Philosophy A Text With Readings 13Th Edition Manuel Velasquez All Chapter

Philosophy: A Text with Readings 13th
Edition Manuel Velasquez

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/philosophy-a-text-with-readings-13th-edition-manuel-
velasquez/
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
www.ebook3000.com
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
MindTap is an online learning solution available with this Philosophy title.
Tap into engagement

MindTap empowers you to produce your best work—
consistently. MindTap is designed to help you master
the material. Interactive videos, animations, and
activities create a learning path designed by your
instructor to guide you through the course and focus
on what’s important.
With MindTap, everything is in one place—the

eBook, activities, flashcards, quizzes, dictionary,
and more—making study time more efficient.
Students will improve their comprehension of

course topics and their critical thinking and
test-taking skills with interactive activities and
quizzes.
Videos offer concepts from the text in another

medium and format, and check student
understanding with short quizzes.
The KnowNow Philosophy Blog, updated weekly by

a philosophy instructor, connects philosophical
questions with real-world events.
Instructors can fully customize their MindTap

course, organizing and assigning the content and
adding videos, links, and their own materials.
MindTap can be used on its own or integrated
seamlessly with most learning management
systems.
Visit us online for complete information or to explore a demo at
www.cengage.com/demo/mindtap or call us at 1-800-423-0563
www.ebook3000.com
philosophy
A Text with Readings
www.ebook3000.com
philosophy
A Text with Readings
T h i RT e e n T h e d i T i o n
Manuel Velasquez
The Charles Dirksen professor
santa Clara University
Australia Brazil Mexico Singapore United Kingdom United States

● ● ● ● ●
Philosophy: A Text with Readings, © 2017, 2014, 2011 Cengage Learning
Thirteenth Edition
WCN: 02-200-203
Manuel Velasquez
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright
Product Director: Paul Banks herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form or
Product Manager: Debra Matteson by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not
Senior Content Developer: Anais Wheeler limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web
distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval
Product Assistant: Michelle Forbes systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976
Media Developer: Amanda Sullivan United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of
Marketing Manager: Sean Ketchem the publisher.
Content Project Manager: Dan Saabye
For product information and technology assistance, contact us at
Art Director: Marissa Falco
Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706
Manufacturing Planner: Julio Esperas For permission to use material from this text or product,
IP Analyst: Alex Ricciardi submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions
Further permissions questions can be emailed to
IP Project Manager: Betsy Hathaway
permissionrequest@cengage.com
Production Service: MPS Limited
Compositor: MPS Limited Library of Congress Control Number: 2015955777
Text Designer: Diane Beasley
Student Edition:
Cover Designer: Anne Bell Carter ISBN: 978-1-305-41047-3
Cover Image: Peter Adams/Photolibrary/
Loose-leaf Edition:
Getty Images
ISBN: 978-1-305-87545-6
Cengage Learning
20 Channel Center Street
Boston, MA 02210
USA
Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions

with employees residing in nearly 40 different countries and sales in more
than 125 countries around the world. Find your local representative at
www.cengage.com
Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson

Education, Ltd.
To learn more about Cengage Learning Solutions, visit www.cengage.com

Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred
online store www.cengagebrain.com
Printed in Canada
Print Number: 01 Print Year: 2015
For my sons, Brian, Kevin, and Daniel
www.ebook3000.com
Contents
Preface xv
ChAPTeR The nature of Philosophy 2
1 1.1 What Is Philosophy? 4

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave 4
Plato’s Allegory and “Doing” Philosophy 6
thinking critically Assumptions and Critical Thinking 8
The Diversity of Philosophy 9
thinking critically Reasoning 10
1.2 The Traditional Divisions of Philosophy 11
Epistemology: The Study of Knowledge 11
thinking critically Avoiding Vague and Ambiguous Claims 12
Metaphysics: The Study of Reality or Existence 13
philosophy and life Philosophical Issues 15
thinking critically Supporting Claims with Reasons and Arguments 15
Ethics: The Study of Values 16
Other Philosophical Inquiries 18
1.3 A Philosopher in Action: Socrates 19
Euthyphro: Do We Know What Holiness Is? 20
thinking critically Evaluating Arguments 24
The Republic: Is Justice Whatever Benefits the Powerful? 24
The Apology: Socrates’ Trial 27
Crito: Do We Have an Obligation to Obey the Law? 31
philosophy and life Breaking the Law for the Sake of Justice 35
thinking critically Identifying Premises, Conclusions,
and Assumptions 35
1.4 The Value of Philosophy 38
Achieving Freedom 38
Building Your View of Life 39
Cultivating Awareness 39
philosophy and life Albert Ellis and Rational Emotive
Behavior Therapy 40
Learning to Think Critically 40
The Theme of This Text 41
Chapter Summary 41
vii
www.ebook3000.com
viii CONTENTS
1.5 Reading 43
Voltaire, “Story of a Good Brahmin” 44
1.6 Historical Showcase: The First Philosophers 45
Pre-Socratic Western Philosophers 45
Eastern Philosophers 47
ChAPTeR human nature 50
2 2.1 Why Does Your View of Human Nature Matter? 52

thinking critically Deductive Arguments, Validity,
and Soundness 54
The Importance of Understanding Human Nature 56
philosophy and life Is Selflessness Real? 57
2.2 What Is Human Nature? 58
The Rationalistic Version of the Traditional Western
View of Human Nature 59
philosophy and life Is Human Nature Irrational? 62
The Judeo-Christian Version of the Traditional Western
View of Human Nature 66
The Darwinian Challenge 70
thinking critically Inference to the Best Explanation 76
The Existentialist Challenge 78
The Feminist Challenge 81
2.3 The Mind–Body Problem: How Do Your Mind and Your Body Relate? 86
The Dualist View of Human Nature: You Are an Immaterial
Mind with a Material Body 88
thinking critically Evaluating an Argument’s Premises 92
The Materialist View of Human Nature: You Are Your
Physical Body 94
The Mind/Brain Identity Theory of Human Nature: Your Mind
Is Your Brain 95
The Behaviorist View of Human Nature: Your Mind Is How
You Behave 97
The Functionalist View of Human Nature: Your Mind Is Like
a Computer 100
Eliminative Materialism: You Have No Mind 104
The New Dualism: Your Mind Has Nonphysical Properties 105
2.4 Is There an Enduring Self? 107
The Soul Is the Enduring Self 111
Consciousness as the Source of the Enduring Self 111
The No-Self View 113
2.5 Are We Independent and Self-Sufficient Individuals? 118
The Atomistic Self 118
The Relational Self 120
CONTENTS ix
Power and Hegel 122

Culture and Self-Identity 123
Search for the Real Self 125
Chapter Summary 126
2.6 Readings 128
Kate Chopin, “The Story of an Hour” 129
Janice M. Steil, “Contemporary Marriage: Still an Unequal
Partnership” 130
Jean Grimshaw, “Women’s Identity In Feminist Thinking” 131
2.7 Historical Showcase: Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius 133
Plato 133
Aristotle 140
Confucius 145
ChAPTeR Reality and Being 150
3 3.1 What Is Real? 152

philosophy and life The Experience Machine, or Does Reality
Matter? 154
Metaphysical Questions of Reality 154
The Search for Reality 155
3.2 Reality: Material or Nonmaterial? 155
Materialism: Reality as Matter 156
Objections to Materialism 160
philosophy and life The Neutrino 162
Idealism: Reality as Nonmatter 163
philosophy and life Our Knowledge of the World 168
thinking critically Conditional Arguments 173
Objections to Idealism 175
3.3 Reality in Pragmatism 178
Pragmatism’s Approach to Philosophy 179
The Pragmatic Method 180
Objections to Pragmatism 183
3.4 Reality and Logical Positivism 184
philosophy and life Parallel Universes 187
thinking critically Categorical Syllogism Arguments 188
Objections to Logical Positivism 191
3.5 Antirealism: The Heir of Pragmatism and Idealism 193
Proponents of Antirealism 194
Objections to Antirealism 197
3.6 Is Freedom Real? 200
Determinism 202
Libertarianism 207
www.ebook3000.com
x CONTENTS
philosophy and life Does Our Brain Make Our Decisions Before
We Consciously Make Them? 212
Compatibilism 213
3.7 Is Time Real? 218
Time and Human Life 218
Augustine: Only the Present Moment Is Real 219
McTaggart: Subjective Time Is Not Real 221
Kant: Time Is a Mental Construct 223
Bergson: Only Subjective Time Is Real 225
Chapter Summary 226
3.8 Readings 228
Sophocles, “Oedipus the King” 229
Robert C. Solomon, “Fate and Fatalism” 238
3.9 Historical Showcase: Hobbes and Berkeley 240
ChAPTeR Philosophy, Religion, and God 250
4 4.1 The Significance of Religion 252

Defining Religion 253
Religious Belief, Religious Experience, and Theology 254
4.2 Does God Exist? 255
The Ontological Argument 256
The Cosmological Argument 260
philosophy and life Religion and Science 265
The Design Argument 266
thinking critically Arguments by Analogy 268
4.3 Atheism, Agnosticism, and the Problem of Evil 275
Atheism 275
philosophy and life God’s Omniscience and Free Will 284
Agnosticism 285
thinking critically Formal and Informal Fallacies 287
4.4 Traditional Religious Belief and Experience 290
Religious Belief 290
“The Will to Believe” 290
Personal Experience of the Divine 295
4.5 Nontraditional Religious Experience 299
Radical Theology 299
Feminist Theology 307
Eastern Religious Traditions 310
Chapter Summary 314
CONTENTS xi
4.6 Readings 316

Fyodor Dostoevsky, “Excerpt From The Brothers Karamazov” 316
William P. Alston, “The Inductive Argument from Evil and the
Human Cognitive Condition” 318
4.7 Historical Showcase: Aquinas, Descartes, and Conway 321
ChAPTeR The Sources of Knowledge 336
5 5.1 Why Is Knowledge a Problem? 338

Acquiring Reliable Knowledge: Reason and the Senses 341
The Place of Memory 342
5.2 Is Reason the Source of Our Knowledge? 343
Descartes: Doubt and Reason 345
Innate Ideas 352
philosophy and life Innate Ideas? 356
5.3 Can the Senses Account for All Our Knowledge? 359
Locke and Empiricism 359
philosophy and life Science and the Attempt to Observe Reality 364
Berkeley and Subjectivism 366
Hume and Skepticism 370
thinking critically Inductive Generalizations 376
5.4 Kant: Does the Knowing Mind Shape the World? 383
Hume’s Challenge 383
The Basic Issue 384
Space, Time, and Mathematics 386
philosophy and life Knowledge and Gestalt Psychology 387
Causality and the Unity of the Mind 390
Constructivist Theories and Recovered Memories 396
5.5 Does Science Give Us Knowledge? 398
Inductive Reasoning and Simplicity 399
philosophy and life Society and Truth 401
The Hypothetical Method and Falsifiability 402
Paradigms and Revolutions in Science 405
thinking critically Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience 407
Is the Theory of Recovered Memories Science or Pseudoscience? 409
Chapter Summary 409
5.6 Readings 412

Ambrose Bierce, “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” 412
Peter Unger, “A Defense of Skepticism” 416
Thomas Nagel, “How Do We Know Anything?” 418
5.7 Historical Showcase: Hume 419
www.ebook3000.com
xii CONTENTS
ChAPTeR Truth 426
6 6.1 Knowledge and Truth 428

Knowledge as Justified True Belief 429
6.2 What Is Truth? 432

Correspondence Theory 433
philosophy and life Truth and Paradox 434
Coherence Theory 439
philosophy and life Historical Facts 445
Pragmatic Theory 447
Does Truth Matter? 451
Reconciling the Theories of Truth 453
6.3 Does Science Give Us Truth? 454

The Instrumentalist View 455
The Realist View of Science 457
The Conceptual Relativist View 458
6.4 Can Interpretations Be True? 461

Symbolic Interpretation and Intention 463
Wittgenstein and the Ideal Clear Language 465
Gadamer and Prejudice 467
Chapter Summary 470
6.5 Readings 471

Ryunosuke Akutagawa, “In a Grove” 472
Hugh Tomlinson, “After Truth: Post-Modernism and the Rhetoric
of Science” 475
John Searle, “Reality and Truth” 476
6.6 Historical Showcase: Kant 477

The Problem of Synthetic a Priori Knowledge 478
Space, Time, and Mathematics 479
Our Unified Mind Must Organize Sensations into Changing Objects 480
Causality Is in the World As We Experience It 482
Two Versions of the Categorical Imperative of Morality 483
The Moral Argument for God’s Existence 484
ChAPTeR ethics 486
7 7.1
7.2
What Is Ethics?
Is Ethics Relative?
488
490
7.3 Do Consequences Make an Action Right? 497
Ethical Egoism 499
Utilitarianism 501
Some Implications of Utilitarianism 507
CONTENTS xiii
7.4 Do Rules Define Morality? 510

Divine Command Theory 510
philosophy and life Embryonic Stem Cell Research 513
Implications of Divine Command Ethics 517
Kant’s Categorical Imperative 519
Buddhist Ethics 528
7.5 Is Ethics Based on Character? 533
Aristotle’s Theory of Virtue 534
Love and Friendship 540
Male and Female Ethics? 543
Conclusions 547
7.6 Can Ethics Resolve Moral Quandaries? 549
Abortion 550
Euthanasia 555
thinking critically Moral Reasoning 560
Chapter Summary 562
7.7 Readings 564
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, “The Heavenly Christmas Tree” 564
Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” 566
7.8 Historical Showcase: Nietzsche and Wollstonecraft 568
Nietzsche 568
Wollstonecraft 573
ChAPTeR Social and Political Philosophy 578
8 8.1 What Is Social and Political Philosophy?

8.2 What Justifies the State and Its Power? 582
580
Hobbes and the War of All against All 584

Locke and Natural Moral Laws 587
Contemporary Social Contract: Rawls 592
The Communitarian Critique 594
Social Contract and Women 599
8.3 What Is Justice? 603
philosophy and life Society and the Bomb 605
Justice as Merit 606
Justice as Equality 609
Justice as Social Utility 611
Justice Based on Need and Ability 613
Justice Based on Liberty 615
philosophy and life Welfare 616
8.4 Limits on the State 621
Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience 622
Freedom 626
www.ebook3000.com
xiv CONTENTS
Human Rights 630

War and Terrorism 634
philosophy and life The Purpose of Business 645
Chapter Summary 647
8.5 Readings 649
Erich Maria Remarque, “From All Quiet on the Western Front ” 649
Bertrand Russell, “The Ethics of War” 651
8.6 Historical Showcase: Marx and Rawls 653
Marx 653
Rawls 660
ChAPTeR Postscript: The Meaning of Life 666
9 9.1 Does Life Have Meaning? 668

