Lesson № 1 (seminar – 6 hours)
Тhemes:
1. The Philosophy, its main categories and problems.
2. The philosophy of the Ancient East.
3. The philosophy of the Antique Greece.
Aim: – to explain peculiar features of philosophy origin in terms of history, characteristic features of philosophical thinking, structure of outlook and the main functions of philosophy.
Professional orientation of students: to enlarge outlook of future medical workers with knowledge about unique ability of human consciousness and thinking.
PHILOSOPHY, THE CIRCLE OF ITS QUESTIONS AND DESTINATION
Plan
1. The main problems of philosophy. Specific character of philosophical knowledge.
2. Outlook, its essence, structure and significance for human life.
3. Historical types of outlook: mythology, religion, and philosophy.
4. Social functions of philosophy.
1. The main problems of philosophy. Specific character of philosophical knowledge
Philosophy it is:
· Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
· Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
· A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
· The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
· The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
· The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
· A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
· A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
Philosophy starts from an assumption, first announced by the founder of moral philosophy, Socrates (470 – 399 BC), that the unexamined life is not worth living and that while hard thinking about important issues disturbs, it also consoles. Philosophy is the love of wisdom (etymologically from the Greek philos, meaning “lover”, and sophia, meaning “wisdom”). It is the contemplation or study of the most important questions in existence with the end of promoting illumination and understanding, a vision of the whole. It uses reason, sense perception, the imagination and intuition in its activities of clarifying concepts and analyzing and constructing arguments and theories as possible answers to these perennial questions. Here we have to distinguish two kinds of reason: practical reason from theoretical reason:
– Practical reason has to do with acting in order to realize a goal. For example, you desire to be healthy and so carry a regiment of exercise, good nutrition and general moderation. You have a goal, you ask what are the necessary or best means of reaching that goal, and then, if you are rational in the practical sense, you act on your judgment.
– Theoretical reason, on the other hand, has to do with beliefs. It asks, what is the evidence for such and such a proposition or belief? What is it rational to believe about the best way to stay healthy or the existence of God or life after death?
Practical reason is the general human capacity for resolving, through reflection, the question of what one is to do. Deliberation of this kind is practical in at least two senses. First, it is practical in its subject matter, insofar as it is concerned with action. But it is also practical in its consequences or its issue, insofar as reflection about action itself directly moves people to act. Our capacity for deliberative self-determination raises two sets of philosophical problems. First, there are questions about how deliberation can succeed in being practical in its issue. What do we need to assume—both about agents and about the processes of reasoning they engage in—to make sense of the fact that deliberative reflection can directly give rise to action? Can we do justice to this dimension of practical reason while preserving the idea that practical deliberation is genuinely a form of reasoning? Second, there are large issues concerning the content of the standards that are brought to bear in practical reasoning. Which norms for the assessment of action are binding on us as agents? Do these norms provide resources for critical reflection about our ends, or are they exclusively instrumental? Under what conditions do moral norms yield valid standards for reasoning about action? The first set of issues is addressed in sections 1-3 of the present article, while sections 4-5 cover the second set of issues.
Practical reason defines a distinctive standpoint of reflection. When agents deliberate about action, they think about themselves and their situation in characteristic ways. What are some of the salient features of the practical point of view?
A natural way to interpret this point of view is to contrast it with the standpoint of theoretical reason. The latter standpoint is occupied when we engage in reasoning that is directed at the resolution of questions that are in some sense theoretical rather than practical; but how are we to understand this opposition between the theoretical and the practical? One possibility is to understand theoretical reflection as reasoning about questions of explanation and prediction. Looking backward to events that have already taken place, it asks why they have occurred; looking forward, it attempts to determine what is going to happen in the future. In these ways, theoretical reflection is concerned with matters of fact and their explanation. Furthermore it treats these issues in impersonal terms that are accessible (in principle) to anyone. Theoretical reasoning, understood along these lines, finds paradigmatic expression in the natural and social sciences.
Practical reason, by contrast, takes a distinctively normative question as its starting point. It typically asks, of a set of alternatives for actioone of which has yet been performed, what one ought to do, or what it would be best to do. It is thus concerned not with matters of fact and their explanation, but with matters of value, of what it would be desirable to do. In practical reasoning agents attempt to assess and weigh their reasons for action, the considerations that speak for and against alternative courses of action that are open to them. Moreover they do this from a distinctively first-personal point of view, one that is defined in terms of a practical predicament in which they find ourselves (either individually or collectively—people sometimes reason jointly about what they should do together).
