. Aristotle
believed that, in the absence of individual humans, there is no humanity: there is no longer a human essence.
How essences exist was an area of significant difference between the two thinkers.
 TERM TO KNOW
Substance
The “what it is” of any given thing.
Remember that essences ground truth. Therefore, where and how essences exist determine the way we
come to know truth. These metaphysical differences lead to important epistemological differences. Aristotle
believed that essences are in the world. In order to learn the true nature of humans, we must examine
individual humans and identify their essential features. Aristotle searched for truth empirically: by examining
the world.
Plato maintained that essences exist independently of the world, in a metaphysical realm, a world behind the
world. Therefore, knowledge of things as they truly are requires us to go beyond the changing realm of
appearances and contemplate the unchanging realm of the Forms. This is a rationalist approach.
For example, Plato’s ethics begins with a contemplation of the nature of goodness and justice. Aristotle’s
account of ethics begins biologically, with a consideration of human physical characteristics.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Whose approach to philosophy seems better, Plato’s or Aristotle’s? Here are a few questions that may help
you to decide:
If you remove all humans, are there still truths about human essence (not to be confused with truths of
human history)? Plato says yes, Aristotle says no.
What is the best way to study mathematics? Should you begin with pure math or applied math? Plato says
pure math, Aristotle says applied math.
Can I say 5 is greater than 3, or only that 5 apples is greater than 3 apples? Aristotle is limited to the latter
response.
Consider gravity. We know that every object falls because of the law of gravity, but is the law of gravity
contained in each bit of matter in the universe, or does the law of gravity exist outside of, and act upon, all
matter? This is not an easy question to answer. Even physicists are split on the point. However, Aristotle
would say the former, and Plato, the latter. The question to ask yourself is, if there were no matter in the
universe, would the law of gravity still be true? Plato says yes, Aristotle says no.
 SUMMARY
Plato and Aristotle are philosophers who committed their lives to realizing truth through reason.
Although both of them posited essences as genuine metaphysical entities, their accounts of
metaphysics led to very different metaphysical, epistemological and methodological results. Most of
these differences involve the ontological status of essences. Plato says that essences exist outside of,
and are independent of, particulars. Aristotle maintains that they are within particulars, and only exist
if some of the particulars do.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Essence
Substance
The “what it is” of any given thing
Aristotelianism: The Naturalistic Worldview
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
In Aristotle’s lifetime, he was known as “the man who knew everything,” with no sarcasm intended.
His breadth of knowledge was the reason that Alexander of Macedonia (i.e., Alexander the Great)
sought him out as his private tutor. During the Middle Ages, Aristotle was referred to as, “the
Philosopher” (note the capital “P”). In this tutorial, we will examine some of Aristotle's intellectual
legacy.
This tutorial provides an overview of Aristotle's worldview in two parts:
1. Aristotle’s Intellectual Legacy: Naturalism