What Does the Question Mean? 670
9.2 The Theistic Response to Meaning 671
9.3 Meaning and Human Progress 674
9.4 The Nihilist Rejection of Meaning 676
9.5 Meaning as a Self-Chosen Commitment 678
Chapter Summary 682
Glossary 683
Index 687
Preface
When the early Greek philosopher Heraclitus reading a later chapter will not require reading an
declared “Everything changes!” he could have been earlier one. Moreover, the materials within each
speaking of our own era. What word could char- chapter are arranged so that the most basic or fun-
acterize our time better than the world “change”? damental topics are at the beginning of the chapter,
New fashions, fads, styles, technologies, and philoso- while later sections in the chapter address aspects of
phies now supplant each other in ever shorter peri- the topic that are less fundamental but that probe
ods of time. Many believe that the increasing pace more deeply or more broadly into the topic. This
of change has profound implications for philoso- arrangement gives the instructor the option of
phy. Whether or not this is so, rapid change forces either having students study only the basic issues in a
revisions of a more mundane kind in textbooks on chapter by assigning only the early sections or pursu-
philosophy such as this. So although Philosophy: A ing the subject matter of the chapter more in depth
Text with Readings continues to excite readers about by also assigning the later sections. Some instructors
philosophy, changes in philosophy and in the world may want to cover the basics in class, and then assign
we inhabit necessitate revising the text. I have tried students (or groups of students) the later sections
to retain what users have said they like best about as special projects. There are many different ways
this book: that it provides depth and rigor yet is of teaching the materials in the book and many dif-
easy to read, fun to use, and manages to cover all ferent courses that can be put together from these
the traditional issues with a unique combination of materials.
attention to the history of philosophy, regard for I have always found that working to revise this
interesting contemporary concerns, and substantial text is an enormously satisfying and exciting experi-
selections from classical and contemporary texts. I ence because of the new perspectives and ideas it
have worked hard to explain the difficult concepts leads me to confront. I hope that readers will be just
and texts of philosophy in a way that is technically as excited by their own explorations of the many
rigorous and accurate, yet uses language and style visions philosophy offers of what it is to be a human
that make it easy for a beginning college student being in today’s changing world.
with modest reading skills to understand. I have also
worked hard at making philosophy interesting and
relevant to contemporary undergraduates by show-
Changes in the Thirteenth edition
ing how it is directly related to their real-life con- The most important change in this edition is one
cerns and preoccupations. In addition, a series of that affects all of the chapters. I have gone through
sections on critical thinking provide the tools that the text sentence by sentence and have rewritten
will enable students to develop their thinking and every sentence whose construction was too complex
logical reasoning skills. to be easily understood. I have simplified the syntax
I should emphasize what a quick glance at the of each complex sentence, eliminated any jargon
table of contents will confirm: this text is designed or abstruse vocabulary, and shortened any long or
to cover more than most instructors would want to convoluted sentences. I believe the text now can be
cover in a single course. The coverage is intention- easily comprehended by any reader, including one
ally broad so that the instructor can select those top- with poor reading skills.
ics that he or she believes are most important and A second set of changes that affects every chapter
is not limited by the choice of topics that someone is the introduction of two new types of small “boxes”
else has made. To make it easier for an instructor to containing questions designed to help students
choose what his or her course will cover, the chap- understand the numerous excerpts from primary
ters are largely independent of one another so that sources. Each box contains two or three questions
xv
www.ebook3000.com
xvi P R E FAC E
about the excerpt and is positioned next to or imme- ●● The previous edition’s short excerpt from Sar-
diately after the excerpt. Some of the boxes are enti- tre’s Being and Nothingness, in Section 2.2, has
tled Analyzing the Reading. These contain questions been replaced with several much longer excerpts
that help the student focus on the important philo- from his Existentialism and Humanism and the
sophical claims made in the excerpt, and to under- accompanying discussion has been revised.
stand and evaluate those claims and the arguments ●● New excerpts from Descartes’ Discourse on
on which they are based. A second type of boxed fea- Method, new excerpts from two of Smart’s arti-
ture is entitled Thinking Like a Philosopher. These cles on the identity theory of the mind, and
contain questions that ask the student to apply the several new excerpts from Ryle’s The Concept
ideas expressed in the excerpts to his or her own life. of Mind have been added to Section 2.2. New
Virtually every reading selection has at least one box discussions of these materials have also been
of questions associated with it. Because these boxes added.
now offer a wealth of questions that are directly ●● A new extended excerpt from one of Armstrong’s
related to the readings, I have not felt it was necessary
articles on functionalism and a new extended
to include the end-of-chapter questions that were in
excerpt from an article by Churchland on elimi-
previous editions. However, readers who would like
native materialism also have been added to
to have such questions can go to the text’s website
Section 2.2, and the accompanying discussions
where such questions are provided for each chapter.
have been revised.
As in the previous edition the text includes six-
teen modules entitled Thinking Critically that are ●● New excerpts from Hume’s Treatise have been
spread out over several chapters. Each Thinking Crit- added to Section 2.4 and the discussion has
ically module not only teaches important reasoning been revised.
skills, but also helps the reader apply these skills to ●● The end-of-chapter readings that accompanied
the philosophical topics discussed in the text. Begin- the previous edition have been removed and
ning with the introduction to critical thinking in replaced with three new readings on female
Chapter 1, the aim of these logic modules is to teach identity: Kate Chopin’s “The Story of an Hour”
students, step by step, how to critically evaluate their ; Janice M. Steil’s “Contemporary Marriage: Still
own philosophical thinking and reasoning, as well an Unequal Partnership”; and Jean Grimshaw’s
as the philosophical thoughts and arguments of oth- “Women’s Identity in Feminist Thinking.”
ers. Because critical thinking skills are so important
to doing philosophy, most of the Thinking Critically
Chapter 3
modules occur in the earlier chapters of the book ●● New excerpts from the writings of the Indian
(most, in fact, are in Chapters 1–4).
Charvaka philosophers have been added to
Five new end-of-chapter readings, some from
Section 3.2.
works of fiction, have also been added to this edi-
●● New excerpts from de La Mettrie’s Man a
tion, while numerous new or expanded excerpts
from classical and contemporary texts have been Machine have been added to Section 3.2 together
incorporated into the chapters. with new accompanying discussions.
In addition to hundreds of minor or stylistic ●● Several new excerpts from Berkeley’s Principles of
revisions, the more substantive changes in specific Human Knowledge have been added to Section 3.2
chapters are as follows: and the excerpts from the previous edition have
been expanded, while discussions of these addi-
Chapter 1 tions have also been added.
●● In Section 1.3 the excerpts from Socrates’ Apol- ●● The Critical Thinking module in Section 3.2
ogy and from the Crito have been expanded. now discusses only conditional arguments and
not disjunctive arguments.
Chapter 2 ●● The discussions of pragmatism in Section 3.3
●● In Section 2.2 the excerpts from Plato’s Republic, have been revised, and new excerpts from the
the Phaedrus, and the Phaedo, and the excerpts writings of Pierce and James have been added,
from St. Augustine’s Confessions, have been while the James excerpts from the previous edi-
expanded. tion have been expanded.
P R E FAC E xvii
●● In Section 3.6 the discussions of Husserl and Chapter 6
Heidegger that were in the previous edition ●● Section 6.1, the introduction to the chapter, has
have been removed, while most of the discussion been considerably shortened and simplified by
of Kierkegaard has been moved into Chapter 4 eliminating the discussion of basic and nonbasic
and much of the discussion of Sartre has been beliefs, of foundationalism, and of coherentism.
moved into the discussion of determinism and A new brief discussion of truth-bearers has been
freedom that now occupies Section 3.6. added.
●● The discussions of determinism and freedom ●● The discussion of the correspondence theory
in Section 3.6 have been revised, and several of truth in Section 6.2 has been simplified and
extended excerpts from the writings of Laplace, shortened and the discussion of Tarski’s defini-
Sartre, and Stace have been added. tion of truth has been removed.
●● The end-of-chapter readings in the previous edi- ●● The discussion of the coherence theory of truth
tion have been removed and replaced with two in Section 6.2 has been completely revised, and
new readings: Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, and several extended excerpts from Blanshard’s
Robert Solomon’s “Fate.” The Nature of Thought have been added.
●● In the discussion of the pragmatic theory of
Chapter 4 truth in Section 6.2 the excerpts from James’

●● In Section 4.3 the excerpt from Mackie’s arti-
Pragmatism have been expanded and the discus-
cle on the problem of evil has been expanded, sion has been revised.
and new excerpts from Rowe’s article on the
●● A new discussion of “pluralist” views of truth has
problem of evil and from Augustine’s discus-
sion of the nature of evil, have been added, been added to Section 6.2.
together with new or revised accompanying
discussions. Chapter 7
●● The discussion of ethical relativism in Section
●● The excerpt from James’ “The Will to Believe”
7.2 has been revised.
in Section 4.4 has been substantially expanded,
●● The discussion of utilitarianism in Section 7.3
an extended excerpt from Clifford’s “The Ethics
of Belief” has been added, and the accompany- has also been revised.
●● In Section 7.4, the discussion of the “principle
ing discussions have been revised.
●● In Section 4.5 new excerpts from Kierkegaard’s
of double effect” has been revised as well as the
writings on religion and the “leap of faith” have discussions of Kant and of Buddhist ethics.
●● The discussion of Aristotle’s theory of virtue in
been added, as well as new excerpts from Til-
lich’s writings on attempts to prove that God Section 7.5 has been revised, the excerpts from
exists, and new excerpts from the Bhagavad-Gita. his Nicomachean Ethics have been expanded, and
The discussions accompanying each of these new excerpts from the writings of Gilligan and
have been revised. Noddings have been added.
●● In Section 7.6, a new discussion of the implica-
Chapter 5 tions of the principle of double effect has been

●● New excerpts from Descartes’ Discourse on the
added, along with a new excerpt from Aquinas’
Method have been added to Section 5.2 along Summa.
with a fuller discussion of his views.
●● In Section 5.3 several new excerpts from Locke’s Chapter 8
●● The introduction, Section 8.1, has a new short
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding and
from Hume’s Treatise and his Enquiry have been discussion of power and authority.
added. ●● In Section 8.2 a new excerpt from Plato’s Republic
●● In Section 5.4 the excerpts from Kant’s Critique has been added, and the excerpts from Hobbes’
of Pure Reason have been expanded and several Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise have been
new excerpts have been added. In addition the expanded and the accompanying discussion has
text’s discussion of his transcendental idealism been revised. The short discussion of Rousseau
has been revised. in the previous edition has been removed.
www.ebook3000.com
xviii P R E FAC E
●● The excerpts from Mill’s Utilitarianism in and religious issues, I turn to metaphysical issues in
Section 8.3 have been expanded, and new Chapter 3 and then to discussions of God and reli-
excerpts from Rawls’ writings have been added, gion in Chapter 4. These issues, of course, were of
and the discussion of these has been revised. passionate concern during the medieval and early
●● The excerpts from Mill’s On Liberty in Section 8.4 modern periods of philosophy. Chapters 5 and
have been substantially expanded, along with 6 focus on questions of epistemology, interest in which
the discussion of his views. historically followed the medieval and early modern
interest in metaphysical issues. Chapters 7 and 8 are
Chapter 9 devoted respectively to ethics and social and politi-
●● In Section 9.1 the excerpt from Tolstoy’s My cal philosophy, topics that have preoccupied many
Confession has been expanded and a new excerpt philosophers during the late modern and contem-
from Ayer’s writings has been added. porary periods. Chapter 9 focuses on the meaning
●● In Section 9.2 the excerpt from Tolstoy’s My Con-
of life, an issue that is particularly important for
many of us today.
fession has been expanded, and a new excerpt
Yet no historical period has a monopoly on any of
from Baier’s writings has been added.
these topics. Consequently, each chapter moves back
●● The excerpt from Taylor’s The Meaning of Life in
and forth from classic historical discussions of issues
Section 9.4 has been expanded and the support- to contemporary discussions of the same or related
ing discussion has been revised. issues. The chapter on metaphysics, for example,
●● The excerpts from the writings of Kierkegaard moves from the early modern controversy between
and Sartre in Section 9.5 have been expanded. materialism and idealism to current discussions of
●● The aesthetics section entitled “What Is Art?” antirealism, some of which hark back to idealism.
that was formerly part of this chapter is now
available in the MindTap, and instructors who Special Features
wish to use it may have it custom-published with
the text. This text is unique in many ways and includes the
following special features:
organization Learning objectives. The first page of each chap-
Self-discovery and autonomy remain the central ter outlines the chapter contents and describes
notions around which this edition is organized the pedagogical objectives of each section of the
(although these notions are critically discussed chapter.
in Chapter 2). Each chapter repeatedly returns to
these notions and links the materials discussed to extended Selections from Primary Sources.
the reader’s growth in self-knowledge and intellec- Substantial excerpts from primary source materi-
tual autonomy. The ultimate aim of the text is to als are introduced in the main text, where they are
empower and encourage self-discovery and auton- always carefully explained. To make these materials
omy in the reader, in part by developing his or her accessible to beginning undergraduates, new and
critical thinking skills. simplified translations of several texts (by Plato,
Although the text is organized by topics, the Aristotle, Aquinas, and others) have been prepared,
chapters have been arranged in a roughly historical and several standard translations (such as Max
order. The book opens with an introductory chapter Mueller’s translation of Kant) have been simplified
on the nature of philosophy that focuses on Socrates and edited. In addition, full versions of many of the
as the exemplar of philosophy and includes substan- excerpts are linked to the eBook in the MindTap
tial selections from the Socratic dialogues. Because for Philosophy, via the Questia database. These Ques-
of the book’s focus on the self and the intrinsic tia versions of the readings are also collected in a
importance of the topic, and because human nature folder so that instructors and students can see all the
was an important concern from the earliest time of supplemental Questia readings in a single location.
philosophy, I turn immediately in Chapter 2 to the
discussion of human nature, a discussion that raises Analyzing the Reading Boxes. These boxed fea-
several issues more fully treated in later chapters. tures appear alongside each primary source excerpt
Then, because Chapter 2 raises many metaphysical and contain questions designed to help the student
P R E FAC E xix
understand the source text and the arguments it a philosophical question raised in the text. These
advances. questions are as diverse as “Does the existence of
evil prove God does not exist?” and “Is war morally
Thinking Like a Philosopher Boxes. These boxed justified?”
features are also associated with each excerpt and
contain questions that apply the concepts in the Literature Readings. At the end of each chapter
excerpts to the student’s personal life. is a short literature selection that raises the issues
discussed in the chapter. These readings provide a
Marginal Quick Reviews. These summaries, friendly entry into philosophy for readers who are
which appear alongside the text they summarize, unaccustomed to traditional philosophical style.
help readers identify the main contents of the chap-
ter and give them an easy way to review the materials historical Showcases. Substantial summaries of
they have read. the life and thought of major philosophers, includ-
ing female and non-Western philosophers, are
Thinking Critically Modules. A sequence of six- placed at the end of each chapter. These historical
teen modules entitled Thinking Critically, designed discussions feature large selections from the works
to develop the critical thinking and reasoning skills of philosophers who have addressed the issues
of the reader, is integrated into the text. treated in the chapter. Arranged in chronological
order, the Historical Showcases provide a clear and
Philosophy and Life Boxes. These inserts through- readable overview of the history of philosophy and
out the text show the impact of philosophy on every- enable students to see philosophy as a “great conver-
day life or its connections to current issues such as sation” across centuries.
medical dilemmas, sociobiology, psychology, and sci-
ence. Each box ends with a set of questions designed historical Timeline. Inside the front and back
to spark further thought on the subject. covers is a timeline that locates each philosopher in
his or her historical context.
Color illustrations. Color photos and art repro-
ductions are used throughout the text to provide Ancillaries
visual illustrations of the people and ideas discussed
in the text and to stimulate student interest. MindTap. Available for this edition is MindTap
for Philosophy: A Text with Readings. A fully online,
Glossary of Terms. Unfamiliar philosophical ter- personalized learning experience built upon Cengage
minology is explained and defined in the text and Learning content, MindTap combines student
highlighted in bold. These highlighted terms are learning tools—readings, videos, and activities sup-
defined again in an alphabetized glossary at the end porting critical thinking—into a singular Learning
of the book for easy reference. Path that guides students through their course.
Each chapter contains a wealth of activities written
Philosophy at the Movies. At the end of each sec- to support student learning. Critical thinking exer-
tion of the text is a short paragraph that summarizes cises help guide students through complex topics,
a film that addresses the topics treated in that sec- extended and related readings are integrated with
tion, along with questions that link the film to those the ebook via the Questia database, and video activa-
topics. tors spark connections to the real world, while video
lectures reinforce the complex topics presented in
Chapter Summary. The main text of each chapter the text.
ends with a summary of the major points that have MindTap provides students with ample oppor-
been covered, organized according to the chapter’s tunities to check their understanding, while also
main headings and learning objectives (initially laid providing a clear way to measure and assess student
out at the chapter opening), making them particu- progress for faculty and students alike. Faculty can
larly helpful as an overall review. use MindTap as a turnkey solution or customize by
adding their own content, such as YouTube videos
Readings by Philosophers. Near the end of each or documents, directly into the eBook or within
chapter are highly accessible readings examining each chapter’s Learning Path. The product can be
www.ebook3000.com
xx P R E FAC E
used fully online with the eBook for Philosophy, or in College; Jere Vincent, Great Bay Community Col-
conjunction with the printed text. lege; and Timothy Weldon, University of St. Fran-
cis. For their helpful comments and suggestions on
The Examined Life Video Series. A series of videos earlier editions of the text, I offer sincere thanks to
has been produced to accompany Philosophy: A Text Cathryn Bailey, Minnesota State University; Teresa
with Readings. Entitled The Examined Life, the 26 half- Cantrell, University of Louisville; A. Keith Carreiro,
hour videos cover most (but not all) of the topics Bristol Community College at Attleboro; Michael
treated in this edition and move in sequence through Clifford, Mississippi State University; Christina Con-
each section of each chapter. Each video consists of roy, Morehead State University; Stephen Daniel,
interviews with contemporary philosophers, drama- Texas A&M University; Janice Daurio, Moorpark
tizations, historical footage of well-known philoso- College; Scott Davison, Morehead State University;
phers, discussions of classical philosophical texts, Dennis Earl, Coastal Carolina University; Miguel
and visual interpretations of key philosophical con- Endara, Los Angeles Pierce College; Philip M. Fort-
cepts. Among the philosophers specially interviewed ier, Florida Community College at Jacksonville; Paul
for this video series are W. V. O. Quine, Hilary Put- Gass, Coppin State University; Nathaniel Goldberg,
nam, John Searle, James Rachels, Martha Nussbaum, Washington and Lee University; Khalil Habib, Salve
Marilyn Friedman, Hans Gadamer, Gary Watson, Regina University; Randy Haney, Mount San Anto-
Susan Wolf, Peter Singer, Michael Sandel, Daniel nio College; William S. Jamison, University of Alaska
Dennet, Ronald Dworkin, and many others. The Anchorage; Jonathan Katz, Kwantlen Polytechnic
course is available at www.intelecom.org. University; Stephen Kenzig, Cuyahoga Community
College; Hye-Kyung Kim, University of Wisconsin–
instructor’s Manual and Test Bank. This extensive Green Bay; Emily Kul-backi, Green River Commu-
manual contains many suggestions to help instructors nity College; Thi Lam, San Jacinto College Central;
highlight and promote further thought on philosoph- David Lane, Mt. San Antonio College and California
ical issues. It also comes with a comprehensive Test State University, Long Beach; Mary Latela, Sacred
Bank featuring multiple-choice, true/false, fill-in-the- Heart University, Post University; Matthew Daude
blank, and essay questions for each chapter. Laurents, Austin Community College; George J.
Lujan, Mission College; Darryl Mehring, University
of Colorado at Boulder; Scott Merlino, California
Acknowledgments
State University Sacramento; Mark Michael, Austin
For their helpful comments and suggestions on Peay State University; Jonathan Miles, Quincy Uni-
this 13th edition revision, I offer sincere thanks to versity; John C. Modschiedler, College of DuPage;
Femi Bogle-Assegai, Capital Community College; Michael Monge, Long Beach City College; Jeremy
Jessica Danos, Merrimack College; Christy Flana- Morris, Ohio University; Patrice Nango, Mesa Com-
gan-Feddon, University of Central Florida; Douglas munity College; Joseph Pak, Los Angeles City Col-
Hill, Saddleback College and Golden West College; lege; William Payne, Bellevue College; Steven Pena,
Theresa Jeffries, Gateway Community College; San Jacinto College, Central Campus; Alexandra
Sharon Kaye, John Carroll University; Richard Kelso, Perry, Bergen Community College; Michael Petri,
Pellissippi State Community College; Thi Lam, San South Coast College; James Petrik, Ohio Univer-
Jacinto College Central; Bradley Lipinski, Cuyahoga sity; Michael T. Prahl, Hawkeye Community College
Community College; Ananda Spike, MiraCosta Col- and University of Northern Iowa; Randy Ramal,
lege; Michele Svatos, Eastfield College; and Paul Mt. San Antonio College; Matthew Schuh, Miami
Tipton, Glendale Community College. The mem- Dade College; Ted Shigematsu, Santa Ana Col-
bers of the Introduction to Philosophy Technology lege; Karen Sieben, Ocean County College; Paula
Advisory Board also provided insight into their class- J. Smithka, University of Southern Mississippi;
rooms that contributed to the development of the Doran Smolkin, Kwantlen Polytechnic University;
MindTap for Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Thank Tim Snead, East Los Angeles College; Mark Sto-
you to Kent Anderson, Clarke University; Tara Bla- rey, Bellevue College; Matthew W. Turner, Francis
ser, Lake Land College; David Burris, Arizona West- Marion University; Frank Waters, Los Angeles Val-
ern College; Dan Dutkofski, Valencia College; Bryan ley College; Diane S. Wilkinson, Alabama A&M Uni-
Hilliard, Mississippi University for Women; Sharon versity; Holly L. Wilson, University of Louisiana at
Kaye, John Carroll University; Terry Sader, Butler Monroe; and Paul Wilson, Texas State University–
Community College; Julio Torres, Los Angeles City San Marcos.
www.ebook3000.com
CHAPTER
1 The Nature of Philosophy