There is, however, a different way of understanding the contrast between practical and theoretical reason, stressing the parallels rather than the differences between the two forms of reflection. According to this interpretation, theoretical reflection too is concerned with a normative rather than a factual question, namely with the question of what one ought to believe. It attempts to answer this normative question by assessing and weighing reasons for belief, the considerations that speak for and against the particular conclusions one might draw about the way the world is. Furthermore, it does this from a standpoint of first-personal reflection: the stance of theoretical reasoning in this sense is the committed stance of the believer, not the stance of detached contemplation of one’s beliefs themselves (Moran 2001). Seen in this way, the contrast between practical and theoretical reason is essentially a contrast between two different systems of norms: those for the regulation of action on the one hand, and those for the regulation of belief on the other.
Theoretical reason, interpreted along these lines, addresses the considerations that recommend accepting particular claims as to what is or is not the case. That is, it involves reflection with an eye to the truth of propositions, and the reasons for belief in which it deals are considerations that speak in favor of such propositions’ being true, or worthy of acceptance. Practical reason, by contrast, is concerned not with the truth of propositions but with the desirability or value of actions. The reasons in which it deals are considerations that speak in favor of particular actions being good, or worthy of performance in some way. This difference in subject matter corresponds to a further difference between the two forms of reason, in respect of their consequences. Theoretical reflection about what one ought to believe produces changes in one’s overall set of beliefs, whereas practical reason gives rise to action; as noted above, it is practical not only in its subject matter, but also in its issue.
Two observations should be made about this way of understanding practical reason. First, the contrast just drawn might suggest that there is a categorial difference in the consequences of theoretical and practical reason, insofar as the former produces changes in our mental states, whereas the latter gives rise to bodily movements. But it would be misleading to contrast the two kinds of rational capacity in these terms. Practical reasoning gives rise not to bodily movements per se, but to intentional actions, and these are intelligible as such only to the extent they reflect our mental states. It would thus be more accurate to characterize the issue of both theoretical and practical reason as attitudes; the difference is that theoretical reasoning leads to modifications of our beliefs, whereas practical reasoning leads to modifications of our intentions (Harman 1986, Bratman 1987).
Second, it is important to be clear that ieither case do the characteristic modifications of attitude occur infallibly. There is room for irrationality both in the theoretical and the practical domain, which in its strongest form involves a failure to form the attitudes that one acknowledges to be called for by the considerations one has reflected on. Thus a person might end up reading a mystery novel for another hour, while at the same time judging that it would be better on the whole to go back to work on their paper for the upcoming conference. Practical irrationality of this latter kind is known as akrasia, incontinence, or weakness of will, and its nature and even possibility are traditional subjects of philosophical speculation in their own right. If we assume that this strong kind of practical irrationality is possible, however, then we must grant that practical reason is not automatically practical in its issue. A more accurate way to represent the consequences of practical reason would be to say that deliberation about action generates appropriate intentions insofar as an agent is rational (Korsgaard 1996a).
The circle of philosophical problems that are mentioned above greatly determined the structure of the philosophical knowledge, which includes the following major areas:
– Gnosiology (epistemology) – a theory of knowledge, study of the essence, forms and principles of cognition and thinking. Gnosiology refer to the philosophy of knowledge and the human facilities for learning. It is the scientific or philosophical study of intellectual understanding and the state of appreciating truth or information.
– Metaphysics – it is concerned with such issues as the nature of the ultimate reality, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, personal identity, freedom of will and immortality.
In Western philosophy, metaphysics has become the study of the fundamental nature of all reality — what is it, why is it, and how are we can understand it. Some treat metaphysics as the study of “higher” reality or the “invisible” nature behind everything, but that isn’t true. It is, instead, the study of all of reality, visible and invisible; and what constitutes reality, natural and supernatural. Because most of the debates between atheists and theists involve disagreements over the nature of reality and the existence of anything supernatural, the debates are often disagreements over metaphysics.
Where does the Term Metaphysics Come From?:
The term metaphysics is derived from the Greek Ta Meta ta Physkia which means “the books after the books on nature.” When a librarian was cataloging Aristotle’s works, he did not have a title for the material he wanted to shelve after the material called “nature” (Physkia) — so he called it “after nature.” Originally, this wasn’t even a subject at all — it was a collection of notes on different topics, but specifically topics removed from normal sense perception and empirical observation.
Metaphysics and the Supernatural:
In popular parlance, metaphysics has become the label for the study of things which transcend the natural world — that is, things which supposedly exist separately from nature and which have a more intrinsic reality than our natural existence. This assigns a sense to the Greek prefix meta which it did not originally have, but words do change over time. As a result, the popular sense of metaphysics has been the study of any question about reality which cannot be answered by scientific observation and experimentation. For atheists, this sense of metaphysics is usually regarded as literally empty.
What is a Metaphysician?:
A metaphysician is someone seeking to understand the substance of reality: why things exist at all and what it means to exist in the first place. Much of philosophy is an exercise in some form of metaphysics and we all have a metaphysical perspective because we all have some opinion about the nature of reality. Because everything in metaphysics is more controversial than other topics, there isn’t agreement among metaphysicians about what it is they are doing and what they are investigating.