2. Formal Logic
1. Aristotle’s Intellectual Legacy: Naturalism

If you were asked to summarize Aristotle’s contributions to humanity in a single word, “science” would be a
good answer. He was not the first philosopher to consider topics that are now seen as scientific (recall the
contributions of the Pre-Socratics), but Aristotle was innovative in keeping science self-contained. Like the
Pre-Socratics, he did not use divine involvement to account for phenomena he could not explain. He also did
not rely on metaphysical abstractions like “humanity”. Although Aristotle used metaphysics (even in his
biology), his descriptions of reality and explanations of phenomena were based in this world. They could —
and should — be studied, measured, quantified, and tested.
Today, we call this kind of worldview naturalism. The naturalistic worldview specifically excludes the
supernatural and, in so doing, forces us to deepen our understanding of the natural world. Naturalism does
not necessarily exclude any notion of, or belief in, the supernatural. Instead, it denies the supernatural any role
when explaining natural phenomena. This is the standard observed by science today.
When we assume that there are natural explanations,we look for them, and science advances. When we
accept a supernatural explanation, we cease looking for natural causes, and science stagnates. For example,
if, when crops fail, witches are blamed, natural causes are not investigated. Areas including irrigation,
fertilizer, crop rotation, and more are not explored. Potential remedies and improvements are left
undiscovered. The same thing happens when metaphysical abstractions are accepted as explanations.
Someone who believes (without foundation) that it is human nature to degenerate, will not discover medical
treatments for diseases.
This approach is called methodological naturalism. It doesn’t deny the existence of supernatural entities, but
asserts that science must not accept non-natural explanations for phenomena. As a result of this contribution
by Aristotle, the sciences have enjoyed much success.
Consider an example from Aristotle’s ethics. Aristotle didn’t look for the foundations of ethics by performing
conceptual analyses on the good and the just (as Plato did). Instead, he grounded his ethics in biology, on the
kind of entities that humans are, and should be, according to their biological nature. He applied this
naturalistic method with great success, especially when combined with his introduction of research.
Aristotle was one of the first (if not the first) investigators to gather and analyze works on a topicbefore
beginning his analysis, and before coming to any conclusions. This research methodology, combined with his
methodological naturalism, led him to become known as the Father of Biology, the Father of Physics, and
(sometimes) the Father of Astronomy. The need to precisely define natural kinds led him to develop binomial
nomenclature, and to perform some of the first dissections.
This painting, titled Aristotle with a bust of Homer also known as Aristotle Contemplating a Bust of
Homer, was painted in 1653 by Rembrandt. Rembrandt painted it on a canvas with oil paints.
 DID YOU KNOW
Aristotle studied ocean creatures by examining, and sometimes dissecting, the fish and other animals caught
by fishermen. He described the hectocotyl arm of the male octopus, which is used in sexual reproduction. He
also accurately differentiated aquatic mammals from fish, including sharks.
Aristotle’s contributions to the sciences cannot be overstated. In addition to almost single-handedly creating
the science of biology, he introduced the use of formal research processes and methodological naturalism,
which benefited all of the sciences.
2. Formal Logic
Aristotle is also known as the Father of Logic. Although every philosopher before Aristotle used logic,
argument, and reasoning to pursue truth (e.g., Socrates), Aristotle was the first to treat logic as a separate
discipline, analogous to mathematics (i.e., it can be studied, formalized, and proven). He was the first to use
logic according to precise rules that determined validity. This was a significant advance in the development of
reasoning. Knowing which conclusions follow from which premises is crucial. Here is an example of how
Aristotelian logic can help us to make valid arguments.
 EXAMPLE People often like to give one-premise arguments that are, in fact, two-premise arguments.
For example, “Some immigrants from country X have committed crimes. Therefore, we should not allow
people from that country to enter the U.S.” Aristotelian syllogistic logic enables us to understand that, in
order for this conclusion to be valid, we must have an implicit first premise, of the form, “We should not let
people enter the U.S. who are from a county whose immigrants have committed a crime.” But is this
premise defensible? No. If this premise was accepted, no one would be allowed to enter the U.S., including
U.S. citizens.
Aristotle’s formal system of syllogistic logic is good at detecting weak reasoning, and teaches us to base our
thinking and our arguments on reason, not emotion. In developing formal logic, Aristotle also introduced
purely syntactical methods (that is, focusing entirely on structure, without any need to examine semantic
content) for determining logical consequences. This was the first step in the development of computers (and
computer programming). Aristotelian syllogism represents the beginnings of formal logic, but it is not only of
historical interest. It continues to be studied in courses on logic and critical thinking, and questions involving
its use are included in standardized testing.
 SUMMARY
Aristotle’s philosophical legacy is only a small part of his overall intellectual legacy. His approach to
questions and explanations resulted in the establishment and accomplishments of science as we
know it. His formalization of logic improved the process of reasoning and led to the development of
advanced logical systems used in electronic circuitry and computers. His contributions continue to
impact modern lives in a variety of ways.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Aristotle with a Bust of Homer | Author: Rembrandt | License: Public Domain
Aristotle's Highest Good
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Anyone who wants to relate ethics to how humans should be (in the biological sense) will confront —
and use — Aristotelian ethics. As a result, many neo-Aristotelians are involved in the field of
contemporary ethics. In this tutorial, we will investigate three major components of Aristotle’s ethics:
the Function Argument, the relevance of virtues to ethics, and the Doctrine of the Mean.
This tutorial examines Aristotle's ethical philosophy, in three parts:
1. The Function Argument