The feeling of wonder is the mark of the philosopher,
for all philosophy has its origins in wonder.
PLATO
OuTlinE And lEARning ObjECTivEs
1.1 What Is Philosophy?
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: When finished, you’ll be able to:
●● Explain how Plato’s Allegory of the Cave shows that philosophy is a freeing
activity.
●● thinking critically Explain what critical thinking is and how it is related to
philosophy.
●● Explain the importance of the philosophical perspectives of women and
non-Western cultures.
●● thinking critically Define reasoning and its role in critical thinking.
1.2 The Traditional Divisions of Philosophy

●● Define epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics, and explain the kinds of questions
each asks.
●● thinking critically Recognize and avoid vague or ambiguous claims.
●● thinking critically Identify an argument, its conclusion, and its supporting
reasons.
1.3 A Philosopher in Action: Socrates

●● Explain how Socrates’ unrelenting questioning of conventional beliefs
exemplifies the quest for philosophical wisdom.
●● thinking critically Identify the main premises and conclusions of an argument,
and its missing premises or assumptions.
1.4 The Value of Philosophy

●● Compare Plato’s and Buddha’s claims that philosophical wisdom is related to
freedom.
●● State how philosophy can help you build your outlook on life, be more mindful,
and become a critical thinker.
Chapter Summary
1.5 Reading
Voltaire, “Story of a Good Brahman”
1.6 Historical Showcase: The First Philosophers
MindTap for Philosophy: A Text with Readings includes:

● Activator videos that spark connections to the real world
● Critical thinking exercises that help guide student understanding
● Extended versions of the readings excerpted in the text via the Questia database, linked directly
from the eBook text
© NattyPTG/Shutterstock.com
● Video lectures that reinforce complex topics

● Assignable essays and chapter quizzes
www.ebook3000.com
4 CHAPTER 1 ● ThE NATuRE of PhIloSoPhy
1.1 What is Philosophy?

Philosophy begins with wonder. Although many of us know very little about the
jargon and history of philosophy, we have all been touched by the wonder with
which philosophy begins. We wonder about why we are here; about who we really
are; about whether God exists and what She or He is like; why pain, evil, sorrow, and
QuiCk REviEW separation exist; whether there is life after death; what true love and friendship are;
Philosophy begins when we what the proper balance is between serving others and serving ourselves; whether
start to wonder about and moral right and wrong are based on personal opinion or on some objective stan-
question our basic beliefs.
dard; and whether suicide, abortion, or euthanasia is ever justified.
This wondering and questioning begin early in our lives. Almost as soon as chil-
dren learn to talk, they ask: Where did I come from? Where do people go when they
die? How did the world start? Who made God? From the very beginning of our lives,
we start to seek answers to questions that make up philosophy.
In fact, the word philosophy comes from the Greek words philein, meaning “to
QuiCk REviEW
The goal of philosophy is love,” and sophia, meaning “wisdom.” Philosophy is thus the love and pursuit of wis-
to answer these questions dom. It includes the search for wisdom about many basic issues: what it means to be
for ourselves and achieve a human being; what the fundamental nature of reality is; what the sources and lim-
autonomy.
its of our knowledge are; and what is good and right in our lives and in our societies.
Although philosophy begins with wonder and questions, it does not end there.
Philosophy tries to go beyond the answers that we received when we were too young
to seek our own answers. The goal of philosophy is to answer these questions for
QuiCk REviEW ourselves and to make up our own minds about our self, life, knowledge, society,
In Plato’s Allegory of the religion, and morality.
Cave, chained prisoners We accepted many of our religious, political, and moral beliefs when we were
watch shadows cast on
a cave wall by objects children and could not yet think for ourselves. Philosophy examines these beliefs.
passing in front of a fire. The aim is not to reject them but to learn why we hold them and to ask whether
They mistake the shadows we have good reasons to continue holding them. By doing this we make our basic
for reality.
beliefs about reality and life our own. We accept them because we have thought
them through on our own, not because our parents, peers, and society have con-
ditioned us to believe them. In this
way, we gain a kind of independence
(1483–1520)/© Vatican Museums and Galleries, Vatican City, Italy, Giraudon/The Bridgeman Art Library International
and freedom, or what some mod-

School of Athens, from the Stanza della Segnatura, 1510–1511 (fresco), Raphael (Raffaello Sanzio of Urbino)
ern philosophers call autonomy. An

important goal of philosophy, then, is
autonomy, which is the freedom and
ability to decide for yourself what
you will believe in, by using your own
reasoning powers.
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

Walking with his Plato is one of the earliest and greatest
student Aristotle, Western philosophers. He illustrated
Plato points upward: how philosophy aims at freedom with
“And the climb a famous parable called the Allegory of
upward out of the the Cave. The Allegory of the Cave is a
cave into the upper
story Plato tells in The Republic, his clas-
world is the ascent
sic philosophical work on justice. Here
of the mind into
the domain of true is an edited translation of the Allegory
knowledge.” of the Cave, which Plato wrote in his
native Greek:
1.1 ● WhAT IS PhIloSoPhy? 5
Now let me describe the human situation in a parable about ignorance and learning.
To read
Imagine men live at the bottom of an underground cave. The entrance to the cave is
more from Plato's The Republic,
a long passageway that rises upward through the ground to the light outside. They click the link in the MindTap
have been there since childhood and have their legs and necks chained so they cannot Reader or go to the Questia
move. The chains hold their heads so they must sit facing the back wall of the cave. Readings folder in MindTap.
They cannot turn their heads to look up through the entrance behind them. At some
distance behind them, up nearer the entrance to the cave, a fire is burning. objects
pass in front of the fire so that they cast their shadows on the back wall of the cave.
The prisoners see the moving shadows on the cave wall as if projected on a screen.
QuiCk REviEW
All kinds of objects parade before the fire including statues of men and animals. As If a prisoner is freed and
they move past the fire their shadows dance on the wall in front of the prisoners. forced to see the fire
Those prisoners are like ourselves. The prisoners cannot see themselves or each other and objects, he will have
except for the shadows each prisoner’s body casts on the back wall of the cave. They also difficulty seeing and will
think the shadows are more
cannot see the objects behind them, except for the shadows the objects cast on the wall. real than the objects.
Now imagine the prisoners could talk with each other. Suppose their voices
echoed off the wall so that the voices seem to come from their own shadows. Then
wouldn’t they talk about these shadows as if the shadows were real? for the prisoners,
reality would consist of nothing but shadows.
Next imagine that someone freed one of the prisoners from his chains. Suppose QuiCk REviEW
he forced the prisoner to stand up and turn toward the entrance of the cave and then If the prisoner were to be
forced him to walk up toward the burning fire. The movement would be painful. The dragged out of the cave
glare from the fire would blind the prisoner so that he could hardly see the real objects to the light of the sun, he
would be blinded, and he
whose shadows he used to watch. What would he think if someone explained that would look first at shadows,
everything he had seen before was an illusion? Would he realize that now he was nearer then reflections, then
to reality and that his vision was actually clearer? objects, then the moon,
Imagine that now someone showed him the objects that had cast their shadows on and then the sun, which
controls everything in the
the wall and asked the prisoner to name each one. Wouldn’t the prisoner be at a com-
visible world.
plete loss? Wouldn’t he think the shadows he saw earlier were truer than these objects?
Next imagine someone forced the prisoner to
look straight at the burning light. his eyes would A N A LY Z I N G T H E R E A D I N G
hurt. The pain would make him turn away and try to
return to the shadows he could see more easily. he 1. At the end of his allegory Plato says the journey
would think that those shadows were more real than up to the sunlight represents the mind acquiring
the new objects shown to him. knowledge. What does the sunlight represent? What
But suppose that once more someone takes him does the darkness of the cave represent? What do
and drags him up the steep and rugged ascent from the shadows on the wall of the dark cave represent?
the cave. Suppose someone forces him out into the Who do the people who stay in the darkness of the
full light of the sun. Won’t he suffer greatly and be cave represent? Who does the person who guides
furious at being dragged upward? The light will so the prisoner out of the dark cave represent? Read
dazzle his eyes as he approaches it that he won’t be the allegory again and indicate what you think other
able to see any of this world we ourselves call real- things in the Allegory are supposed to represent.
ity. little by little he will have to get used to looking 2. What is Plato trying to say when he writes that a
at the upper world. At first he will see shadows on person who sees the real sunlit world and then
the ground best. Next perhaps he will be able to look returns to the dark cave will seem “ridiculous” to
at the reflections of men and other objects in water, those who have stayed in the dark? Do you think
and then maybe the objects themselves. After this, he Plato is right?
would find it easier to gaze at the light of the moon
and the stars in the night sky than to look at the day- 3. What is Plato trying to say when he writes that a
light sun and its light. last of all, he will be able to person who sees the real sunlit world will “feel
look at the sun and contemplate its nature. he will not happy” and will “endure anything rather than go
just look at its reflection in water but will see it as it back to thinking and living like” those who stay in
is in itself and in its own domain. he would come to the dark? Is Plato right?
the conclusion that the sun produces the seasons and 4. Is Plato assuming that knowledge is always better
the years and that it controls everything in the visible than ignorance? Is it ever true that “Ignorance is
world. he will understand that it is, in a way, the cause bliss”? So do you think Plato is right or not?
of everything he and his fellow prisoners used to see.
www.ebook3000.com
Suppose the released prisoner now recalled the cave and what passed for wisdom
QuiCk REviEW among his friends there. Wouldn’t he be happy about his new situation and feel
If he returns to the cave, he sorry for them? Perhaps the prisoners would honor those who were quickest to
would be unable to see and
make out the shadows. or perhaps they honored those who could remember the
would be laughed at.
order in which the shadows appeared and were best at predicting the course of
the shadows. Would he care about such honors and glories or would he envy those
In Plato's who won them? Wouldn’t he rather endure anything than go back to thinking and
Allegory of the Cave, the living like they did?
prisoners perceive the cave finally, imagine that someone led the released prisoner away from the light
as the whole world. how and back down into the cave to his old seat. his eyes would be full of darkness.
can we trust our senses? Go
to MindTap to watch a video
But even though his eyes were still dim, he would have to compete in discerning
about what philosophers the shadows with the prisoners who had never left the cave. Wouldn’t he appear
have thought about this. ridiculous? Men would say of him that he had gone up and had come back down
with his eyesight ruined and that it was better not to even think of ascending.
In fact, if they caught anyone trying to free them and lead them up to the light,
QuiCk REviEW they would try to kill him.
The climb out of the cave is I tell you now, that the prison is the world we see with our eyes; the light of the
the ascent of the mind to
true knowledge.
fire is like the power of our sun. The climb upward out of the cave into the upper world
is the ascent of the mind into the domain of true knowledge.1
Plato’s Allegory and “doing” Philosophy