Why Should Atheists Care About Metaphysics?:
Because atheists typically dismiss the existence of the supernatural, they may dismiss metaphysics as the pointless study of nothing. Because metaphysics is technically the study of all reality, and thus whether there is any supernatural element to it at all, in truth metaphysics is probably the most fundamental subject which irreligious atheists should focus on. Our ability to understand what reality is, what it is composed of, what “existence” means, etc., is fundamental to most of the disagreements between irreligious atheists and religious theists.
Is Metaphysics Pointless?:
Some irreligious atheists, like logical positivists, have argued that the agenda of metaphysics is largely pointless and can’t accomplish anything. According to them, metaphysical statements cannot be either true or false — as a result, they don’t really carry any meaning and shouldn’t be given any serious consideration. There is some justification to this position, but it is unlikely to convince or impress religious theists for whom metaphysical claims constitute some of the most important parts of their lives. Thus the ability to address and critique such claims can be important.
What is an Atheist Metaphysics?:
The only thing all atheists have in common is disbelief in gods, so the only thing all atheist metaphysics will have in common is that reality doesn’t include any gods and isn’t divinely created. Despite that, most atheists in the West tend to adopt a materialistic perspective on reality. This means that they regard the nature of our reality and the universe as consisting of matter and energy. Everything is natural; nothing is supernatural. There are no supernatural beings, realms, or planes of existence. All cause and effect proceeds via natural laws.
Questions Asked in Metaphysics:
What is out there?
What is reality?
Does Free Will exist?
Is there such a process as cause and effect?
Do abstract concepts (like numbers) really exist?
Important Texts on Metaphysics:
Metaphysics, by Aristotle.
Ethics, by Baruch Spinoza.
Branches of Metaphysics:
Aristotle’s book on metaphysics was divided into three sections: ontology, theology, and universal science. Because of this, those are the three traditional branches of metaphysical inquiry.
Ontology is the branch of philosophy which deals with the study of the nature of reality: what is it, how many “realities” are there, what are its properties, etc. The word is derived from the Greek terms on, which means “reality” and logos, which means “study of.” Atheists generally believe that there is a single reality which is material and natural iature.
Theology, of course, is the study of gods — does a god exist, what a god is, what a god wants, etc. Every religion has its own theology because its study of gods, if it includes any gods, will proceed from specific doctrines and traditions which vary from one religion to the next. Since atheists don’t accept the existence of any gods, they don’t accept that theology is the study of anything real. At most, it might be the study of what people think is real and atheist involvement in theology proceeds more from the perspective of a critical outsider rather than an involved member.
The branch of “universal science” is a bit harder to understand, but it involves the search for “first principles” — things like the origin of the universe, fundamental laws of logic and reasoning, etc. For theists, the answer to this is almost always “god” and, moreover, they tend to argue that there can be no other possible answer. Some even go far as to argue that the existence of things like logic and the universe constitute evidence of the existence of their god.
– Ontology – the study of being.
Ontology is the branch of philosophy which deals with the study of the nature of reality: what is it, how many “realities” are there, what are its properties, etc. The word is derived from the Greek terms on, which means “reality” and logos, which means “study of.”
– Dialectics – the study of sources, essence and laws of development.
Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method) is a method of argument for resolving disagreement that has been central to European and Indian philosophy since antiquity. The word dialectic originated in ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues. The dialectical method is discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter guided by reasoned arguments.
The term dialectics is not synonymous with the term debate. While in theory debaters are not necessarily emotionally invested in their point of view, in practice debaters frequently display an emotional commitment that may cloud rational judgement. Debates are won through a combination of persuading the opponent; proving one’s argument correct; or proving the opponent’s argument incorrect. Debates do not necessarily require promptly identifying a clear winner or loser; however clear winners are frequently determined by either a judge, jury, or by group consensus. The term dialectics is also not synonymous with the term rhetoric, a method or art of discourse that seeks to persuade, inform, or motivate an audience. Concepts, like “logos“ or rational appeal, “pathos“ or emotional appeal, and “ethos“ or ethical appeal, are intentionally used by rhetoricians to persuade an audience.
The Sophists taught aretē (Greek: ἀρετή, quality, excellence) as the highest value, and the determinant of one’s actions in life. The Sophists taught artistic quality in oratory (motivation via speech) as a manner of demonstrating one’s aretē. Oratory was taught as an art form, used to please and to influence other people via excellent speech; nonetheless, the Sophists taught the pupil to seek aretē in all endeavours, not solely in oratory.