2. Virtue Ethics
3. The Doctrine of the Mean

In order to advance your ability to understand and apply ethics, you must provide a plausible answer to this
question: “What makes an action good?” If you cannot state what makes an action right or wrong in general,
you cannot participate in a meaningful discussion of any moral issue. If you cannot say why an action is right
or wrong, then (for example), a debate about abortion is simply an exercise to determine who can talk louder.
However, if you can identify what it is that makes an action right or wrong, you can use that standard to
evaluate any potential action. Aristotle’s Function Argument provides an answer to "What makes an action
good?" (i.e., what makes an act right or wrong), and to "Where does value comes from?"
The Function Argument takes this form: Start with something you know can be good, or not. For example, a
steak knife. Next, ask, “When is it good?” The steak knife is not good when it cuts meat, but when it cuts meat
well. Something is good when it excels at its function. This is true of everything.
 TRY IT
Take several examples of something you know can be good, but isn’t always good. Is it true that the
difference between times when the thing is good, and times when it is not good, is whether it fulfills its
function well (or not)?
When considering examples (e.g., a good meal, a good cell phone), it quickly becomes clear that a thing’s
function is tied to what kind of thing it is. Function follows essence. What makes a thing what it is tells us how
that thing should be.
Since no one wants to be an excellent steak knife or an excellent puppy, we must consider the human
essence, which is to be a rational animal. To be a good human is to excel at being a rational animal or, more
precisely, to cultivate the virtues conducive to excellence as a rational animal.
2. Virtue Ethics
Aristotle’s Function Argument connects function to excellence. The word Aristotle used is “arête,” which is
translated as "virtue" or "personal excellence." Aristotelian ethics is concerned with answering this question —
“What kind of person should I be?” — rather than “How should I act?” (the question that is now the norm in
ethics). These two questions are clearly related, but differ in their primary consideration. For Aristotle,
character was primary. Actions are evaluated based on how they inform your character (e.g., Does an action
make you greedy? Smug? Generous? Brave?).
Aristotle used biology to answer “What kind of person should I be?” in a way that, when we must act, we will
act according to our individual characters. The kind of character to be evaluated is based on what kind of
thing we are (i.e., rational animals). By “rational,” Aristotle meant something very specific. Since rational is of
our essence, it is what separates humans from other animals. Humans are the kind of thing that can think
abstractly (not just of what to do in a particular case, but in general). Humans can plan the best ways to
achieve their goals (which are focused on their happiness).
For this reason, an essential component of rational choice is deliberation. We deliberate on how we can best
achieve the good life, and on what kind of person each of us should be. This tells us the way we should be,
and the virtues we should have.

Once we have determined the virtues we must cultivate, and have cultivated them, we must begin to manifest
them. This is not easy, because virtue comes in degrees. For example, courage is a virtue we should cultivate.
Rational deliberation indicates that we should be courageous people, as part of human excellence. However,
we must determine how courageous we should be.
To answer this question, Aristotle provided the Doctrine of the Mean. Like other Aristotelian arguments, it
begins with something we know: First, take something we know can be a virtue, such as courage. Next, ask
"when is courage not a virtue (i.e., when is it a vice)?" Too little courage and you are a coward. Too much
courage and you are foolhardy. (Note that there is nothing admirable about picking fights with tough people,
or taking other unnecessary risks.) Courage, therefore, must be cultivated as a mean between extremes.
In mathematics, the mean is the average of a set of numbers. In Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean, it is defined
differently, but it indicates a somewhat similar concept: an average or midpoint between two extremes.
As with the Function Argument, Aristotle used a specific example for a general claim:Any virtue is turned into
a vice when developed to the point of excess or deficiency.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Think of some virtues (i.e., character traits of positive value). Are there any that do not become vices when
practiced to excess? For example, justice becomes a vice when it excludes forgiveness. However, people can
certainly be overly forgiving too.
Aristotle indicated that this ideal is a rational mean, not a numeric mean. What does this mean? Let's consider
an example. It is a virtue to be financially productive (i.e., the trait involved in becoming rich)? What’s the least I
can earn in a year? Zero. What is the most? Currently, the record is about $12.7 billion. The numeric mean of
financial productivity would be a trait that leads to earning $6.35 billion dollars a year, but it would be absurd
to make this a personal goal. It is clearly excessive. What did Aristotle mean by "rational mean?" To answer,
recall rational deliberation, and the process involved in determining what kind of person I should be. If I
dedicate too much of my effort to developing my financial productivity, I will fall short of the good life because
other aspects of my life will suffer. I will not expend enough effort to develop other positive traits.
 SUMMARY
Aristotle’s ethics are naturalistic, because he believed that the kind of thing we are was the source of
ethics. Since humans are rational animals, we must cultivate the virtues conducive to the rational
pursuit of happiness in a complete life. We develop virtues by manifesting them as a rational mean
between extremes.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Image of scales | Author: Wira | License: CC
Applying Aristotle's Ethics
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this tutorial, we will review three major components of Aristotle’s ethics: the Function Argument, the
relevance of virtues to ethics, and the Doctrine of the Mean. We'll also examine some examples of
these components.
This tutorial considers the application of Aristotle's ethics in four parts:

2. Virtue Ethics
4. Applying Aristotle's Ethics

Recall that Aristotle’s Function Argument answers the question of what makes an act right or wrong, or where
value comes from.
The Function Argument demonstrates that function is tied to what kind of thing it is that is being considered.
Function follows essence. What makes a thing what it is tells us how that thing should be. Accordingly, to be a
good human is to excel at being a rational animal or, more precisely, to cultivate the virtues conducive to
excelling at being a rational animal.
2. Virtue Ethics
Aristotle’s Function Argument relates function to excellence. Aristotelian ethics answered this question: “What
kind of person should I be?” — not the question that is now the norm in ethics: “How should I act?” Although
these two questions are related, they differ as to which consideration is primary. Aristotle believed that
character is primary. In his system of ethics, actions are evaluated based on how they inform character: Does
this action make a person greedy? Smug? Generous? Brave?
Aristotle used biology to answer, “What kind of person should I be?” so that, when it is time to act, a person
will act according to his or her character. The kind of character we should evaluate is based on what kind of
thing we are (i.e., rational animals). By “rational,” Aristotle meant something very specific. Since reason is of
our essence, it is what distinguishes humans from other animals. Human beings are the kind of thing that can
think abstractly, not only of what to do in a specific case, but in general. Humans can plan the best ways to
achieve our goals, which are focused on our happiness.
For this reason, deliberation is an essential part of rational choice. Humans deliberate on how to best achieve
the good life, and on what kind of people they should be. Doing so tells us the way we should be, and the
virtues we should have.

Once we have determined the virtues we must cultivate, we must manifest them. This is not easy, because
virtue comes in degrees. Aristotle formulated the Doctrine of the Mean to determine the degree to which one
should cultivate a virtue. The Doctrine of the Mean states that a virtue must be cultivated as a mean between
extremes.
As he did in making the Function Argument, Aristotle used a specific example to establish a general claim:
Any virtue becomes a vice when it is developed to the point of excess or deficiency.
4. Applying Aristotle's Ethics

Let’s consider some real-life examples to which Aristotle’s ethics can be applied.
Let’s say that you’re terrified of heights. Your fear is so great that it prevents you from doing certain things.
You cannot go mountain hiking with your friends, you refuse to fly, and even climbing steep flights of stairs
makes you uneasy. Your fear of heights, because it is extreme, is a vice.
According to Aristotle, you should find the mean between your excessive fear (or cowardice), and too little
fear (foolhardiness). Note that if you were insufficiently afraid of heights, you might be careless, which could
cause you harm. Courage is the mean between these two extremes. You have enough fear of heights to keep
you safe, but not so much that it prevents you from enjoying life.
 BRAINSTORM
What are the extremes of virtues like ambition, justice, love, confidence? What are other virtues for which you
can identify extremes?
Consider the table below, which illustrates several virtues and vices. These are just a few examples; many
others exist.
Too Little (Vice) Mean (Virtue) Too Much (Vice)
Cowardly Courageous Foolhardy
Shy Modest Shameless
Stingy Generous Extravagant
 THINK ABOUT IT
Can you think of other applications of Aristotle’s ethics? How can the Doctrine of the Mean be applied to your
life? Consider some of your vices. How could you moderate them to turn them into Aristotelian virtues?
 SUMMARY
Aristotle’s ethics are naturalistic, because he believed that the source of ethics comes from what kind
of thing we are. Since humans are rational animals, we must cultivate the virtues conducive to the
rational pursuit of happiness in a complete life. We develop virtues by manifesting them as a rational
mean between extremes.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Images of Scales | Author: Wira | License: CC
Stoicism: The Ethics of Dispassion
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
Stoicism was a school of philosophy that flourished in ancient Rome. It was not the philosophy of one
philosopher, but of a group of like-minded individuals. In fact, the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius
was a stoic philosopher and author. However, Stoicism was not only a set of philosophical beliefs, but
a way of life based upon those beliefs. Therefore, “Stoicism” is a legitimate answer to the question,
“what’s your philosophy?”
In this tutorial, we will investigate the central tenets of Stoicism and how it served as the basis of a
system of ethics (and a way of life). We will focus on the teachings of Epictetus who, though he was
not one of the first Stoics, was one of the most influential and admirable. Beginning as a crippled
slave, Epictetus became a sought-after thinker. Like Socrates, he wrote nothing, but his work was
recorded by his followers.
This tutorial examines "the ethics of dispassion" in three parts:
1. Focusing on What Is in Our Power