Plato wrote this intriguing allegory more than two thousand years ago. It is impor-
tant for us because we can interpret it as an explanation of what philosophy is.
Philosophy as an Activity. First, in the allegory, the activity of journeying

upward from the dark cave to the light can be seen as what philosophy is. That is,
philosophy is an activity. In this respect, it differs from other academic subjects.
Unlike some other subjects, philosophy does not consist of a lot of information or
theories. True, philosophers have developed many theories and views. However,
philosophical theories are the products of philosophy, not philosophy itself. While
studying philosophy, of course, you will study the theories of several important
philosophers. But the point of studying them is not just to memorize them. You
will study them, instead, as an aid to help you learn how to “do” philosophy. By
seeing how the best philosophers have “done” philosophy and by considering
their views you will better understand what philosophizing is. More importantly,
you can use their insights to shed light on your own philosophical journey. It’s
the journey—the activity—that’s important, not the products you bring back
from your journey.
Philosophy is Hard Work. Second, as Plato made clear in the allegory,

philosophy can be a difficult activity. The journey upward is hard because it
involves questioning the most basic beliefs that each of us has about ourselves
and the world around us. As the allegory suggests, your philosophical journey
sometimes may lead your thinking in directions that society does not support.
It may lead you toward views that others around you reject. Philosophy is also
hard because it requires us to think critically, consistently, and carefully about
our fundamental beliefs. We may rebel against being asked to systematically and
logically question and criticize views that we have always accepted. Yet the journey
out of the darkness of the cave requires intellectual discipline and the hard work
1
Plato, The Republic, from bk. 7. This translation copyright © 1987 by Manuel Velasquez.
of reasoning as carefully and logically as we can. That is why someone taking the
first steps in philosophy can be helped by a teacher. As Plato says, the teacher
must “take him and drag him up the steep and rugged ascent from the cave and
force him out into the full light of the sun.” The teacher does this by getting the
student to ask the hard questions that the student is reluctant to ask on his or
her own.
The Aim of Philosophy is Freedom. Third, as Plato indicates and as we have

already suggested, the aim of philosophy is freedom. Philosophy breaks chains that QuiCk REviEW
imprison and hold us down, chains we often do not even know we are wearing. The Allegory of the Cave
suggests philosophy is an
Like the prisoners in the cave, we uncritically accept the beliefs and opinions of activity that is difficult, has
those around us. This unthinking conformity leads us to see the world in narrow, the aim of freedom, and
rigid ways. Philosophy aims at breaking us free of the prejudices and unthinking examines the most basic
assumptions of human
assumptions we have long absorbed from those around us. Once free, we can move existence.
toward more reflective views that are truly our own.
Philosophy Examines Our Most basic Assumptions. Fourth, Plato’s allegory

suggests that philosophy examines our beliefs about the most basic issues of human
existence. These include many assumptions we are not even aware of although they
play a crucial role in our thinking and our actions. We are like the prisoner who is
forced to look at the real objects whose shadows
he had always assumed were real. In a similar way,
doing philosophy means questioning the most
THinking likE A PHilOsOPHER
basic assumptions we make about ourselves and 1. What does wisdom mean to you?
the universe around us. The word philosophy itself 2. Who are the people in your life who you think are
suggests this, for, as we noted earlier, it means truly wise? What qualities do they have that make
“the love of wisdom.” To do philosophy is to love you think they are wise? how do you think they
wisdom. Wisdom is a true understanding of the became wise? how has their wisdom affected you?
most fundamental aspects of human living. So 3. Would you describe yourself as a person who is
the love of wisdom is the desire to understand the wise? Would you describe yourself as a person who
fundamental assumptions we have about ourselves loves wisdom? Why?
and our world. 4. What kind of wisdom would you most want to have?
The view that philosophy examines our beliefs What kinds of things would you most want to be
about the most fundamental issues of life was per- wise about? Why is it important to you to have
haps most clearly expressed not by Plato, but by wisdom about those things?
Perictione. Perictione was a woman philosopher
who lived around the time of Plato. She wrote:
humanity came into being and exists in order to contemplate the principle of the
nature of the whole. The function of wisdom is to gain possession of this very thing,
and to contemplate the purpose of the things that are. Geometry, of course, and
arithmetic, and the other theoretical studies and sciences are also concerned with
the things that are. But wisdom is concerned with the most basic of these. Wisdom is
concerned with all that is, just as sight is concerned with all that is visible and hear-
ing with all that is audible. . . . Therefore, whoever is able to analyze all the kinds of
being by reference to one and the same basic principle, and, in turn, from this prin- QuiCk REviEW
ciple can synthesize and enumerate the different kinds, this person seems to be the Perictione suggests that
wisest and most true and, moreover, to have discovered a noble height from which philosophy is a search
for the purpose of the
he will be able to catch sight of God and all the things separated from God in serial
universe.
rank and order.2
2
Quoted in A History of Women Philosophers, ed. Mary Ellen Waithe (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987), 56.
www.ebook3000.com
Perictione is saying that the

search for wisdom is a search
for an understanding of the
ultimate truths about ourselves
and our universe. It is a search
for a kind of understanding
that goes beyond mathemat-
ics and the other sciences.
These—mathematics and the
other sciences—look only at
particular aspects of our world.
Philosophy, on the other hand,
desires to know the ultimate
truth about all aspects of our
world. It desires to understand
the assumptions that underlie
the sciences as well as every-
A woman philosopher
who lived about thing we think and do.
the time of Plato, For example, philosophy
Perictione saw examines the basic assump-
philosophy as a search tions that underlie religion
for understanding: when it asks: Is there a God? Is
“humanity came into there an afterlife? What truth is
MyLoupe/Getty Images
being and exists in there in religious experience?

order to contemplate Philosophy examines the basic
the principle of the assumptions that underlie sci-
nature of the whole.”
ence when it asks: Can science
tell us what our universe is
really like? Are scientific theo-
ries merely useful approximations, or do they impart real truths about the universe?
Is there such a thing as truth in science? Philosophy examines the basic values that
underlie our relations with one another when it asks: Is there really such a thing as
justice? What, if anything, do we truly owe each other? Is true love really possible or
are all our activities based on self-interest? And it examines the basic notions that
underlie our views about reality. For example, it asks: Are we truly in control of the
choices we think we make, or is everything we do determined by forces we do not
control? Are the ordinary objects we experience all that reality contains, or does
another kind of reality exist beyond the world that appears around us? Philosophy,
then, examines the basic assumptions that underlie everything we do and believe.
In fact, we can define philosophy—the love and pursuit of wisdom—as critically and
carefully examining the reasons behind our most fundamental assumptions about
ourselves and the world around us.
thinking critically ● Assumptions and Critical Thinking

Doing philosophy, then, often involves trying to discover the assumptions we are making
or that others are making. Assumptions are beliefs we take for granted and that would
have to be true if the other things we believe and say are true, or if what we do makes
sense. For example, most of our religious beliefs and activities assume that God exists. If it
were not true that God exists, then most traditional religious beliefs could not be true and
traditional religious activities would make little sense. In a similar way, most of us assume
that what we perceive with our five senses is real. If it were not true that what we see is
real, then most of our beliefs about what we know about reality would not be true. And
most of us assume that what we are doing is worth doing, for otherwise it would make lit-
QuiCk REviEW
tle sense for us to continue doing it. It is important to be aware of the assumptions we and Identifying assumptions—
others make. Otherwise we risk becoming like the prisoners in Plato’s cave who unthink- beliefs we take for granted
ingly assume the shadows they see are real objects. To help you identify assumptions and that have to be true if
other beliefs are to be true
in the readings, the boxes entitled Analyzing the Reading will sometimes point out an
and actions are to make
assumption the author may be making. An example is the fourth question in the Analyzing sense—is part of critical
the Reading box you saw at the end of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. Read it now and see thinking, which is essential
what you think. Later we will look more closely at the process of identifying assumptions. to philosophy.
Doing this kind of thinking—trying to discover our own and others’ assumptions—
is an important part of what is called critical thinking. What is critical thinking? We are
always thinking, of course, and we use our thinking any time we decide what we should
do or believe. But our thinking can be illogical, biased, close-minded, or based on mis-
taken assumptions, unsupported beliefs, false generalizations, and fallacious reasoning.
Such thinking risks leading us astray. Critical thinking is the opposite of this kind of risky
undisciplined thinking. Critical thinking is the kind of disciplined thinking we do when
we base our beliefs and actions on unbiased and valid reasoning that uses well-founded
evidence, that avoids false generalizations and unrecognized assumptions, and that con-
siders opposing viewpoints. Using this kind of disciplined critical thinking to examine an
issue involves seven steps: (1) identify and state your own views on the issue, (2) clarify
your views by defining key words or terms your views contain, getting rid of ambiguities,
and providing examples of what your views involve, (3) identify the important assump-
tions on which your views depend, (4) determine the reasons or evidence that support
your views and make sure these reasons support your views with sound and valid reason-
ing and are not false generalizations, (5) consider other views people may have about
the same issue and the reasons they have for their views, (6) come to a conclusion about
whether your own view or one of the other views makes the most sense, and (7) determine
the consequences of your conclusion. Don’t worry if these steps are not completely clear
to you yet. As you move through this book, the meaning of each should become clear.
Obviously, critical thinking is important in every aspect of life. But it is especially
essential in philosophy because, as we have said, philosophy is the activity of thinking
through the most basic beliefs we have accepted about ourselves and our world, and try-
ing to form our own views about these. If such philosophical thinking is not to go wrong,
it has to be critical thinking. Because critical thinking is so important in philosophy, this
book contains several sections, like this one, entitled Thinking Critically. Each of these
sections explains some aspect of critical thinking and applies critical thinking to the phi-
losophy discussed in the book. The aim of these sections is to enable you to learn, step
by step, how to evaluate your own philosophical thinking, as well as the philosophical
thinking of others. It is sometimes said that philosophy “Teaches you how to think.” This
is absolutely true. To learn philosophy is, at the same time, to learn to think critically.
The diversity of Philosophy

Both Plato and Perictione are representatives of so-called Western philosophy.
Western philosophy is a part of the cultural tradition that began in ancient Greece
and eventually spread to Europe, England, and the United States. Yet the search for
wisdom has been a concern of all races and cultures. The study of Western philoso-
phy is important for us because it has had a profound and direct influence on our
society. And it continues to influence and shape the thinking of each of us today.
www.ebook3000.com
Yet, non-Western philosophical traditions have had equally profound impacts on

our planet’s civilizations. Moreover, the world’s nations have become so interdepen-
dent that non-Western philosophies now directly influence our own thinking. So
learning about those other philosophical traditions is as vital as learning about the
Western traditions that have shaped us and our society.
We will spend a good deal of time discussing the views of Western philosophers.
But we will not ignore the contributions of non-Western philosophers, such as
Indian, African, and Asian philosophers. By looking at their contributions, you can
QuiCk REviEW
It is important to also look expand your horizons. These perspectives provide new ways of looking at yourself
at philosophy from the and reality. By looking at worlds that are different from the one you live in, you can
perspective of non-Western understand what your world is really like. More important, perhaps, you can envi-
cultures and of women.
sion ways of making it better.
We will also not ignore the contributions of a group of people who are some-
times overlooked in philosophy courses. This is the group of people that make up 50
percent of the human race: women. For many historical reasons (including subtle
and overt sexism), the major contributors to Western philosophy have been males.
Nevertheless, several important women philosophers, like Perictione, have made
significant philosophical contributions. Therefore, this book includes discussions
of an approach to philosophy that tries to capture the special philosophical insights
of female philosophers. This approach is what is generally referred to as “feminist
philosophy.” Feminist philosophy attempts to look at philosophical issues from the
perspectives of women. The pages that follow, then, do not ignore the contributions
of feminist philosophy. Instead they include numerous discussions of the views of
important feminist philosophers.
thinking critically ● Reasoning

We said earlier that philosophy “requires us to think critically” and that thinking criti-
Visit
MindTap to do critical
cally requires “valid reasoning.” So reasoning is an essential component of philosophical
thinking exercises on logic thinking. Reasoning is the process of thinking by which we draw conclusions from the
and reasoning, where you'll information, knowledge, or beliefs we have about something. We call the information
learn to recognize and from which we draw a conclusion the “reasons” or the “premises” or the “evidence” for the
evaluate arguments.
conclusion. We are reasoning, for example, when we use the information we have about
the universe to try to figure out whether we should believe that God exists. We also use
reasoning when we use our knowledge of a person to try to figure out whether we should
marry that person, or when we use the information we have about a college to figure out
whether we want to go to that college. In fact, reasoning pervades our whole life since we
use reasoning every time we rely on the knowledge or information we have about some-
thing, to figure out what we should believe or do about it.
Although reasoning pervades our lives, it plays an especially important role in phi-
losophy because when we philosophize we are always engaged in reasoning. In fact, so
essential is reasoning in philosophy, that you could almost say that philosophizing is rea-
soning: It is reasoning about our most fundamental beliefs and assumptions.
But philosophers do not engage in just any kind of reasoning. Philosophers want their
reasoning to be good reasoning. Good reasoning is reasoning in which the reasons we
have for a conclusion provide sound and valid evidence for that conclusion. Consequently,
a lot of the work of philosophizing involves trying to figure out or evaluate whether the
reasons or evidence for a conclusion provide sound and valid support for that conclu-
sion. Because we all use reasoning when we make important decisions in life, learning to
evaluate reasoning will help you throughout your life. Good reasoning is not only a key
to philosophy, it is also a key to success in getting whatever it is that you want out of life.
1.2 ● ThE TRADITIoNAl DIVISIoNS of PhIloSoPhy 11
P H i lOs O P H Y AT T H E M Ov i E s
Watch The Matrix (1999) in which the leader of a rebel group shows Neo, a com-
puter hacker, that the “reality” around him is actually a computer simulation called
the “Matrix.” How is the Matrix like Plato’s cave, and how is Neo like Plato’s released
prisoner? How do they differ? Is your situation today in any way like that of the
people in the Matrix? How do you know? While savoring a steak in a restaurant in
the Matrix, one of the rebels, Cypher, agrees to betray the rebels to Agent Smith and
says, “Ignorance is bliss.” What does he mean? Would Plato agree with Cypher? Why
© Pictorial Press Ltd/Alamy

or why not? Would you agree? Why or why not?
Other movies with related themes: The Animatrix (2003); Equilibrium (2002);
Vanilla Sky (2001); Mulholland Dr. (2001); some related older classics: eXistenZ (1999)
and The Thirteenth Floor (1999).
1.2 The Traditional divisions of Philosophy

Another way of understanding what philosophy means is to look at the kinds of
questions it has traditionally asked. Philosophy has been generally concerned with
three broad questions: What is knowledge? What is real? What is right and good?
These questions are related and the distinction among them is sometimes blurred.
Nevertheless, philosophers have traditionally seen most philosophical questions as
parts of these three inquiries.
These three questions suggest the three topics to which most philosophical
questions are related. These are knowledge, reality, and values. Philosophers call
the fields of philosophy that explore these topics epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.
Epistemology: The study of knowledge

Epistemology literally means “the study of knowledge.” Some of the problems dis- QuiCk REviEW
Epistemology looks at the
cussed in epistemology include: What is the structure, reliability, extent, and kinds extent and reliability of our
of knowledge we have? What is truth? What is logical reasoning? How do words refer knowledge, truth, and logic,
to reality? What is meaning? What is the foundation of knowledge? Is real knowl- and whether knowledge is
possible.
edge even possible?
To get a better idea of what epistemology is, and its importance, consider the
interesting views of Gail Stenstad. Stenstad is a contemporary feminist philoso-
pher. She argues that male approaches to knowledge assume that there is only one
truth—one correct theory. This male approach holds, she claims, that all other con-
flicting insights must be wrong. Stenstad calls this male approach to knowledge theo- QuiCk REviEW
Stenstad claims that there
retical thinking. She contrasts this approach to knowledge with a feminist approach are many different truths
that she calls anarchic thinking. Feminist anarchic thinking, she says, recognizes that and that differing views can
there is not just one “objective” truth. Feminist thinking recognizes there are many be accepted as equally valid
and true.
different truths, and that none should be ruled out as “incorrect.”
In some ways the difference between theoretical thinking and anarchic thinking is
analogous to the difference between monotheism [belief in one God] and polythe-
ism [belief in many gods]. Theoretical thinking and monotheism both tend toward
“the one.” Monotheism, obviously, is oriented toward one god; historically, many
monotheistic religions have also been very concerned with oneness in doctrine, with
arriving at doctrine that can be taken to be the only true or correct one. “one lord,
one faith, one baptism.” This sort of focus creates an in-group and an out-group:
the saved and the damned. While none but the most rigid theorists would go so far
www.ebook3000.com
in demarcating an in-group and an out-group, accusations of “incorrectness” have

been used to silence disagreement. further, in its very structure, any claim to pos-
sess the truth, or the correct account of reality or the good, creates an out-group,
whether we like it or not. The out-group is all those whose truth or reality or values
are different from those posited in the theory. . . . [But] polytheism has room to
include a monotheistic perspective (though the reverse is not the case). A belief in
many gods, or in many possibilities or sacred manifestations, can allow for an indi-
vidual’s preference for any one (or more) of those manifestations. likewise, anarchic
thinking does not abandon or exclude or negate the insights achieved by theoretical
thinking, but rather demotes “the theory” to a situational analysis, useful and accu-
rate within limits clearly demarcated in each case. other, very different analyses,
based on other women’s situations and experiences, are not ruled out.3
In this passage, Stenstad is comparing male or theoretical thinking with mono-

theism. Monotheism is the belief that there is just one God and all beliefs in other
gods should be rejected. In a similar way, she says, male “theoretical thinking” assumes
there is only one true view of reality and all opposing (“different”) views must be
rejected. Her point appears to be that theoretical thinking, the male view of truth,
assumes that if several views of reality conflict (are inconsistent), then only one can
be true. We must reject such male approaches to knowledge and truth, she seems to
imply. Instead, she is apparently saying, we should accept the anarchic view of truth.
The anarchic view holds that truth is many and that several opposing insights can be
equally valid and equally true. This approach to truth and knowledge, she believes,
can give women the power to break free of male theories that deny the equal valid-
ity of opposing views. Moreover, the male approach creates an in-group that has the
truth and an out-group that does not. The anarchist approach, however, does not
divide people into a group that knows the truth and a group that does not. Instead it
embraces the many truths of people with different experiences and different insights.
Is truth many or one? Is there a male approach to knowledge and truth that
is intolerant and exclusive? Should we embrace the view that truth is many and
that there is no single correct truth about what the world is like? Are the conflict-
ing insights of people with different experiences of the world all equally valid and
equally true? Out of these kinds of puzzling questions arises the field of epistemol-
ogy, the attempt to determine what knowledge and truth are. As this short discus-
sion of Stenstad suggests, the answers to these questions may even influence how we
relate to each other as male and female.
thinking critically ● Avoiding Vague and Ambiguous Claims