Socrates favoured truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic. Socrates valued rationality (appealing to logic, not emotion) as the proper means for persuasion, the discovery of truth, and the determinant for one’s actions. To Socrates, truth, not aretē, was the greater good, and each person should, above all else, seek truth to guide one’s life. Therefore, Socrates opposed the Sophists and their teaching of rhetoric as art and as emotional oratory requiring neither logic nor proof. Different forms of dialectical reasoning have emerged throughout history from South Asia and the West (
– Axiology – the study of values, including Aesthetics, Ethics and political philosophy.
Aesthetics (also spelled æsthetics) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty. It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. More broadly, scholars in the field define aesthetics as “critical reflection on art, culture and nature.”
More specific aesthetic theory, often with practical implications, relating to a particular branch of the arts is divided into areas of aesthetics such as art theory, literary theory, film theory and music theory. An example from art theory is aesthetic theory as a set of principles underlying the work of a particular artist or artistic movement: such as the Cubist aesthetic.
Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. The term comes from the Greek word ethos, which means “character”. Ethics is a complement to Aesthetics in the philosophy field of Axiology. In philosophy, ethics studies the moral behavior in humans and how one should act. Ethics may be divided into four major areas of study:
· Meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined;
· Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action;
· Applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations;
· Descriptive ethics, also known as comparative ethics, is the study of people’s beliefs about morality;
Ethics seeks to resolve questions dealing with human morality—concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.
Meta-ethics is a field within philosophy that seeks to understand the nature of normative ethics. The focus of meta-ethics is on how we understand, know about, and what we mean when we talk about what is right and what is wrong.
Meta-ethics has always accompanied philosophical ethics, but in this explicit sense it came to the fore with G.E. Moore‘s Principia Ethica from
Studies of how we know in ethics divide into cognitivism and non-cognitivism; this is similar to the contrast between descriptivists and non-descriptivists. Non-cognitivism is the claim that when we judge something as right or wrong, this is neither true nor false. We may for example be only expressing our emotional feelings about these things. Cognitivism can then be seen as the claim that when we talk about right and wrong, we are talking about matters of fact.
The ontology of ethics is about value-bearing things or properties, i.e. the kind of things or stuff referred to by ethical propositions. Non-descriptivists and non-cognitivists believe that ethics does not need a specific ontology, since ethical propositions do not refer. This is known as an anti-realist position. Realists on the other hand must explain what kind of entities, properties or states are relevant for ethics, how they have value, and why they guide and motivate our actions.
Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking. Normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics because it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of moral language and the metaphysics of moral facts. Normative ethics is also distinct from descriptive ethics, as the latter is an empirical investigation of people’s moral beliefs. To put it another way, descriptive ethics would be concerned with determining what proportion of people believe that killing is always wrong, while normative ethics is concerned with whether it is correct to hold such a belief. Hence, normative ethics is sometimes called prescriptive, rather than descriptive. However, on certain versions of the meta-ethical view called moral realism, moral facts are both descriptive and prescriptive at the same time.
Axiology (from Greek ἀξίᾱ, axiā, “value, worth”; and –λόγος, -logos) is the philosophical study of value. It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics—philosophical fields that depend crucially ootions of value—or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics. The term was first used by Paul Lapie, in 1902, and Eduard von Hartmann, in 1908.
Axiology studies mainly two kinds of values: ethics and aesthetics. Ethics investigates the concepts of “right” and “good” in individual and social conduct. Aesthetics studies the concepts of “beauty” and “harmony.” Formal axiology, the attempt to lay out principles regarding value with mathematical rigor, is exemplified by Robert S. Hartman‘s Science of Value. Studies of both kinds are found in Cultura: International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology.
– Philosophical anthropology – the study of man.
Philosophical anthropology, sometimes called anthropological philosophy, is a discipline dealing with questions of metaphysics and phenomenology of the human person, and interpersonal relationships.
– Logic – the study of the laws of thought and forms of argument.
Logic (from the Greek λογική, logos) has two meanings: first, it describes the use of valid reasoning in some activity; second, it names the normative study of reasoning or a branch thereof. In the latter sense, it features most prominently in the subjects of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science.
Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations, including India, China, Persia and Greece. In the West, logic was established as a formal discipline by Aristotle, who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy. The study of logic was part of the classical trivium, which also included grammar and rhetoric. Logic was further extended by Al-Farabi who categorized it into two separates groups (idea and proof). Later, Avicenna revived the study of logic and developed relationship between temporalis and the implication. In the East, logic was developed by Buddhists and Jains.
Logic is often divided into three parts, inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning.
There are also secondary areas of philosophy, which work on conceptional and theoretical problems arising within first-order non-philosophical disciplines. Examples of these are philosophy of science, social philosophy, philosophy ofpsychology, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of language and philosophy of law. History plays a dialectical role with regard to philosophy, for not only do philosophers do philosophy while teaching the history of philosophy, but they alsoinvolve themselves in the critical examination of the principles that underlie historical investigation itself, creating a philosophy of history.