2. How We Direct What Is in Our Power
3. Ethics as a Role
1. Focusing on What Is in Our Power

 BIG IDEA
The most important tenet of Stoicism is to focus on what we can control, and to not be upset by things that
are beyond our control.
It is important to realize that the Stoic definition of "control" is limited, that “the things in our power are by
nature free, not subject to restraint or hindrance.” However, more things are within our control than most of us
realize.
 EXAMPLE Am I free to drive to work? Only if my car starts. Therefore, I am free tochoose to drive to
work, or want to drive to work but, despite my choice or desire, there may be limits to my freedom. As a
result, there is an important sense in which I am not free to drive to work.
Our main freedoms lie in how we react to the world, rather than in the world itself.
Let's revisit the example above, and consider all of the aspects of your drive that arenot under your control.
One aspect is red lights. You cannot control when a traffic light turns red (or doesn't), but how you respond to
the light turning red is under your control, including whether you get angry, upset, or worried.
This illustrates what is perhaps the most helpful insight of Stoicism: No good comes from getting upset at
things you cannot change. We cannot change the past, or the laws of physics. This seems like a trivial insight
until we consider how much energy we waste in worrying about things that we cannot change.
 THINK ABOUT IT
In what situations have you seen people become upset by things that are out of their control? Consider
politics, and the extent to which people are upset by things that are out of their control. Have you observed
this response by friends, family, or on social media? People spend months (or years) lamenting the fact that
their candidate didn’t win. But you cannot control what other voters do, or how Congress votes. To focus on
things like this, or to allow them to upset us, is absurd. Instead, what can we control? The answer is, we can
control our actions and reactions.
2. How We Direct What Is in Our Power