The quotation of Stenstad above contains several claims. A claim is a statement or sentence
or proposition that can be true or false. Stenstad makes the claim, for example, that there are
two kinds of thinking: theoretical thinking and anarchic thinking. Earlier, we saw that Plato
made the claim that the person who acquires “true knowledge” is like a prisoner who is freed
from his chains. And Perictione made the claim that to have wisdom is to understand “the
purpose of the things that are.” The point is that philosophers proceed by making claims.
Like all claims, the claims of a philosopher can be clear or they can be vague or ambig-
uous. Vague claims are those that do not have a precise meaning. Ambiguous claims are
those that have several possible meanings. Some of Stenstad’s claims about anarchic
3
Gail Stenstad, “Anarchic Thinking: Breaking the Hold of Monotheistic Ideology on Feminist Philoso-
phy,” in Women, Knowledge, and Reality: Explorations in Feminist Philosophy, ed. Ann Garry and Marilyn
Pearsall (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 333.
thinking, for example, seem ambiguous. She says that theoretical thinking holds that if
one view about reality is “correct,” then any “different” view has to be “incorrect.” And
anarchic thinking holds that if one view is correct, another view that is “very different”
is “not ruled out.” But what does she mean by a “very different” view? Does her claim
mean that in anarchic thinking views that contradict each other can both be true? Is she
saying, for example, that if one person says God exists and another says God does not
exist, anarchic thinking can accept both statements as true? Or does her claim just mean
that anarchic thinking accepts views that are dissimilar but that do not contradict each
other? For example, is she saying that if one person says God is loving and another says
God is just, anarchic thinking can accept both views as true? The trouble is that we don’t
know exactly what her claim is because it is ambiguous: It could have at least two different
meanings. There are, of course, times when vagueness or ambiguity is appropriate. If your
wife asks you what you think of her mother, it may be best to be vague. But there is usually
something wrong with philosophical claims that are vague or ambiguous. Since we are not
even sure what they mean, we cannot really reason about whether they are true or false.
One of the most important ways of evaluating the claim of a philosopher (or any-
one else), then, is by asking whether his or her claim is clear or ambiguous. If the claim is
too vague or ambiguous we may not be able to figure out exactly what it means. Vague
and ambiguous philosophical claims are defective and should be avoided. We will discuss
numerous philosophical claims in the pages that follow. As you read and think about these
claims, you should evaluate them. Ask whether they have the most fundamental charac-
teristic of an adequate claim: Is the meaning of the claim clear, or is it vague or ambiguous?
Metaphysics: The study of Reality or Existence

Metaphysics is the second major area of philosophy. Metaphysics is the study of the
most general or ultimate characteristics of reality or existence. Some questions that
belong to metaphysics are: What is the purpose and nature of reality? What is real?
What am I? What is the mind? Is God real? Is my soul real? Can my soul survive death?
To get a clearer idea of what metaphysics is about, consider one of the core QuiCk REviEW
questions of metaphysics. Is everything I do determined by outside causes, or am I Metaphysics looks at
free to choose for myself what I will do? By looking at how some philosophers have ultimate characteristics of
reality or existence.
treated this issue we can get a better understanding of metaphysics.
One important theory in metaphysics is determinism. Determinism is the claim
that all things and all human beings are unfree because everything that occurs hap-
pens in accordance with some regular pattern or law. Paul Henri d’Holbach, who QuiCk REviEW
wrote in the eighteenth century, made such a claim: D’holbach claimed
everything is determined
by causes we do not
In whatever manner man is considered, he is connected to universal nature, and control, so we are not free.
submitted to the necessary and immutable laws that she imposes on all beings she
contains. . . . he is born without his own consent; his [physical and mental] organization
does in no way depend on himself; his ideas come to him involuntarily; and his habits
are in the power of those who cause him to have them. he is unceasingly modified by
causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no control and which necessarily
regulate his existence, color his way of thinking, and determine his manner of acting. . . .
In short, the actions of man are never free; they are always the necessary conse-
quence of his temperament, of the ideas he has received, including his true or false
notions of happiness, and of those opinions that are strengthened by example, by edu-
cation, and by daily experience. . . . Man is not a free agent in any instant of his life.4
4
Baron Paul Henri d’Holbach, System of Nature (London: Dearsley, 1797).
www.ebook3000.com
Yet many other philosophers deny these deterministic claims about reality. One
QuiCk REviEW
frankl, in a Nazi prison, saw
of them is Viktor Frankl, a twentieth-century Jewish psychologist and existentialist
humans as being ultimately philosopher who lived through World War II. Frankl suffered terrible degradations
free. while imprisoned by the Nazis after they murdered his entire family. There, in the
terror-filled German prison camps, he was struck by how often people responded to
their situation with generosity and selflessness. He said that his experiences proved
to him that human beings are ultimately free and that each of us has the freedom to
make of ourselves whatever kind of person we choose to be:
Man is not fully conditioned and determined; he determines himself whether to give in
to conditions or stand up to them. In other words, man is ultimately self-determining.
Man does not simply exist, but always decides what his existence will be, what he will
become in the next moment. By the same token, every human being has the freedom to
change at any instant. . . .
A human being is not one thing among others. Things determine each other, but
man is ultimately self-determining. What he becomes—within the limits of endowment
and environment—he has made out of himself. In the concentration camps, for example,
in this living laboratory and on this testing ground, we watched and witnessed some of
our comrades behave like swine while others behaved like saints. Man has both potential-
Go to
ities within himself. Which one is actualized depends on decisions but not on conditions.5
MindTap to study flashcards
for glossary terms like
"karma" and create your
own custom flashcards and Some Eastern philosophers have turned to the Hindu idea of karma to claim
study guides. that humans can be both free and determined. Karma literally means “action” or
“deed,” and consists of the accumulation of a person’s past deeds. For the Hindu,
everything we have done in our past (possibly including past lives) determines our
present selves. That is, the past determines who and what we now are. Some Hindu
philosophers have argued that although this seems to imply that we are not free,
the idea of karma allows us to combine both determinism and freedom. Our past
QuiCk REviEW actions—our karma—they claim, determine the kind of being we have become,
The hindu idea of karma but we are still free to choose within the limits of what we have become. Freedom is
can combine determinism choosing now within a situation that is determined by our past. As the Hindu phi-
and freedom.
losopher Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan writes,
freedom is not caprice, nor is Karma necessity. . . . freedom is not caprice since we carry
our past with us. our character, at any given point, is the condensation of our previous
history. What we have been enters into the “me” which is now active and choosing.
The range of one’s natural freedom of action is limited. No man has the universal field
of possibilities for himself. . . . only the possible is the sphere of freedom. We have a
good deal of present constraint and previous necessity in human life. But necessity is
not to be mistaken for destiny which we can neither defy nor delude. Though the self is
not free from the bonds of determination, it can subjugate the past to a certain extent
and turn it into a new course. Choice is the assertion of freedom over necessity by
which it converts necessity to its own use and thus frees itself from it.6
Which of these views is supported by the strongest reasons? Is it true that all real-
ity (including ourselves) is causally determined? Or is the truth that we humans, at
least, are free to choose what we will do? Or is the real truth that we are determined
but free to choose within the constraints set by our past? This is but one example of
the fundamental questions that metaphysics asks.
5
Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (New York: Washington Square Press, 1963), 206, 213.
6
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, An Idealist View of Life (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1932), 220–221.
PHilOsOPHY And liFE

Philosophical issues
Virtually every activity and every profession raises philo- 5. An IRS director, in determining which (religious) organi-
sophical issues. zations should be exempted from tax, is forced to define
Science, psychology, the practice of law and medi- what counts as a “religion” or “religious group.”
cine, and even taxation all involve questions that more And, as Woodhouse also suggests, philosophical
or less directly force us to address philosophical issues. questions are continually raised in our everyday life and
Mark Woodhouse invites us to consider the follow- conversations. Consider, for example, the following state-
ing examples: ments, which all involve philosophical issues: Sociology is
1. A neurophysiologist, while establishing correlations not a science. Drugs reveal new levels of reality. history
between certain brain functions and the feeling of pain, never repeats itself. Every religion has the same core of
begins to wonder whether the “mind” is distinct from the truth. We should all be left free to do our own thing, as
brain. long as we don’t hurt anyone else. All truth depends on
2. A nuclear physicist, having determined that matter your point of view. The most important thing you can do
is mostly empty space containing colorless energy is find out who you are. This could all be a dream.
transformations, begins to wonder to what extent
the solid, extended, colored world we perceive cor- QuEsTiOns
responds to what actually exists and which world is 1. Identify other areas of life that involve philosophical
more “real.” issues and explain the issues they raise.
3. A behavioral psychologist, having increasing success 2. What are your views on the issues that Woodhouse lists?
in predicting human behavior, questions whether any Can you give any good reasons to support your views on
human actions can be called “free.” these issues, or is it all “just a matter of opinion”?
4. Supreme Court justices, when framing a law to distin-
Source: from WooDhouSE. A Preface to Philosophy, 8E. © 2007
guish obscene and non-obscene art forms, are drawn Wadsworth, a part of Cengage learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission.
into questions about the nature and function of art. www.cengage.com/permissions
thinking critically ● Supporting Claims with Reasons

and Arguments
Notice that the metaphysical claims of the philosophers we quoted earlier are not isolated
statements. The philosophers accompany their claims with reasons in support of those claims.
D’Holbach, for example, claims that humans are not free because every person “is unceasingly
modified by causes . . . over which he has no control and which necessarily . . . determine his
manner of action.” On the other hand, Frankl claims that external conditions do not determine
what people do because in the concentration camps he saw some “comrades behave like swine
while others behaved like saints” yet all of them were subject to the same external conditions.
As these examples suggest, in philosophy our claims should not only be clear, they
should also be supported by reasons. Philosophy is not mere speculation. When we speculate
we dream up grand ideas and visions about how things might be. We might speculate, for QuiCk REviEW
Philosophical claims
example, that “The world around us is a dream!” But philosophy is more than speculation. Phi- should be supported
losophy has to show its claims are true, so philosophers must give reasons for the claims they by reasons; a claim or
make. Without reasons, there is no philosophy, only speculation. Unsupported philosophical conclusion together with
claims are inadequate. They are inadequate because without reasons to back them up, we its supporting reasons or
premises is an argument.
cannot know whether they are true or false, or whether we should accept or reject them.
A claim together with its supporting reasons is called an argument. An argument in
philosophy is not a heated quarrel accompanied by shouting. Instead, an argument con-
sists of a group of reasons or “premises” plus a claim or “conclusion” that the reasons are
supposed to prove or support. So every argument has two parts: (1) a group of premises
www.ebook3000.com
which provide reasons or evidence for a conclusion, and (2) a conclusion which is the
claim that those premises are supposed to establish. Take the argument that d’Holbach
gives, for example. His premises include the statement that every person “is unceasingly
modified by causes . . . over which he has no control and which necessarily . . . determine
his manner of action.” His conclusion is the claim that “the actions of man are never free.”
Or consider the argument that Frankl gives us. The premises include the statement that in
the concentration camps some “comrades behaved like swine while others behaved like
saints” although all were subjected to the same external conditions. His conclusion is the
claim that “man is not fully . . . determined” by external conditions.
The first step in evaluating a philosopher’s argument is to figure out his conclusion
and the reasons or premises he gives to support his or her conclusion. After we know
his premises and conclusion, we can move on to the second step which is to evaluate
whether the premises provide adequate support for the conclusion. For example, now
that we know d’Holbach’s premises and conclusion, we can ask: Are his premises true?
And if we find his premises are false, then we know his argument does not give us a good
basis for accepting his claims about human freedom. But the first step in this process of
evaluating a philosopher’s claim is crucial. We have to begin by identifying the philoso-
pher’s conclusion, and the reasons or premises he gives to support his conclusion.
Ethics: The study of values

Ethics, the third major area of philosophy, refers to the study of morality. It is the
QuiCk REviEW
Ethics, the study of
attempt to understand and critically evaluate our moral values and moral prin-
morality, asks about our ciples and to see how these relate to our conduct and our social institutions. Eth-
moral obligations and ics includes questions like the following about the nature of moral virtue and
moral virtues, our moral
principles, what is morally
moral obligation: What are the moral principles we should follow? What is moral
good, and the morality of virtue? What are my obligations as a friend? Are abortion, suicide, and euthanasia
behaviors, social policies, ever morally right? Is capitalism or communism a better form of life? Should our
and social institutions.
society permit or prohibit adultery, pornography, capital punishment, or homo-
sexuality? Is our society a just one? What is justice? Are there any human rights?
Do I have an obligation to obey the law? Can a war be just? Is it just to use torture
QuiCk REviEW
Gandhi said that we should
against terrorists?
selflessly harm no living Again, some examples may make these questions a bit clearer. Consider a state-
thing and passively resist ment Mahatma Gandhi once made. Gandhi was the great twentieth-century Indian
evil without violence.
statesman who used nonviolent political resistance to defeat the British rulers of
India. Gandhi devoted
his life to breaking down
racial and religious
forms of discrimina-
tion. He campaigned for
equality of respect for all
human beings. In doing
this, he advocated and
© India Images/Dinodia Images/Alamy
practiced ahimsa, or non-

Gandhi: “The highest violence. In Gandhi’s
love is wherein man view, we should harm no
lays down his life for living thing. Neverthe-
his fellow-men. That
less, we should resist evil.
highest love is thus
Ahimsa.”
The greatest evil that
faced India, he believed,
was its occupation by the British. He therefore believed he must oppose and defeat
their rule. His method of opposition was to stand in the path of the violence of the
British military, letting their blows fall on him while passively resisting their oppres-
sive policies. Gandhi lived the philosophy that service toward others is our primary
moral duty:
To proceed a little further, sacrifice means laying down one’s life so that others may live.
let us suffer so that others may be happy, and the highest service and the highest love
is wherein man lays down his life for his fellow-men. That highest love is thus Ahimsa
which is the highest service. . . . learn to be generous towards each other. To be gener-
ous means having no hatred for those whom we consider to be at fault, and loving and
serving them. It is not generosity or love, if we have goodwill for others only as long as
they and we are united in thought and action. That should be called merely friendship
or mutual affection.
The application of the term “love” is wrong in such cases. “love” means feeling
friendship for the enemy.7
Yet not everyone agrees with such lofty sen-

timents. Many philosophers, in fact, have rea- THinking likE A PHilOsOPHER
soned that ethics is a sham. For example, Harry
Browne concludes that morality is really a kind We all have philosophical views. our philosophical
views include our beliefs about God, religion, an
of trap if we take it to mean that people should
afterlife, morality, what is most valuable in life,
put the happiness of others ahead of their own.
whether life has any meaning, whether our choices
Selfishness, he holds, is and should be everyone’s
are free, whether all people have basic human rights,
policy: whether we live in a just society, whether we should
ever accept anything “on faith,” whether we have
Everyone is selfish; everyone is doing what he
a soul, whether life begins at birth or at concep-
believes will make himself happier. The recognition
tion, whether the rich have an obligation to help the
of that can take most of the sting out of accusa-
poor, whether it is wrong to inflict pain on animals,
tions that you’re being “selfish.” Why should you
feel guilty for seeking your own happiness when
whether people always act out of self-interest. Take
that’s what everyone else is doing, too? . . . any one of these topics and try to identify your own
To find constant, profound happiness requires philosophical views about that topic. Try to explain
that you be free to seek the gratification of your own your view by defining your terms and giving examples
desires.8 of the difference it makes in your life. What reasons
or evidence do you have for your view? how did you
Browne believes that we should never put the come to hold this view? how hard would it be for
happiness of others before our own. His main you to question, criticize, change, or even give up
this view?
premise for this claim is that everyone’s actions
always aim at achieving their own happiness. This
shows, he concludes, that everyone is selfish. Since
QuiCk REviEW
everyone else is selfish, he claims, we should be selfish too. Browne says selfishness is
The contemporary philosopher James Rachels strongly questions Browne’s and ought to be everyone’s
premise. Rachels explains his reasons for rejecting Browne’s main premise in the policy.
following passage:
QuiCk REviEW
Why should we think that merely because someone derives satisfaction from help- Rachels claims that finding
ing others this makes him selfish? Isn’t the unselfish man precisely the one who does satisfaction in helping
derive satisfaction from helping others, while the selfish man does not? Similarly, it others is not selfishness.
is nothing more than shabby sophistry to say, because Smith takes satisfaction in
7
Mahatma Gandhi, Gita—My Mother, quoted in Beyond the Western Tradition, ed. Daniel Bonevac,
William Boon, and Stephen Phillips (Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1992), 243.
8
Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World (New York: Macmillan, 1937).
www.ebook3000.com
helping his friend, that he is behaving selfishly. If we say this rapidly, while thinking
about something else, perhaps it will sound all right; but if we speak slowly, and pay
attention to what we are saying, it sounds plain silly.9
Which of these views is correct—that everyone is selfish so we should also

be selfish? Or that we have a duty to love and serve even our enemies? These
kinds of inquiries form the subject matter of ethics, the third major area of
philosophy.
Other Philosophical inquiries