Although a clearer understanding of the nature of philosophy will only emerge while working through the arguments on the various issues that are to be studies, a set of guidelines for philosophical inquiry, “Ten Rules of Philosophy” will considerably aid you in your own pilgrimage as you build your own philosophy of life. They embody the classical philosophical perspective.
1. Allow the spirit of wonder to flourish in your breast.
Philosophy begins with deep wonder about the universe and about who we are and where we came from and where we are going. What is this life all about?
2. Doubt everything until the evidence convinces you of its truth.
Be reasonably cautious, a moderate skeptic, suspicious of those who claim to have the truth. Doubt is the soul’s laxative. Do not fear intellectual inquiry. As Johann Goethe (1749 – 1832) said, “The masses fear the intellectual, but it isstupidity that they should fear, if they only realized how dangerous it really is”.
3. Love the truth.
“Philosophy is the eternal search for truth, a search which inevitably fails and yet is never defeated; which continually eludes us, but which always guides us. This free, intellectual life of the mind is the noblest inheritance of the Western World; it is also the hope of our future” (W. T. Jones).
4. Divide and conquer.
Divide each problem and theory into its smallest essential components in order to analyze each unit carefully. This is the analytic method.
5. Collect and construct.
Build a coherent argument or theory from component parts. One should move from the simple, secure foundations to the complex and comprehensive. The aim of philosophical argument is to move from simple propositions so obvious that no onewould think of doubting them via method of valid argument to conclusions so preposterous that no one could help but doubt them. The important thing is to have a coherent, well-founded, tightly reasoned set of beliefs that can withstand theopposition.
6. Conjecture and refute.
Make a complete survey of possible objections to your position, looking for counterexamples and subtle mistakes. Seek bold hypotheses and seek disconfinnations of your favorite position. In this way, by a process of elimination, you will negatively and indirectly and gradually approach the Truth.
7. Revise and rebuild.
Be willing to revise, reject and modify your beliefs and the degree with which you hold any belief. Acknowledge that you probably have many false beliefs and be grateful to those who correct you. This is the principle of fallibilism, the thesis thatwe are very likely incorrect in many of our beliefs and have a tendency toward self -deception when considering objections to our position.
8. Seek simplicity.
Prefer the simpler explanation to the more complex, all things being equal. This is the principle of parsimony, sometimes known as Occam’s Razor.
9. Live the Truth.
Appropriate your ideas in a personal way, so that even as the objective truth is a correspondence of the thought to the world, this lived-truth will be a correspondence of the life to the thought. As Kierkegaard said, “Here is a definition of (subjective) truth: holding fast to an objective uncertainty in an appropriation process of the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest available for an existing individual”.
10. Live the good.
Let the practical conclusions of a philosophical reflection on the moral life inspire and motivate you to action. Let moral Truth transform your life, so that you shine like a jewel glowing in its own light amidst the darkness of ignorance.
2. Outlook, its essence, structure and significance for human life
Outlook and science are principally different ways of the spiritual mastering of the world. For science, scientific knowledge is uninterested, emotionally uncolored, objective, deprived of human values and estimations of the reality reflections.Science tries to cognize the world as it is, no matter what man would like it to be. Outlook has a different “system of coordinates”. It is a vision of the world from the only center-position of man. Any piece of knowledge turns into a constituentelement of outlook in case it is directed at the human being and participates in formation of his or her life position. No wonder, that such knowledge is valuably colored and filled with the subjective significance.
Outlook is a complex spiritual phenomenon. Its structure includes the following constituent elements:
1. Basic components of outlook (cognitive, value and motivating-active);
2. Basic levels of outlook (vital-practical and theoretical);
3. Forms and historical types of outlook (mythological, religious and philosophical);
3. Historical types of outlook: mythology, religion, and philosophy
In modern world all the forms of outlook coexist and to this or that extent are represented in the spiritual life of society and individual. But in terms of history they had been formed consecutively. Some forms of outlook dominated in definite historicperiods, so that it enables us to determine historical types of outlook.
Mythology is the most ancient type of outlook, which was typical for a man of the tribal system. That’s why among other characteristic features of the mythological outlook we can point out its collective (tribal) character. Mythology is the self-consciousness of a tribe, where development of the individual self-consciousness is not observed yet. The features of the mythological outlook are:
Syncretism, that is perception of the world where reality and illusion, natural and supernatural, objective and subjective are fused, is one of the essential features of the mythological outlook.