The preceding example may have led you to think of things about politics that youcan control, such as
canvassing your neighborhood, trying to persuade your friends, voting, writing to your congressional
representatives, signing petitions, etc. (i.e., activities related to active citizenship). However, Stoicism suggests
something more basic than this. As indicated above, what is in our control is our desires, emotions, and
judgments. Everything else depends on things that are outside of us in the world, which may not proceed as
we intend. As a result, we must focus on our desires, reactions, and judgments.
Controlling these things is not as easy as flipping a switch. That’s why, as a first step, Epictetus tells us, T
“ ake
away then aversion from all things which are not in our power, and transfer it to the things contrary to nature
which are in our power. But destroy desire completely for the present. For if you desire anything which is not
in our power, you must be unfortunate; but of the things in our power, and which it would be good to desire,
nothing yet is before you.” A Stoic begins by eradicating all desire — not permanently, but only for the
present. We must remove the old house before building a new one. We must eliminate all desires, then
reintroduce those desires that are appropriate and helpful.
Easier said than done. But consider the benefit to be obtained if youdidn’t start your morning commute with a
desire to get where you need to go quickly. Without that desire, red lights are of no concern to you. Neither is
the driver who refuses to pass in the passing lane. Without that desire (note that it is a desire for something
you cannot control), your morning commute can be pleasant. Epictetus maintained that the bad things we
encounter (e.g., red lights) are the price we pay for tranquility, for freedom from disturbance.
 DID YOU KNOW
Stoicism is popular in military training because it emphasizes self-control and the control of emotions, of doing
the job you are assigned skillfully and dispassionately.
This leads to a second point: we must realize that reality is neither bad nor good. It isour judgment about
reality that upsets us. For example, are traffic lights bad? Of course not. But if traffic lights are in use on the
roads, someone must need to stop for a red light at all times. So I don’t claim that it is bad that there are traffic
lights on the road, or even that a particular traffic light is bad. Instead, I judge that it is bad for me (e.g.,
because I must wait for this light to change, I may be late for work). Stoics maintain that this is true of
everything (including death, as we will consider below). Reality is value-neutral. It is our judgments about
reality that assign (dis)value to it.
Consider a familiar example: food. Suppose I am in the mood for somefoie gras from the French Riviera, and
am lamenting the fact that all I have in my lunchbox is a peanut butter sandwich. The foie gras seems good,
the peanut butter sandwich does not. However, if Epictetus was right, this is merely a judgment.
To prove this, let's replace "I" with a child in this example. The child loves the peanut butter sandwich much
more than the foie gras. This shows that “good” is not a property of thefoie gras itself. Rather, it is my
judgment regarding the meal. If I put my mind to it, I can genuinely relish the peanut butter sandwich as much
as the French delicacy, because it is my judgment, not the food itself, that makes it desirable (or not).
Judgments (with practice) are under my control.
Therefore, two crucial steps to becoming a good Stoic (i.e., to focusing on what is in our control) are:
1. Eliminating desires
2. Realizing that value is in our judgments, not in the world
To further illustrate the Stoic way of thinking, let's consider a topic they discussed often: death.
Death is something we cannot control. We all must die. Since we cannot control it, there is no advantage to
getting upset about it. Instead, as Stoics, we must focus on what we can control: what we feel about death.
The Stoic neither fears death nor hides from it.
Epictetus says that we should think of death every day to discourage ourselves from desiring anything
too much. Having the largest U-Haul trailer attached to your hearse is not a worthwhile goal. To
Epictetus and the other Stoics, a desire to accumulate riches is the wrong kind of desire.
How can we avoid the fear of death? First, by making sure that we only desire what is within our power. We
cannot control how long our lives will be, so our focus should be not to live long, but to live well. We must
understand that death, like everything else in the world, is neither bad nor good. Those are only our
judgments. Living well is the basis of Stoic ethics.
3. Ethics as a Role
Epictetus explained the need to live well, given what is under our control, with an analogy. He wrote,
“Remember that thou art an actor in a play, of such a kind as the teacher (author) may choose; if short, of a
short one; if long, of a long one: if he wishes you to act the part of a poor man, see that you act the part
naturally; if the part of a lame man, of a magistrate, of a private person, (do the same). For this is your duty, to
act well the part that is given to you; but to select the part, belongs to another.” We cannot control where we
are born, who is in our lives, how long we will live, etc. Our duty is to play our part well.
"Playing a role well" may seem like a less-than-substantial basis for ethics, but it is not. Our “role” is deeply
connected to the relationships we have with other people, and those relationships determine our duties.
For example, as a philosophy professor, I have a specific relationship to my students which entails many
duties (e.g., providing a satisfactory learning environment, conveying class materials, grading fairly). However,
I also play the role of husband, which entails many other duties, as do my roles of son, brother, uncle, etc.
Additionally, I am a citizen of the U.S., which entails a relationship (and therefore duties) to other citizens. If I
am to play the role of citizen well, I must follow the laws, be active politically, defend the country as needed,
respect fellow citizens, etc. Therefore, it is not difficult to derive an extensive, robust system of ethics from the
duties that must be fulfilled, based on our relationships.
If you have studied Confucianism, you may notice that Confucius made a similar connection between ethics
and our natural duties.
 SUMMARY
Stoicism is a philosophical way of life that focuses on what is in our power, while remaining impassive
towards what is not. Although this can be difficult to put into practice, Stoicism helps us to minimize
desire in general, but especially the desire to seek benefit through external things. Stoicism also
maintains that that (dis)value exists in judgment, not in the world.
ATTRIBUTIONS

Image of Epictetus | License: Public Domain

Epictetus dialogue | Author: Retrieved from Project Gutenberg | License: Public Domain
Philosophical Analysis as a Way of Life
by Sophia Tutorial
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this tutorial, we will pull together some of the essential threads of this course, which have been
taught to us by some of the greatest thinkers in history:
the value of the pursuit of truth, especially in answering the big questions: "What is the nature of
reality?" "What can we know?" "What is right?"
the use of truth to develop a worldview, and then acting according to belief
This tutorial examines the relationship of philosophy to the way in which we live our lives, in three
parts:
1. The Pursuit of Truth