Finally, there is a wide range of philosophical inquiries that we usually refer to
as “the philosophy of …” or, simply, “philosophy and …” These include the phi-
losophy of science, the philosophy of art, and philosophy and the meaning of
life. Each of these areas of philosophy attempts to question and analyze the basic
or fundamental assumptions of the subject. For example, the philosophy of sci-
ence asks what the scientific method is, whether it is valid, and whether the theo-
ries it produces are merely useful mental constructs or objective descriptions of
reality. The philosophy of art asks what art is and whether we can judge art with
objective standards or whether judging art is merely a matter of personal tastes.
An inquiry into philosophy and the meaning of life is an attempt to look care-
fully at the question of whether life has meaning and, if so, what that meaning
might be.
The list of topics about which we can philosophize is in fact endless. Consider
the titles of several books that have appeared mostly during the last few years: Food
and Philosophy, Beer and Philosophy, Philosophy Looks at Chess, Coffee and Philosophy,
Green Lantern and Philosophy, The Philosophy of Tolkien, Running and Philosophy, South
Park and Philosophy, The Daily Show and Philosophy, The Matrix and Philosophy, Physics
and Philosophy, Batman and Philosophy, Bullshit and Philosophy, X-Men and Philosophy,
iPod and Philosophy, The Beatles and Philosophy, The Philosophy of Martin Scorsese, Jimmy
Buffett and Philosophy, The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film, Metallica and Philosophy,
The Philosophy of Andy Warhol, and even The Philosophy of Philosophy. In short, beyond
the traditional areas of philosophy—epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics—lies an
entire universe of topics about which we can philosophize, or which raise interest-
ing philosophical questions.
P H i lOs O P H Y AT T H E M Ov i E s
Watch Examined Life (2008) which looks at some of today’s leading philosophers
addressing a variety of philosophical questions. Identify some of the questions
of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics that the movie raises in these conversa-
tions. Which of these questions interests you the most? Does the movie seem to
AF archive/Alamy
give any answers to the questions? Have you arrived at any—perhaps tentative—
answers to these questions? Are there any issues discussed in the movie that are not
philosophical?
Other movies with related themes: Waking Life (2001); Mindwalk (1990); My
Dinner with Andre (1981).
9
James Rachels, “Egoism and Moral Skepticism,” in A New Introduction to Philosophy, ed. Steven M. Cahn
(New York: Harper & Row, 1971).
1.3 ● A PhIloSoPhER IN ACTIoN: SoCRATES 19
1.3 A Philosopher in Action: socrates

The best way to understand the nature of philosophy is to consider a philosopher
in action. And the best place to begin is with the Greek thinker Socrates, who is
sometimes called the father of Western philosophy. However, we should note that
Socrates was not the first Western philosopher. A group of philosophers called the
pre-Socratics preceded him. The pre-Socratics were the first thinkers in the West
who questioned religious authority and tried to provide nonreligious explanations
of nature. (For more information, see the Historical Showcase about the first philos-
ophers at the end of this chapter.) Nevertheless, Socrates’ life and views exemplify
the meaning of philosophy, so we will look at his work.
Socrates was born in 469 bce in Athens, Greece, a flourishing and vigorous
city-state. The Greek theater had already produced the noted dramatist Aeschylus. QuiCk REviEW
It would soon see the comedies of Aristophanes and the tragedies of Sophocles Socrates questioned the
and Euripides. The Greek armies had defeated those of the much larger nation of conventional beliefs of his
fellow Athenians.
Persia, and Athens was on the verge of attaining naval control of the Aegean Sea.
As he grew older, Socrates began to question the conventional beliefs of his fel-
low Athenians. He would haunt the streets of Athens, buttonholing powerful men
and questioning them about their knowledge. To a person who pretended to know
about justice, for example, he would ask, “What is justice? What do all just acts
have in common?” In the same way he might examine another person’s ideas about
Go to
virtue, knowledge, morality, or religion. His questions would probe and test the MindTap to watch a video
person’s beliefs, deflating the person’s cherished certainties. Inevitably he would about Socrates, his ideas
show that the person did not know what he thought he knew. Socrates’ persistent and life.
questioning of people’s traditional beliefs intrigued many and he gathered several

young followers. But many others reacted with anger, especially when he exposed
their ignorance.
Socrates saw Athens rise to glory under the great leader Pericles. Under his
leadership Athens enjoyed a splendid golden age of democracy. Athens also experi-
enced great architectural, artistic, and literary advances. The golden age of Athens,
however, depended on the powerful military and economic forces that Athens com-
manded. The golden age ended when Athens was defeated in war and then became
embroiled in a disastrous thirty-year
civil war. Plague broke out and infla-
© Vatican Museums and Galleries, Vatican City, Italy, Giraudon/The Bridgeman Art Library International
tion struck the economy. Then intense

class struggles erupted between the
rich old aristocratic families and their
poorer fellow citizens. In the end, the
defeated, desperate, and frustrated
Athenians searched for scapegoats to
blame. They settled on Socrates. With
his habit of questioning everything,
they said, he had weakened the tradi-
tional values and beliefs that had once
made Athens strong. So they sentenced
Socrates to death.
Because Socrates left no writings,
most of what we know about him comes
from the Dialogues, written by Socrates’ Socrates (right
center) questioned
disciple Plato. The Dialogues are short
almost to the point of
dramas in which the character of irritation.
Socrates plays a major role. There is
www.ebook3000.com
some controversy over how accurately Plato’s Dialogues reflect the real conversations
of Socrates. Nevertheless, most experts today agree that the first dialogues Plato
wrote (for example, Euthyphro, The Apology, and Crito) are faithful to Socrates’ views,
although they may not contain Socrates’ actual words.
Euthyphro: do We know What Holiness is?

One of these early dialogues, Euthyphro, presents a marvelous example of how
Socrates questioned people almost to the point of irritation. In fact, as you read
through the dialogue, you will probably start feeling irritated yourself. You may
begin asking why Socrates doesn’t get past the questions and start giving answers.
He gives no answers because he wants you to realize that you, too, do not have any
good answers to his questions.
The dialogue takes place at the court of the king. Socrates is there to learn
more about an indictment for “unholiness” brought against him for questioning
traditional beliefs. He sees an old friend arrive, a priest named Euthyphro. Here, in
an edited translation, is Plato’s dialogue about their meeting:
QuiCk REviEW
In Euthyphro, Socrates EuThyPhRo: Socrates! What are you doing here at the court of the King?
questions a priest’s SoCRATES: I am being charged, Euthyphro, by a young man I hardly know named
knowledge of what
Meletus. he accuses me of making up new gods and denying the exis-
holiness is.
tence of the old ones.
EuThyPhRo: I am sure you will win your case, Socrates, just like I expect to win mine.
SoCRATES: But what is your case, Euthyphro?
EuThyPhRo: I am charging my father with murder, Socrates. one of my slaves in a
drunken fit killed a fellow slave. My father chained up the culprit and
left him in a ditch unattended for several days to wait the judgment of
a priest. But the cold, the hunger, and the chains killed him. So now I
am charging my father with murder, against the ignorant wishes of my
family who do not know what true holiness requires of a priest like me.
SoCRATES: Good heavens, Euthyphro! Do you have such a clear knowledge of
what holiness is that you are not afraid you might be doing something
unholy in charging your own father with murder?
EuThyPhRo: My most valued possession, Socrates, is the exact knowledge I have of
these matters.
SoCRATES: you are a rare friend, Euthyphro. I can do no better than take you as my
teacher so that I can defend myself against Meletus who is accusing me
of being unholy. Tell me, then, what is holiness and what is unholiness?
EuThyPhRo: holiness is doing what I am doing: prosecuting anyone who is guilty
QuiCk REviEW of murder, sacrilege, or of any similar crime—whether he is your father
Socrates wants not or mother, or whoever, it makes no difference—and not to prosecute
examples, but the
characteristic that all, and
them is unholiness.
only, holy things have in SoCRATES: But wouldn’t you say, Euthyphro, that there are many other holy acts?
common.
EuThyPhRo: There are.
SoCRATES: I was not asking you to give me examples of holiness, Euthyphro, but
to identify the characteristic which makes all holy things holy. There
must be some characteristic that all holy things have in common, and
QuiCk REviEW one which makes unholy things unholy. Tell me what this characteristic
Euthyphro says that itself is, so that I can tell which actions are holy, and which unholy.
whatever the gods love
EuThyPhRo: Well, then, holiness is what is loved by the gods and what they hate
is holy.
is unholy.
1.3 ● A PhIloSoPhER IN ACTIoN: SoCRATES 21
SoCRATES: Very good, Euthyphro! Now you have given me the sort of answer
I wanted. let us examine it. A thing or a person that the gods love is
holy, and a thing or a person that the gods hate is unholy. And the holy
is the opposite of the unholy. Does that summarize what you said?
EuThyPhRo: It does. QuiCk REviEW
But, Socrates replies, the
SoCRATES: But you admit, Euthyphro, that the gods have disagreements. So some
gods can disagree.
things are hated by some gods and loved by other gods.
EuThyPhRo: True.
SoCRATES: Then upon your view the same things, Euthyphro, will be both holy and
unholy.
EuThyPhRo: Well, I suppose so.
SoCRATES: Then, my friend, you have not really answered my question. I did not ask
you to tell me which actions were both holy and unholy; yet that is the
outcome of your view. In punishing your father, Euthyphro, you might
be doing what is loved by the god Zeus, but is hated by the god Cronos.
EuThyPhRo: But, Socrates, surely none of the gods would disagree about the right-
ness of punishing an injustice.
SoCRATES: Both men and gods would certainly agree on the general point that
unjust acts should be punished. But men and gods might disagree
about whether this particular act is unjust. Is that not true? QuiCk REviEW
Also, Socrates says, if the
EuThyPhRo: Quite true.
gods love what is holy
SoCRATES: So tell me, my friend: how do you know that all the gods agree on this because it is holy, then
particular act: that it is just for a son to prosecute his father for chain- what makes things holy is
not that they are loved by
ing a slave who was guilty of murder and who died in chains before the
the gods.
religious authorities said what should be done with him? how do you
know that all the gods love this act?
EuThyPhRo: I could make the matter quite clear
to you, Socrates, although it would A N A LY Z I N G T H E R E A D I N G
take me some time. Socrates asks Euthyphro: “(a) Do the gods love what is
SoCRATES: Euthyphro, I will not insist on it. I will holy because it is holy, or (b) is it holy because the gods
assume, if you like, that all the gods love it?” This puts Euthyphro in a dilemma. If (a) the
here agree. The point I really want to gods love what is holy because it is holy, then the gods
understand is this: Do the gods love do not make things holy; instead, holy things are holy
what is holy because it is holy, or is it even before the gods love them. On the other hand, if
holy because the gods love it? What (b) holy things are holy because the gods love them,
do you say, Euthyphro? on your defi- then the gods make things holy; that is, things are not
nition whatever is holy is loved by all holy until after the gods love them. But then holiness
the gods, is it not? is completely arbitrary since the gods could make
EuThyPhRo: yes. anything holy by choosing to love it.
SoCRATES: Because it is holy? or for some other 1. Euthyphro takes option (a): He agrees that “what
reason? is holy is loved by the gods because it is holy.” But
EuThyPhRo: No, that is the reason. Socrates replies “you gave me only a quality that
accompanies holiness, the quality of being loved by
SoCRATES: Then what is holy is loved by the the gods. But you have not told me what holiness
gods because it is holy? It is not holy itself is, the quality that leads the gods to love holy
because the gods love it? things.” Can you explain what Socrates means?
EuThyPhRo: yes.
2. If Euthyphro takes option (b), what problem will
SoCRATES: Then, Euthyphro, to be loved by the that option lead him into?
gods cannot be the same as to be
holy. And to be holy cannot be the 3. Substitute “morally right” for “holy,” “command” for
same as to be to be loved by the gods. “love,” and “God” for “the gods.” What dilemma will
Socrates’ question now create for religious people?
EuThyPhRo: But why, Socrates?
www.ebook3000.com
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Les
républiques de l'Amérique du Sud
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
Title: Les républiques de l'Amérique du Sud

Leurs guerres et leur projet de fédération
Author: Elisée Reclus
Release date: September 7, 2023 [eBook #71588]
Language: French
Original publication: Paris: Revue des deux mondes, 1865
Credits: Claudine Corbasson, Charlene Taylor, Adrian Mastronardi

and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LES

RÉPUBLIQUES DE L'AMÉRIQUE DU SUD ***
Aux lecteurs
Notes
LES RÉPUBLIQUES
DE
L’AMÉRIQUE DU SUD
LEURS GUERRES ET LEUR PROJET DE FÉDÉRATION
I. Union latino-americana, pensamiento de Bolivar,