Besides, we should point out such a feature as anthroposociomorphism. At that time ideas about the world were formed according to the pattern of man existence. In the process of cognition the unknown is always comprehended through the known. For the man of the mythological epoch his very existence and existence of his tribe were the most known sphere of his life, so that the whole world was perceived as a big tribal community, where everything is interconnected by means of the tribal ties.
In this illustration by Milo Winter of the Aesop‘s fable, The North Wind and the Sun, an anthropomorphic North Wind tries to strip a traveler of his cloak.
Animism that originates from the primeval anthroposociomorphism is also considered to be one of the specific features of the mythological outlook. The man of the tribal system sensed and comprehended natural life as existence of an aliveorganism, which was spiritual and inhabited with gods and demons. Mythological gods were a constituent element of nature. At that time there was no division of the world into natural (visible) and supernatural (invisible) one. All the mythologicalcreatures lived together with man. Nowadays, mythological consciousness is transformed into forms of the social and political myths that can be practically efficient in the process of consolidation and organization of the masses.
Animism (from Latin anima “soul, life“) has two main definitions. On one hand, “animism” can simply refer to the belief in souls. However, the term is often used to refer to the belief that non-human entities have souls. This article discusses animism in the second sense.
Animism encompasses philosophical, religious, and/or spiritual beliefs that souls or spirits exist not only in humans but also in all other animals, plants, rocks, natural phenomena such as thunder, geographic features such as mountains or rivers, or other entities of the natural environment.Animism may further attribute souls to abstract concepts such as words, true names or metaphors in mythology. Animism is particularly widely found in the religions of indigenous peoples, although it is also found in Shinto, and some forms of Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Pantheism, and Neopaganism.
Throughout European history, philosophers such as Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, among others, contemplated the possibility that souls exist in animals, plants and people, however the currently accepted definition of animism was only developed in the 19th century by Sir Edward Tylor, who created it as “one of anthropology‘s earliest concepts, if not the first”.
Whilst having similarities to totemism, animism differs in that it, according to the anthropologist Tim Ingold, focuses on individual spirit beings which help to perpetuate life, whilst totemism more typically holds that there is a primary source, such as the land itself, or the ancestors, who provide the basis to life. Certain indigenous religious groups, such as that of the Australian Aborigines are more typically totemic, whilst others, like the Inuit are more typically animistic in their worldview.
Religious outlook appeared in the period of decay of the tribal system society. As a historical phenomenon it passed several steps of its development that are associated with transition from paganism, religious-mythological ideas and ethnical(national) religions to formation of the world religions (Buddhism, Islam, Christianity). The specific feature of the religious outlook is fixed in the very etymology of the word “religion” that in Latin means “object to worship” or the service and worship of God or the supernatural. Thus, presence of an object to worship is an inseparable feature of the religious outlook. However, worshiping of gods, demons and spirits is a feature of mythology as well. But the word “religion” has also a different meaning, which is “renewing of connection”. This meaning enables us to understand the essence of religion.
4. Social functions of philosophy
Taking into consideration specific features of philosophy, its correlation with such phenomena of culture as science and outlook, it is possible to determine the role of philosophy in the life of society and individual. The role of philosophy can bedisclosed through the functions it performs.
First of all we should distinguish cognitive function, as far as philosophy is the cognitive-theoretical activity. It is directed at comprehension of integrity of the world, at cognition of the background and preconditions of interconnection betweenman and the world, at systemic-theoretical, logical-consequent and argumentative solution of the outlook problems. Philosophy is a generalized theoretical reflection of the spiritual culture. In terms of content, methodological function stands close to thefirst one. Philosophical cognition is not only directed at search of truth, but also at exploration of means and ways of its achievement, at the analysis of the very possibility of human cognition. The main methodological task of philosophy is to ground and prove truth in the scientific cognition. The problem field of philosophy is raised but not solved by science. It includes ideals of science, norms and principles of the scientific activity, specific features and laws of the scientific revolutions, structure and language of science, functions of the scientific research, etc.
Besides, we can point out critical function. Philosophy is destined to be in opposition to the empirical reality, to the every day world, to see imperfection of society, to destroy habitual stereotypes and superstitions, to search for possibilities to make the world more human. The origin of philosophy is connected with criticism, ruining of traditional religious-mythological ideas in transition to class society. Not to accept anything through belief and to doubt everything by reasoning are the main principles of philosophical cognition.
Outlook, vital-practical function proves philosophy to be able to influence the fonnation both of mass outlook and outlook position of an individual. Philosophy serves as the spiritual means of human self-determination and self-realization.Philosophy is a sphere of spiritual freedom of man. Philosophizing means to be responsible for one’s thoughts, feelings and actions.