2. Philosophical Worldviews
3. Acting According to Belief
1. The Pursuit of Truth

Recall that philosophy involves pursuit of the truth. The implicit assumption is that truth has value, that it is
worth knowing. While the immediate reaction may be to say, “of course truth has value,” this is a superficial
response.
Philosophers maintain that it is always better to know. But is this what we believe? Do you want to know
whether your spouse of ten years cheated on you once, several years ago? Perhaps all that knowing this truth
can do is cause harm. Consider Socrates’ requirement that we examine all of our beliefs. How eager are you
to discover that you are wrong? If you believe that a right to own guns reduces crime and/or makes you safer,
how willing are you to perform the objective research necessary to determine whether your beliefs are
correct? Are you willing to try your best to prove yourself wrong?
The requirement to value truth is also a requirement to reject bias. Ifall of our beliefs are subject to scrutiny,
then no belief is sacred. Consider the advantage in this requirement. There are two possibilities: your strong
belief will be proven correct, or incorrect.
If your belief is found to be incorrect, you may be upset for a time, but ultimately, it is better to know that you
were wrong. For example, you will no longer foolishly defend a falsehood in conversations with others. Your
improved knowledge of the world will enable you to better navigate it. You will be less biased, and more
understanding.
If, however, your belief turns out to be correct, it is no longer only your opinion, but genuine knowledge. You
not only know that it is true, but you also knowwhy it is true. This enables you to defend it properly, and
enriches your life as a result of your close examination of the belief. Meeting the Socratic challenge is a win-
win.
Note the role of logic, reason, and reasoning in the search for truth. They are the tools and methods of
philosophy. Reason discovers truth, and resists bias and emotion.
2. Philosophical Worldviews
One of the unique aspects of the pursuit of philosophy is that we are its subjectand object. As subjects, we
are the ones doing the thinking. With respect to the really big questions, however, we are usually among the
objects studied as well. For example, in pursuing ethics, we determine how a person ought to act. That also
entails how we ought to act. If, while investigating the metaphysics of free will, we conclude that free will is an
illusion and the will is determined, our conclusion includes each of our wills. If we determine that there are no
supernatural entities, then we have also confirmed that our deaths will be the end of our existence.
By practicing philosophy — by trying to figure out what is true about the world — we place ourselves in the
world, as part of the system rather than outside of it. Why is this an advantage? In addition to the benefits of
pursuing truth listed above, it forces us to be consistent.
 EXAMPLE If I determine that it is morally wrong to text and drive, my determination includes me.
People believe that it is unsafe to text and drive, and studies show that it causes more accidents (and
fatalities) than drunk driving. Most people know this. However, many of the same people often think, “it is
unsafe for others to text and drive. I, however, do it carefully, so I’ll do it now.” Do you know who else has
reasoned that way? Everyone who has ever caused an accident by texting and driving. No one thinks, “I
may get myself or someone else killed, but I really need to type LOL now, instead of ten minutes from
now.” Philosophy places you inside this system, rather than on the outside looking in. In so doing, it reveals
inconsistent thinking. You cannot be an exception to the rule.
3. Acting According to Belief