por J. M. Torres Caicedo; Paris, Rosa y Bouret,
1865.—II. Proyectos de tratado para fundar una
liga sud-americana, presentados por los
plenipotenciarios del Ecuador, de Bolivia, de
Chile, del Peru, de los Estados-Unidos de
Colombia, etc.
Au point de vue purement géographique, la plus grande partie de
l’Amérique du Sud est admirablement disposée pour être habitée par
des peuples unis. Ce continent, plus simple encore dans son
architecture que ne l’est l’Amérique du Nord, elle-même si
remarquable par son caractère d’unité, peut être considéré dans son
ensemble comme une longue série de montagnes et de plateaux se
dressant parallèlement au Pacifique et s’affaissant par degrés à l’est
pour former une immense plaine doucement inclinée. Si l’Amérique
méridionale ressemble à l’Afrique par ses contours généraux, elle en
diffère singulièrement par la structure interne et l’harmonie parfaite
de toutes ses parties. Tandis que la plupart des contrées du littoral
africain sont complétement isolées les unes des autres et forment
autant de territoires distincts à cause des solitudes et des terres
inconnues qui les séparent, le seul aspect de la carte montre que les
divers pays de l’Amérique du Sud, appuyés sur la grande épine
dorsale des Andes, arrosés par les tributaires des mêmes fleuves,
sont dans une intime dépendance mutuelle: comparables aux perles
d’un collier, ils constituent par leur union un ensemble géographique
de la plus frappante simplicité.
A l’exception des contrées orientales, peuplées par une nation
d’origine portugaise, et de la zone marécageuse des Guyanes, où se
sont installés quelques milliers de planteurs anglais, français et
hollandais, toute l’Amérique du Sud,—c’est-à-dire les régions
andines et les grandes plaines fluviales,—est habitée par des
hommes de races mélangées formant de leurs élémens épars une
nouvelle race de plus en plus homogène. Les colons des diverses
parties de l’Espagne, qui pendant trois siècles ont été presque les
seuls Européens du continent, se sont partout alliés aux Indiennes,
et de ces croisemens est née une population nouvelle qui tient à la
fois de l’Espagnol par son intelligence, son courage, sa sobriété, et
de l’aborigène par sa force passive, sa ténacité, sa douceur
naturelle. Même dans les pays où les Espagnols se disent purs
d’origine, comme au Chili et sur les plateaux grenadins, un mélange
s’est opéré entre les conquérans et les familles des vaincus, et les
Chiliens peuvent en conséquence se dire aussi bien les fils des
Araucans que ceux des compagnons d’Almagro. Non-seulement les
aborigènes sont ainsi entrés d’une manière indirecte dans la grande
famille des nations latines; mais en outre la plupart des tribus
sauvages se sont peu à peu groupées autour de la population
créole. Elles en ont adopté partiellement les mœurs, et par leur
fraternité d’armes durant la guerre de l’indépendance sont devenues
un seul et même peuple avec leurs oppresseurs d’autrefois. Sur les
côtes, un petit nombre de nègres, issus des anciens esclaves
africains, ont contribué au mélange des races; mais ce troisième
élément n’a qu’une faible importance relative, et le fond des
populations andines reste d’une manière presque exclusive le
produit des deux races espagnole et américaine. A ces nations du
continent du sud, il faut encore ajouter celles de l’Amérique centrale
et du Mexique, également latines et indiennes par leurs ancêtres. De
l’estuaire de la Plata aux bouches du Rio-Bravo et du Colorado, sur
un espace occupant environ 10,000 kilomètres de longueur, vivent
plus de 26 millions d’hommes parlant tous la même langue, se
rattachant tous au sol américain par leurs aïeux indigènes et
participant aux mêmes souvenirs historiques par les traditions de la
mère-patrie et les efforts communs tentés contre les Espagnols
pendant quinze années de luttes.
Malheureusement ces nations, désunies par les guerres
intestines, séparées les unes des autres par de vastes solitudes et
même par des régions inexplorées, ne sont point encore un groupe
de peuples frères: leur unité, si bien indiquée par la nature et par
l’origine, ne s’est point encore réalisée en politique. Toutefois cette
union est l’idéal des Américains qui ont véritablement à cœur la
prospérité de leur patrie, et la masse même du peuple commence à
partager ces vœux de fédération. Déjà de nombreuses tentatives ont
été faites dans ce sens et plusieurs ont partiellement abouti.
Aujourd’hui même une ligue offensive et défensive unit quatre des
plus puissantes républiques de l’Amérique espagnole, ayant
ensemble près de 8 millions d’habitans et de grandes ressources
navales et financières. Que cette ligue soit destinée à devenir le
noyau d’une fédération hispano-américaine ou qu’elle disparaisse
pour faire place à d’autres combinaisons, il est certain que l’union de
plusieurs peuples au nom de la liberté commune aura les
conséquences les plus heureuses pour l’avenir de tous les états du
continent colombien. Afin d’apprécier à sa juste valeur un fait
historique d’une telle importance et de se rendre compte des
changemens d’équilibre qui peuvent en résulter, il importe donc de
connaître les projets d’union qui ont été formés à une époque
antérieure et les commencemens d’exécution qu’ils ont reçus. C’est
là une étude que facilite singulièrement l’ouvrage complet et
accompagné de documens officiels que M. Torres Caicedo a publié
récemment sur cette question.
I.
Avant même qu’un seul homme d’état eût formulé la théorie de la
ligue américaine, elle était déjà mise temporairement en pratique,
puisque, du plateau de l’Anahuac aux rives de la Plata, les insurgés
combattaient le même ennemi, et que même, en de nombreuses
batailles, les pâtres argentins avaient pour compagnons d’armes les
montagnards du Venezuela et de la Nouvelle-Grenade. La lutte
contre l’adversaire commun avait uni tous les créoles américains
dans une même armée. Pendant quelques années, les hommes qui
s’étaient mis à la tête du mouvement purent croire que les diverses
provinces de l’Amérique du Sud se constitueraient en une vaste
confédération, et que l’ancienne unité, existant au profit du
despotisme espagnol, se rétablirait entre peuples libres au profit de
la grandeur nationale. Ils espéraient que la fraternité d’armes
victorieusement affirmée sur les champs de bataille pourrait être
transformée en une solide union des peuples eux-mêmes. Dès
l’année 1822, au plus fort de la guerre contre l’Espagne, le libérateur
Bolivar invita formellement les gouvernemens du Mexique, du Chili,
du Pérou et de Buenos-Ayres à se grouper en confédération et à
procéder immédiatement à la convocation d’une assemblée ayant
pour mission d’établir une ligue permanente entre les peuples
affranchis. En réponse à cet appel, la Colombie, le Pérou et Buenos-
Ayres se contentèrent de signer une alliance défensive contre toute
attaque de l’Espagne ou d’une autre nation étrangère; mais cette
alliance n’était guère que la simple constatation de la lutte commune
contre la métropole. Aussitôt après la fin des hostilités, Bolivar, alors
dictateur du Pérou, s’empressa de recommander de nouveau aux
républiques latines de l’Amérique l’idée d’un congrès central «réuni
sous les auspices de la victoire.» La plupart des gouvernemens
intéressés répondirent avec cet enthousiasme facile des Hispano-
Américains. Le président de la Colombie alla même jusqu’à dire que
«l’œuvre projetée de l’union était un fait dont l’importance n’avait
point été égalée depuis la chute de l’empire romain;» mais cette
œuvre, personne ne l’accomplit. Les difficultés des communications,
la lassitude causée dans tout le pays par la sanglante guerre qui
venait de finir, la profonde ignorance des populations, le manque
d’intérêts matériels communs entre des pays éloignés de plusieurs
milliers de kilomètres les uns des autres, empêchèrent de donner
suite au projet de Bolivar. Ses invitations devenaient pourtant de
plus en plus pressantes, car la France légitimiste menaçait alors de
reprendre au nom du droit divin la cause que venait d’abandonner
provisoirement l’Espagne. Dans son effroi, le grand homme de
guerre allait même jusqu’à demander que le congrès des
plénipotentiaires américains fût érigé en un comité de salut public
indépendant de ses mandataires, et disposant d’une flotte puissante,
ainsi que d’une armée de 100,000 hommes.
Enfin, vers le milieu de l’année 1826, un simulacre de congrès,
composé seulement des mandataires du Pérou, de la Colombie, de
l’Amérique centrale et du Mexique, se réunit à Panama, que l’on
avait choisi comme le point le plus facile d’accès dans l’immense
étendue des contrées hispano-américaines. Les délégués rédigèrent
à la hâte un traité de ligue fédérative entre les états qu’ils
représentaient et décidèrent la formation d’une armée commune de
60,000 hommes; mais leurs décisions ne furent validées que par la
seule république de Colombie, et cet état même ne fit aucun effort
pour mettre son vote à exécution. Tel fut l’avortement d’un projet
duquel on avait attendu des résultats si grandioses. Bolivar, dont les
espérances s’évanouissaient ainsi, comparait tristement le congrès
de Panama à un pilote fou qui, du rivage de la mer, essaierait de
guider un navire secoué par les tempêtes du large.
Après cette vaine tentative de confédération, les gouvernemens
sud-américains se bornèrent à échanger de temps en temps
quelques notes sur cette question pourtant si vitale, et plus de vingt
ans s’écoulèrent sans qu’une nouvelle assemblée de délégués fût
convoquée. Seulement à la fin de 1847, c’est-à-dire à la veille de
cette époque révolutionnaire si féconde dans les pays d’Europe en
événemens de toute sorte, un deuxième congrès, composé des
plénipotentiaires du Chili, de la Bolivie, du Pérou, de l’Équateur et de
la Nouvelle-Grenade, c’est-à-dire des cinq républiques assises sur
les rivages de la Mer du Sud, se réunit à Lima pour négocier un
traité d’union fédérative. Ce congrès, moins ambitieux et plus sensé
que celui de Panama, ne vota point la formation d’une grande
armée; il s’occupa modestement d’examiner dans quelles
circonstances il serait utile de constituer la ligue des nations sud-
américaines, et de quelle façon on procéderait à cette alliance; en
même temps il prévoyait aussi le cas d’une guerre possible entre les
républiques confédérées, et traçait aux états neutres la ligne de
conduite qu’ils auraient à suivre en cette occurrence. Un traité de
commerce et de navigation, où pour la première fois le principe de la
liberté des fleuves était proclamé, complétait l’œuvre des
plénipotentiaires de Lima. Toutefois les grands événemens et les
luttes intestines qui agitaient alors le Nouveau-Monde effacèrent
promptement le souvenir des travaux du congrès.
Cependant un nouveau danger, venant cette fois, non des
puissances monarchiques de l’Europe occidentale, mais de la
remuante oligarchie esclavagiste des états anglo-américains,
menaça bientôt l’indépendance des républiques espagnoles. Le
flibustier Walker, porte-glaive de cette chevalerie du cycle d’or dont
la grande conspiration contre la liberté des peuples n’est pas encore
assez connue, avait envahi le Nicaragua à la tête de ses bandes;
des sénateurs, des ministres de l’Union américaine, le président lui-
même, proclamaient insolemment la doctrine de la «destinée
manifeste» en vertu de laquelle les républiques méridionales
devaient tôt ou tard, de gré ou de force, devenir la proie de ces
Anglo-Saxons envahissans qui s’étaient déjà fait concéder la moitié
du Mexique. Dans l’espérance des hommes qui dirigeaient alors la
politique des États-Unis, Lopez et Walker n’étaient que l’avant-garde
des armées qui devaient annexer successivement toutes les nations
espagnoles pour les fondre dans le «grand empire indien de
l’occident.» Sous le coup de l’émotion qui saisit la plupart des états
de l’Amérique latine, un nouveau congrès se réunit en 1856 à
Santiago de Chili pour y conclure un traité «continental» de défense
contre l’invasion étrangère. Les seules parties représentées étaient
le Chili, le Pérou et l’Équateur; mais les autres républiques, y
compris le Paraguay, s’empressèrent pour la plupart d’accéder au
traité. Peut-être cette nouvelle convention ne fût-elle pas restée un
vain mot comme les précédentes, si les diverses révolutions
fomentées dans l’Équateur et dans la Nouvelle-Grenade par
quelques prétendans n’avaient malheureusement détourné
l’attention de ces derniers pays vers leurs affaires intérieures.
Cependant l’idée de la ligue américaine ne devait plus être
abandonnée. Désormais elle n’était plus seulement dans les vœux
de quelques patriotes intelligens, elle commençait à passionner le
peuple lui-même dans les républiques les plus avancées. Pendant
les années qui suivirent les négociations relatives au traité
continental, les divers gouvernemens ne cessèrent d’échanger des
notes relatives à cette question, et, ce qui vaut encore mieux, les
journaux et les assemblées politiques de toute l’Amérique du Sud
reprirent et discutèrent de plus en plus sérieusement les projets
d’union fédérative. Dès le mois de janvier 1864, le cabinet péruvien
était poussé par l’opinion publique à proposer un nouveau congrès
américain, et la plupart des états s’empressèrent d’envoyer leur
adhésion.
Le moment était bien choisi, car jamais, depuis la guerre de
l’indépendance, pareil danger n’avait menacé les jeunes républiques
du Nouveau-Monde. Depuis deux années déjà, le Mexique était
envahi par des troupes européennes ayant pour mission non-
seulement de demander la réparation de certains griefs, mais aussi
d’aider à la fondation d’une monarchie. Une forte armée espagnole
ayant pour base d’approvisionnemens l’île si riche de Cuba avait fait
irruption à Saint-Domingue «pour répondre aux vœux des bons
citoyens» de cette ancienne colonie, et, non content de cette tâche,
le gouvernement de Madrid cherchait encore de nouvelles difficultés
avec le Pérou. Enfin, au sud du continent, on commençait à voir la
main du Brésil dans la conspiration de Florès contre la Bande-
Orientale. Un fait des plus graves est que toutes ces agressions
coïncidaient avec la guerre civile des Américains du nord, et que
dans cette lutte les puissances de l’Europe occidentale avaient
singulièrement favorisé les rebelles en se hâtant de leur reconnaître
les droits de belligérans, même en laissant des corsaires s’armer et
se ravitailler dans leurs ports et leurs arsenaux. Les États-Unis
s’étant depuis longtemps posés comme les adversaires à outrance
de toute intervention des gouvernemens d’Europe dans les affaires
intérieures de l’Amérique, on voyait en eux les gardiens jaloux de
l’indépendance des républiques sœurs, et c’est précisément
l’époque où l’Union était engagée elle-même dans une terrible lutte
que choisissaient les puissances européennes et le Brésil pour
attaquer sur plusieurs points à la fois les Hispano-Américains.
N’était-il pas naturel de croire, à la vue de ces événemens, qu’ils
faisaient partie d’un grand projet de restauration monarchique dirigé
contre toutes les républiques du Nouveau-Monde? Les diverses
interventions qui ont eu lieu dans les états de l’Amérique espagnole
peuvent être en partie des faits sans rapport direct avec la grande
rébellion des planteurs; mais ils s’y rattachent historiquement, et l’on
ne saurait douter que la postérité les embrasse d’un même regard.
Qu’une entente préalable ait eu lieu entre les divers gouvernemens
qui sont intervenus dans les affaires des républiques américaines,
ou, ce qui est possible, que chacun ait suivi d’instinct sa politique
particulière, il n’en est pas moins vrai que l’Espagne, la France,
l’empire du Brésil, et dans une faible mesure l’Angleterre elle-même,
ont saisi l’occasion favorable de la guerre civile des Américains du
nord pour chercher à procurer aux républiques du Nouveau-Monde
soit «les bienfaits des institutions monarchiques,» soit plus
modestement «la paix, l’ordre et la prospérité.» L’histoire future ne
verra point dans ces faits une coïncidence fortuite.
Quant aux populations directement intéressées, elles y virent
l’effet d’un plan concerté d’avance. On sait quelle profonde irritation
l’attitude des puissances européennes a causée aux États-Unis. On
sait que, depuis le rétablissement de l’Union, les diplomates de
Washington ne négligent aucune occasion de faire parade des
ressources de leur nation en s’adressant aux cabinets de l’Europe
occidentale: c’est avec un plaisir malin assez peu déguisé qu’ils
voient les embarras de la France dans les affaires mexicaines et les
terreurs de leurs voisins du Canada menacés par les invasions des
fenians. Sans aucun doute les grandes et déplorables
démonstrations d’amitié qu’ils font à l’empire russe doivent être aussi
attribuées pour une forte part au désir qu’ils ont de chagriner les
gouvernemens d’Europe dont ils croient avoir à se plaindre.
Toutefois les alarmes de la nation anglo-américaine n’avaient été
que peu de chose, comparées à l’émoi des populations du continent
colombien. Celles-ci, s’exagérant le danger à cause de leur faiblesse
relative, croyaient déjà que les pays libres de l’Amérique espagnole
étaient divisés d’avance en trois ou quatre grands empires, dont l’un,
s’étendant de l’isthme de Panama aux frontières de la Californie,
avait pour souverain choisi l’empereur Maximilien. Quant au sort
réservé au reste de l’Amérique espagnole, les idées différaient à cet
égard; on ne doutait pas néanmoins que plusieurs républiques ne
fussent désignées comme devant faire retour à l’Espagne, leur
ancienne métropole, ni que le Brésil ne tentât d’obtenir pour son
immense territoire la frontière du Parana. On savait aussi que le parti
conservateur de Quito avait ouvertement invoqué le protectorat de la
France, et l’on se demandait avec appréhension si ces vœux de
suicide national n’avaient pas été favorablement accueillis aux
Tuileries. Ainsi, disait-on, si les projets des puissances
monarchiques devaient se réaliser, il ne resterait plus dans le
Nouveau-Monde que la république des Yankees, et celle-ci, réduite
à la défensive par les esclavagistes vainqueurs, en viendrait peut-
être à se scinder elle-même en plusieurs états et à modifier son
gouvernement. Les principes républicains ayant alors perdu le solide
point d’appui que leur donnent les jeunes sociétés américaines, le
maintien des institutions monarchiques dans le monde entier eût été
dès lors à jamais assuré. Ce plan, que les assemblées politiques et
les journaux discutaient avec la plus grande sincérité, comme s’il eût
été vraiment combiné de toutes pièces, n’existait sans doute avec
cette netteté que dans les imaginations; mais il ne faut pas moins en
tenir compte, car, sous les événemens qui se pressent, l’instinct
populaire devine souvent mieux que les hommes d’état eux-mêmes
le mobile secret qui les a fait agir, et révèle ainsi le vrai sens de
l’histoire.
Lorsque le congrès américain se réunit à Lima le 14 novembre
1864, l’orage attendu venait d’éclater sur le Pérou. Un commissaire
de la reine d’Espagne, prenant le même titre que les anciens
gouverneurs castillans des colonies d’Amérique, avait déjà, au
mépris de la souveraineté péruvienne, exigé réparation de griefs
d’une valeur fort douteuse, et sans daigner déclarer la guerre, par
simple mesure de «revendication,» l’amiral Pinzon s’était emparé
des îles à guano, qui sont le véritable trésor de la république.
Cependant le général Pezet, personnage timoré qui redoutait surtout
de déplaire aux représentans des puissances européennes, ne
semblait point avoir ressenti l’outrage fait à la nation; il traitait
secrètement avec le commissaire espagnol, et la chambre elle-
même reculait devant une déclaration de guerre. Lorsque, poussés à
bout par les exigences de l’Espagne, les députés se furent enfin
décidés, et qu’à la presque unanimité ils eurent résolu d’opposer la
force à la force, le congrès américain, où se trouvaient représentées
toutes les républiques intéressées, à l’exception de celles de la Plata
et du Mexique, n’eut pas le courage de participer par son attitude à
la résolution des Péruviens; il intervint auprès du gouvernement de
Lima pour lui conseiller la prudence, lui fit rapporter la déclaration de
guerre, et tenta par des offres directes, mais inutiles, de servir de
médiateur entre le Pérou et l’amiral espagnol. Ainsi que les
événemens l’ont prouvé plus tard, cette prudence apparente n’était
que pusillanimité: si le Pérou avait osé maintenir sa déclaration
d’hostilités au risque de voir son commerce interrompu et de perdre
sa flottille, le président n’aurait point eu l’humiliation de signer un
indigne traité, et la guerre civile eût été évitée. Le congrès ne pouvait
donc se vanter d’avoir sauvegardé l’honneur du pays, et ses travaux
devaient par conséquent rester frappés de stérilité; cependant c’est
déjà une chose des plus importantes et sans précédent qu’une
assemblée composée des plénipotentiaires de la plupart des
républiques ait pris une part directe au gouvernement de l’une
d’entre elles et tenté de représenter en face de l’étranger l’union des
peuples du continent. Dès l’année suivante, les péripéties de la
guerre avec l’Espagne cimentaient une plus intime union, à la fois
offensive et défensive. Quatre des principaux états de l’Amérique du
Sud, le Chili, la Bolivie, le Pérou, l’Équateur, réalisaient enfin ce que
les congrès avaient jadis vainement discuté.
II.
Désormais, on peut le dire sans témérité, les républiques de
l’Amérique du Sud peuvent être considérées comme à l’abri de toute
attaque sérieuse d’une puissance européenne. Non-seulement les
États-Unis, sortis de la guerre plus redoutables qu’autrefois, se
croiraient peut-être tenus d’intervenir par leur diplomatie ou par leurs
armes, si quelque atteinte trop grave était portée à l’autonomie des
populations hispano-américaines, mais encore celles-ci ont déjà
prouvé qu’elles sont capables de se défendre elles-mêmes. La petite
république dominicaine, qui compte à peine 200,000 habitans de
race mêlée et ne saurait par conséquent mettre sur pied qu’une
armée numériquement très faible, a forcé la fière Espagne, après
vingt mois de lutte, à la dégager du serment de loyauté qu’elle était
censée, suivant les rapports officiels, avoir prêté avec tant
d’enthousiasme. Le Chili, grâce à son éloignement des possessions
espagnoles, grâce surtout au patriotisme et à l’intelligence de ses
habitans, est sorti presque sans dommage de la guerre que lui avait
déclarée son ancienne métropole; avec ses petits vaisseaux portant
quelques centaines de matelots, il a vaillamment bravé la puissante
flotte de son adversaire, et n’a laissé d’autre ressource à l’amiral
Nuñez que de bombarder la ville sans défense de Valparaiso.
Bientôt après les Péruviens, comprenant, par l’exemple de ce qui
venait de se passer à Valparaiso, qu’il vaut mieux compter sur son
propre courage que sur la générosité de l’ennemi, repoussaient la
force par la force, et les canons de Callao vengeaient la barbarie
inutile commise précédemment par les ordres du ministère
espagnol. La flotte avariée de l’amiral Nuñez dut battre en retraite
vers les Philippines et Rio de Janeiro, et donner ainsi aux
républiques alliées un répit qu’elles mettront certainement à profit. Si
la guerre a pris temporairement un caractère platonique par suite de
la retraite des vaisseaux espagnols, le Chili, le Pérou, la Bolivie et
l’Équateur n’en continuent pas moins d’armer leurs côtes, d’agrandir
leur flotte, devenue déjà fort respectable, et de faire appel contre
l’ennemi commun à l’aide des autres nations américaines. Leur
puissance s’accroît incessamment pour l’offensive, et les bruits
souvent répétés de soulèvemens ou d’invasions à Cuba et à Porto-
Rico sont un signe avant-coureur de ce que la politique imprudente
de l’Espagne pourra lui coûter un jour.
Quant au Mexique, il est toujours en partie occupé par des
troupes européennes, et sa capitale est le siége d’un empire dont les
frontières indécises changent de jour en jour suivant les diverses
alternatives de combats incessans. Toutefois il est désormais permis
de prédire, sans un grand effort d’imagination, qu’un nouveau
changement politique va s’accomplir à Mexico, et qu’un
gouvernement conforme aux traditions du pays succédera au règne
éphémère de Maximilien. Le prochain départ des troupes françaises,
la désorganisation des finances impériales et l’empressement avec
lequel on proclame la déchéance du nouveau souverain dans
chaque ville et chaque bourgade abandonnée par ses soldats font
de la restauration prochaine de la république mexicaine un
événement facile à prévoir. Alors la doctrine dite de Monroe, à
laquelle les nations américaines ont graduellement donné une
signification de plus en plus large, sera sérieusement respectée par
les puissances monarchiques de l’Europe; toute intervention efficace
de l’Espagne, de la France ou de l’Angleterre deviendra impossible,
et par conséquent l’une des principales causes qui arrêtaient les
jeunes états de l’Amérique dans leur essor aura disparu. En grande
partie maîtres de leur destinée, c’est principalement à eux-mêmes
qu’ils devront s’en prendre de leurs guerres et de leurs révolutions
futures.
Néanmoins, si les anciennes colonies espagnoles n’ont plus à
craindre de retomber sous la domination d’un peuple d’Europe,
quelques-unes d’entre elles ont à redouter les envahissemens d’une
puissance occupant comme elles une partie du territoire américain.
Le Brésil, groupe de plateaux que le Parana et les affluens de
l’Amazone séparent de la base orientale des Andes, constitue un
territoire distinct du reste du continent, et les populations qui se sont
établies sur ces plateaux diffèrent par l’origine, la langue, les
institutions, les mœurs, de celles des autres parties de l’Amérique.
Le contraste qui existe entre le Brésil et les régions andines est
également frappant sous le double rapport de la géographie et de
l’ethnologie. D’un côté, les Hispano-Indiens occupent les vallées
d’une haute chaîne de montagnes; de l’autre, les fils des Portugais
et des noirs d’Afrique peuplent un massif isolé qu’entourent les mers
et d’immenses plaines de marécages et de forêts; à l’ouest des
nations affranchies, à l’est un mélange d’habitans dont le tiers se
compose de misérables esclaves sans patrie et sans droit. Le
contraste offert par les deux groupes de populations qui se partagent
l’Amérique du Sud est donc complet, et malheureusement, dans
l’état de barbarie qui est encore à tant d’égards celui de la race
humaine, cette opposition ne peut que donner lieu à de sanglantes
guerres. La lutte qui pendant tant de siècles avait divisé les deux
peuples de la péninsule ibérique, Espagnols et Portugais, s’est
continuée de l’autre côté des mers et sur un territoire bien plus vaste
que la petite presqu’île européenne.
Au nord et à l’ouest des anciennes colonies portugaises,
l’immensité des espaces solitaires qui les séparent des contrées
habitées par les descendans des Espagnols a jusqu’à nos jours
empêché tout conflit sérieux. Seulement le Brésil a pu, grâce à
l’unité de vues et à la persévérance de ses diplomates, triompher
provisoirement dans toutes les questions de limites de la résistance
des gouvernemens éphémères qui se succédaient dans les
républiques limitrophes, et de cette manière il s’est adjugé sans
coup férir d’immenses étendues inexplorées, dont les seuls habitans
sont des Indiens sauvages. Sur la carte, le Brésil s’est ainsi agrandi
aux dépens de la Bolivie, du Pérou, de l’Équateur, de la Nouvelle-
Grenade et du Venezuela d’une surface de plusieurs centaines de
millions d’hectares; mais la force réelle de l’empire ne s’est en rien
accrue de cette énorme adjonction apparente de territoire. Dans le
conflit des deux races, la prépondérance restera nécessairement à
ceux chez lesquels la liberté humaine est le plus respectée.
Du côté du sud et du sud-ouest, où non-seulement les domaines
contestés confinent les uns aux autres, mais où les populations
elles-mêmes sont assez rapprochées pour se faire la guerre, la lutte
a été presque constante pendant trois siècles. Les colons de race
ennemie étaient dès le berceau voués à se combattre, et les traités
d’alliance conclus en Europe entre les deux métropoles
n’empêchaient point les mamelucos de São-Paulo de continuer leur
chasse à l’homme dans les Missions espagnoles. Dans le siècle
actuel, cette lutte de races s’est graduellement régularisée, mais elle
n’en continue pas moins sous des formes différentes, et l’enjeu de la
lutte a toujours été la possession des grands fleuves de l’intérieur et
du port de Montevideo. Tantôt vainqueurs, tantôt vaincus, les
Portugais et leurs héritiers les Brésiliens avaient tour à tour conquis
et perdu la souveraineté de l’une des rives de la Plata. Ils viennent
enfin d’atteindre partiellement leur but en installant à Montevideo
comme président de la Bande-Orientale le général Florès,
commandant un de leurs corps d’armée. Ils ont fait plus encore, car
ils ont réussi à tourner les forces d’une république contre une autre
république, ils ont eu l’art de prendre pour avant-garde de leurs
troupes d’invasion les soldats de Buenos-Ayres, et par cette habile
combinaison ils ont fait partager la responsabilité et le poids de la
lutte à leurs ennemis héréditaires. Ils espèrent ainsi s’emparer, à titre
d’amis, de cette frontière naturelle du Parana, qu’il leur serait plus
malaisé de conquérir en ennemis.
Aux débuts de la guerre du Paraguay, c’est-à-dire en mai 1865,
les alliés étaient superbes d’espoir et de jactance: c’est au pas de
course, c’est au galop de leurs chevaux, que les soldats de Mitre, de
Florès et d’Osorio devaient s’élancer à la conquête des pays
convoités. Lorsque après avoir pendant des années travaillé
sourdement contre l’indépendance de Montevideo, rivale de Buenos-
Ayres, le président Mitre fut enfin obligé par le Paraguay de jeter le
masque et de se ranger ouvertement du côté des Brésiliens, on eût
dit qu’il prenait la foudre en main, tant on s’empressait autour de lui
à célébrer son prochain triomphe. «Nous venons de décréter la
victoire,» s’écria-t-il en déposant la plume qui venait de signer le
traité d’alliance avec le Brésil. «Dans les casernes aujourd’hui,
demain en campagne, dans trois mois à l’Assomption!» telle était la
fière parole que les admirateurs du général Mitre avaient entendue
tomber de sa bouche. Depuis ce jour, où le succès semblait si facile
à obtenir, plus de seize mois se sont écoulés, pendant lesquels bien
des combats ont été livrés et bien des milliers de vies sacrifiées
inutilement. Les dates que de temps en temps on se permet de fixer
d’avance pour la prise de l’Assomption doivent être de plus en plus
espacées à cause de difficultés imprévues. Le général Urquiza, qui
devait, à la tête de ses cavaliers, frayer la voie aux armées du Brésil
et de Buenos-Ayres, s’est bientôt retiré prudemment à l’arrière-
garde, puis est revenu dans sa riche estancia pour se faire le grand
fournisseur de vivres des alliés et leur vendre à lourds deniers le
bétail et les céréales. Non-seulement l’Assomption n’est pas tombée
dans les trois mois aux mains des alliés, mais, bien que de
nombreuses dépêches aient souvent annoncé la destruction
complète des forces paraguayennes, ni le général Mitre ni l’amiral
Tamandaré n’ont encore pu tourner un seul de leurs canons contre
les murs de la forteresse d’Humayta, qui défend l’entrée de la
république. L’unique conquête des alliés est celle de l’Estero-
Bellaco, savane humide pendant la saison des pluies, poudreuse
pendant les sécheresses, mais entourée en toute saison de
marécages d’où sort la fièvre, bien plus terrible que les boulets.
Jusqu’à présent, le président Mitre, même accompagné de 30,000
Brésiliens, semble devoir être encore moins heureux que le général
Belgrano dont il s’est fait l’historiographe, car ce héros, qui tenta
vainement de conquérir le Paraguay pour le soumettre à la couronne
de Ferdinand VII, alla du moins se faire battre aux portes de
l’Assomption.
Ce n’est pas que dans leur défense les chefs de l’armée
paraguayenne aient toujours été d’habiles stratégistes[1]. Au
contraire, ils ont commis des fautes graves; mais ces fautes,
provenant surtout de l’inexpérience militaire, ont été depuis
glorieusement réparées. Les Paraguayens se sont lentement retirés
de la province de Corrientes qu’ils avaient envahie, mais en se
retirant ils ne cessaient de harceler l’ennemi, de battre en détail ses
avant-gardes, de lui prendre ses convois de vivres. Ces hommes,
que l’on représentait d’abord comme un ramassis de fuyards, ont eu
presque toujours le privilége de l’offensive; les commandans de