References
1. http://www.answers.com/topic/philosophy#ixzz2ggPxbwQP
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
3. Hartman, Robert S. (1967). The Structure of Value. USI Press. 384 pages.
4. Findlay, J. N. (1970). Axiological Ethics. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-00269-5. 100 pages.
5. Rescher, Nicholas (2005). Value Matters: Studies in Axiology. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag. ISBN 3-937202-67-6. 140 pages.
6. Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, Chicago: The Great Books foundation 1959.
7. Copleston F. С. History of Philosophy, 8 vol.
8. Edwards, Paul, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8 vol.
9. Jones, W. T. A History of Western Philosophy, 5 vol.
10. Pojman L. P. Philosophical Traditions. – London: WPC, 1998.
PHILOSOPHY OF THE ANCIENT EAST
Plan
1. Origin of philosophical thought. Eastern and western types of cultural development.
2. Philosophy of Ancient India (Vedantic philosophy, Buddhism).
3. Philosophical conceptions of Ancient China (Confucianism, Taoism).
1. Origin of philosophical thought. Eastern and western types of cultural development
Philosophy originated in controversy with religious – mythological ideas that existed for many centuries before. Mythological thinking was based on reflection of nature and man in the light of the tribal relations. On the contrary, philosophy introduces the system of knowledge that is based on reason. It appeals not to instructing and retelling, but to thinking, logical reasoning and critical comprehension of the conventional ideas.
Philosophy originated in the following three centers of the ancient civilization: in ancient
The first aspect to consider discloses specific features of reference to nature. Development of the west civilization implies active transformation and mastering of nature by man. Achievements in the realms of techniques, technologies and science are its typical features. On the contrary, the eastern cultural tradition emphasized careful and religious reference to nature and everything alive. It is oriented not at change of the external conditions of the human existence but at development of the very nature of man – at the moral-spiritual improvement of a personality, its physical and psychological abilities and at harmony and integrity of its inner world.
The second distinctive feature reflects peculiarities of the social life and the system of the social values. On the one hand, the western cultural tradition stands for the idea of historical progress, development of society in the line of ascent. In this connection, the values of democracy, legal state, freedom and sovereignty of an individual are its main achievements. On the other hand, it is not typical for the societies of the eastern cultural tradition to have an intention of progress. On the contrary, they try to preserve their culture as it is. What is more, the conservative character of the social relations is connected with orientation on the values of a community and limitation of the individual freedom in the name of the interests of society.
The third aspect discloses spiritual-psychological features of man of this or that type of culture. A man of the western type is characterized by the rational-logical style of thinking, definiteness, consecutiveness, cold mind, sober pragmatism and practicism. The determining principle of European thinking is “divide and rule” that originated in the time of the
The eastern philosophical tradition is based on the outlook-oriented knowledge, on such forms of spiritual culture as religion, art and morality. The eastern philosophical texts are represented by parables, aphorisms, and instructions. The humanistic, moral-ethic and religious problems field dominates.
2. Philosophy of Ancient
Indian philosophy, along with Chinese philosophy, is considered to be one of the foremost Eastern traditions of abstract inquiry. Indian philosophy, expressed in the Indo-European language of Sanskrit, comprises many diverse schools of thought and perspectives and includes a substantial body of intellectual debate and argumentation among the various views.
Classical Indian philosophy extends from approximately 100 BC to 1800 AD, which marks the beginning of the modern period. Ancient Indian philosophy also includes the mystical treatises known as Upanishads (700 – 100 BC), early Buddhist writings (300 BC – 500 AD) and the Sanskrit poem Bhagavad-Gita (Song of God, about 200 BC). Classical Indian philosophy is less concerned with spirituality than ancient thought; rather, it concentrated on questions of how people can know and communicate about every-day affairs.
Indian philosophy of the later classical and modern periods (1200 to present) may be distinguished from most Indian religious and spiritual thought. Among the exceptions are philosophies represented by famous advocates of ancient Indian spiritual views, such as mystic philosopher Sri Aurobindo Ghose – a nationalist revolutionary who opposed British rule of
Reincarnation, the view that after death human beings live again in other forms, was held by Plato and is a tenet in Hinduism and Buddhism. In the Hindu Scripture Bhagavad-Gita (500 BC), the Supreme God, Lord Krishna, comforts the unenlightened Arjuna, who is engaged in warfare with his evil cousins, by telling him that there is no reason to grieve over the death of someone we love, for the “eternal in man cannot die”. “We have all been for all time: I, and thou, and those king of men. And we shall be for all time, we all for ever and ever”. He continues that for the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. It has not come into being, does not come into being and will not come into being. A person’s body is different in every reincarnation, but the same mind inhabits each body: “As a man leaves an old garment and puts on the one that is new, the Spirit leaves his mortal body and then puts on one that is new”. There are two main interpretations of Gita. They both say that the goal of existence is to end the cycle of rebirths, but the Advaitian (monist) interpretation holds that the goal is to be absorbed into God (or Nirvana), whereas the Vaisnavan (dualist, worshiping Vishnu) interpretation holds that the person retains his spiritual or personal identity in a relationship with God. Reincarnation is typically linked with karma, one more essential constituent element of the Indian philosophy. Buddhism and Hinduism consider karma to the sum total of the acts done in one stage of person’s existence, which deteraiines his destiny in the next stage. Jainism treats karma as a form of matter, which can contaminate a soul and postpone its attaining Nirvana. In general, it is the doctrine that whatsoever a man sows, whether in action or thought, the fruits will eventually be reaped by him – if not in this life, then in the next. Thus a person who led an evil existence might be reborn as a lower animal (e.g., a reptile or insect). Evidence cited for reincarnation includes deja vu experiences that they couldn’t have had in this life.