This leads us to the last major thread of philosophical thinking: acting according to belief. As the life of
Socrates illustrates, the philosopher can’t just talk the talk, but must walk the walk as well.
Philosophy entails the pursuit of truth, including truth in ethics. Therefore, philosophers hold beliefs about
what is true with respect to right and wrong, and regarding how one should act. Remember that philosophers
do not just have opinions on these matters. Their opinions have been dissected and analyzed. If they still hold
a belief following that process, they not only believe it but know it. They hold it with a higher degree of
certainty than that with which an unexamined belief is held. If you are relatively certain that something is the
right thing to do, you are less likely to act on it than if you are very certain that it is the right thing to do. This is
especially true when the action (i.e., the thing to be done) is demanding.
 EXAMPLE Imagine a dangerous situation, such as one that involves an active shooter. Being
somewhat sure that an action that puts you in danger is the right thing to do is unlikely to make you act.
But knowing for certain what is right to do in a situation is more likely to cause you to take action.
Knowing what is right, rather than merely believing what is right, leads to acting according to belief. By
thinking things through carefully, one will be more aware of times when one acts in ways that are inconsistent
with beliefs. For example, most of us believe that we have a moral obligation to the next generation. However,
we often don’t act accordingly.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Do you believe that we have a moral obligation to our children? If you do, do you act in accordance with that
belief? As an exercise in critical thinking, think of five ways in which you do not act according to this belief.
 HINT
Consider these questions while thinking of ways in which you do NOT act according to the belief that we
have a moral obligation to our children: Do you recycle? Even when you are on vacation? Do you take public
transportation when it is available? Do you drive a fuel-efficient vehicle? Do you avoid pressing the
"wheelchair-accessible" button to open the door when you don’t need it? Do you write to your
congresspersons, encouraging them to support future-friendly policies? Do you watch sports that involve the
use of huge amounts of gasoline?
Most of us hold beliefs, but because we have not examined those beliefs beyond a superficial level, we don’t
act according to them. However, not every philosopher is Socrates. No one is perfectly rational, or perfectly
objective, and no one acts in perfect accordance with his or her beliefs. Philosophy enables us to maximize
rationality, minimize bias, and increase consistency of thought and action.
 SUMMARY
The pursuit of philosophy is not only an academic discipline. It should also make us better people.
Pursuing truth and using reason to examine our beliefs are activities that have value, as do
developing a worldview and acting according to belief. All of these skills are honed and leveraged
when philosophy is properly pursued.

Unit 1 Tutorials Great Philosophers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 1 Tutorials Great Philosophers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 1 Tutorials: Great Philosophers

Introduction to Philosophy and the Pre-Socratics

Socrates and Dialectic

Socrates: The Father of Western Philosophy

Plato and Aristotle

Plato: An academic approach to concepts

Philosophy as a Way of Life

This section responds to the question, "What is Philosophy?" in three parts:

1. The Beginning of Western Philosophy

1. The Beginning of Western Philosophy

2. The Big Picture and a Contemporary Definition

Philosophy seeks to find truth in areas where science cannot.

3. Some Major Branches of Philosophy

Philosophy provides a benefit to science through epistemology.

Source: Image of Thales, PD,

1. Philosophy and Higher Education

1. Philosophy and Higher Education

2. Benefits of the Philosophical Mindset

3. Benefits Through the Sciences

 DID YOU KNOW

5. Benefit to the Individual

Image of Francis Bacon | License: Public Domain

1. Who Were the Pre-Socratic Philosophers?

1. Who Were the Pre-Socratic Philosophers?

2. Some Pre-Socratic Philosophers and their

 MAKE THE CONNECTION

3. Intellectual Legacy of the Pre-Socratics

Heraclitus Image | License: Public Domain

2. The Atomistic Worldview

Ancient Greek atomism is an example of a successful worldview. It provides a metaphysical system

1. The Turn to Metaphysics

1. The Turn to Metaphysics

This tutorial examines Heraclitus and impermanence in three parts:

1. Heraclitus on the Secular

1. Heraclitus on the Secular

 DID YOU KNOW

 DID YOU KNOW

3. Parmenides and Heraclitus

This tutorial investigates Socrates' life and work in four parts:

1. Socrates, Patriarch of Western Thought

1. Socrates, Patriarch of Western Thought

2. Socrates, Seeker of Wisdom

Pre-Socratics’ Primary Focus Socrates’ Primary Focus

Key areas of philosophy Cosmology and Natural Ethics and Epistemology

3. The First Step on the Path to Wisdom

Here are some of the most common sources of bad answers:

Source Example Why it falls short of knowledge

4. Socrates, A Martyr for Wisdom

This tutorial investigates the Socratic approach in three parts:

1. The Character of Socrates

1. The Character of Socrates

If this seems unrealistic, focus on your own experience.

3. The Socratic Method

Example of the Socratic Method

Student: No, I don’t.

Teacher: Do you know what 8 times 2 is?

Student: Of course, it’s 16.

Teacher: Do you know what 8 times 3 is?

Student: Of course, it’s 24.

Teacher: And what about 8 times 5?

Student: It’s 40.

Teacher: And 3 plus 2?

Teacher: And 3 times 8 plus 2 times 8.