Philosophy A Text With Readings 13Th Edition Manuel Velasquez All Chapter

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

Philosophy A Text With Readings 13Th Edition Manuel Velasquez All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philosophy: A Text with Readings 13th

Edition Manuel Velasquez

Tap into engagement

With MindTap, everything is in one place—the

Students will improve their comprehension of

Videos offer concepts from the text in another

The KnowNow Philosophy Blog, updated weekly by

Instructors can fully customize their MindTap

Visit us online for complete information or to explore a demo at

www.cengage.com/demo/mindtap or call us at 1-800-423-0563

Australia Brazil Mexico Singapore United Kingdom United States

Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson

To learn more about Cengage Learning Solutions, visit www.cengage.com

ChAPTeR The nature of Philosophy 2

1 1.1 What Is Philosophy? 4

ChAPTeR human nature 50

2 2.1 Why Does Your View of Human Nature Matter? 52

Power and Hegel 122

ChAPTeR Reality and Being 150

3 3.1 What Is Real? 152

ChAPTeR Philosophy, Religion, and God 250

4 4.1 The Significance of Religion 252

4.6 Readings 316

ChAPTeR The Sources of Knowledge 336

5 5.1 Why Is Knowledge a Problem? 338

5.6 Readings 412

5.7 Historical Showcase: Hume 419

ChAPTeR Truth 426

6 6.1 Knowledge and Truth 428

6.2 What Is Truth? 432

6.3 Does Science Give Us Truth? 454

6.4 Can Interpretations Be True? 461

6.5 Readings 471

6.6 Historical Showcase: Kant 477

ChAPTeR ethics 486

7.4 Do Rules Define Morality? 510

ChAPTeR Social and Political Philosophy 578

8 8.1 What Is Social and Political Philosophy?

Hobbes and the War of All against All 584

Human Rights 630

ChAPTeR Postscript: The Meaning of Life 666

9 9.1 Does Life Have Meaning? 668

Chapter 4 truth in Section 6.2 the excerpts from James’

Chapter 5 tions of the principle of double effect has been

1 The Nature of Philosophy

1.2 The Traditional Divisions of Philosophy

1.3 A Philosopher in Action: Socrates

1.4 The Value of Philosophy

1.6 Historical Showcase: The First Philosophers

MindTap for Philosophy: A Text with Readings includes:

● Video lectures that reinforce complex topics

1.1 What is Philosophy?

and freedom, or what some mod-

ern philosophers call autonomy. An

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

Plato’s Allegory and “doing” Philosophy

Philosophy as an Activity. First, in the allegory, the activity of journeying

Philosophy is Hard Work. Second, as Plato made clear in the allegory,

The Aim of Philosophy is Freedom. Third, as Plato indicates and as we have

Philosophy Examines Our Most basic Assumptions. Fourth, Plato’s allegory

Perictione is saying that the

being and exists in there in religious experience?