The idea of the caste division of society is one of those that are inseparable from the Indian outlook. According to it every man belongs to one of four castes, which are the following:
– Brahmin caste – the first or the highest caste, comprising the priests (fr. Sanskrit Brahman – worship);
– Kshatriya caste – the second caste, comprising warriors and rulers (fr. Sanskrit kshatra – rule);
– Vaisya caste – the third caste, comprising farmers and merchants (fr. Sanskrit – peasant);
– Sudra caste – the fourth and the lowest caste, comprising manual workers (fr. Sanskrit sudra);
Among the main classical schools of Indian thought we can point out the following:
A) The so-called orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, which include Exegesis (Mimamsa), Vedanta and its numerous subschools, Atomism (Vaisesika), Logic (Nyaya), Analysis (Samkhya) and Yoga;
B) The so-called non–orthodox systems of Buddhism, the materialist and skeptical philosophies of Carvaka and the religious schools of Jainism.
The eight steps of yoga fall into three main groups:
1) Moral discipline – against killing, lying, stealing, sexual impurity and possessiveness, and towards purity, contentment, austerity, study and God – centeredness.
2) Physical disciplines – control over bodily posture, breathing and excitation of the senses.
3) Stages of meditation – concentration, contemplation and ecstasy (unity).
It was Buddhism to inherit and transform all the traditions of the orthodox philosophical schools.
This is a religious and philosophical system springing from the life and teaching of Gautama Buddha (the Sanskrit word Buddha means awakened), who in the 6th century BC rejected certain features of his native Hinduism, particularly the caste system, animal sacrifice and undue asceticism.
He founded an order of mendicant preachers, including both sexes, and his first sermon to his disciples at
1) Sorrow is the universal experience of mankind.
2) The cause of sorrow is desire, and the cycle of rebirths is perpetuated by desire for existence.
3) The removal of sorrow can only come from the removal of desire.
4) The desire can be systematically abandoned by following the Noble Eightfold Path, which is the basis of the disciplines of Buddhism and finds its origin in the corresponding yoga system.
The eight steps are not fully consecutive stages, but fall into three main groups:
a) Right understanding (of Buddha’s basic teaching) and right aspirations (toward benevolence and renunciation).
b) Right speech (i.e. no lying or abuse), right conduct (i.e. no killing, no stealing and no overindulgence) and right means of livelihood (i.e. nothing tending to the use or encouragement of wrong speech or conduct).
c) Right striving (toward the building up of good and the eradication of evil within oneself), right self-possession (involving self-knowledge and control of thought), and right contemplation (according to the traditional stages of meditation).
3. Philosophical conceptions of Ancient
Philosophy of the ancient
The following schools represent the ancient
Confucianism originated in the 6th century BC. It was founded by Confucius (551 – 479 BC), who was born in the small state of Lu on the
The ethics of Confucius is based on differentiation of two social types of people and two styles of behavior in society. These are the junzi (literally, “lord’s son”, “gentleman” or “profound person”) and the xiaoren (“small person”): “The profound person understands what is moral. The small person understands what is profitable”.
Some of Confucius’ Sayings
“Someone who is a clever speaker and maintains a ‘too-smiley’ face is seldom considered a person of jen.”
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
“Each day I examine myself in three ways: in doing things for others, have I been disloyal? In my interactions with friends, have I been untrustworthy? Have not practiced what I have preached?”
“If you would govern a state of a thousand chariots (a small-to-middle-size state), you must pay strict attention to business, be true to your word, be economical in expenditure and love the people. You should use them according to the seasons.”
“A young man should serve his parents at home and be respectful to elders outside his home. He should be earnest and truthful, loving all, but become intimate with jen. After doing this, if he has energy to spare, he can study literature and the arts.”
“If the
“When your father is alive, observe his will. When your father is dead observe his former actions. If, for three years you do not change from the ways of your father, you can be called a ‘real son (hsiao).'”
“When the
“Ah, now I can begin to discuss the Book of Odes with Tz’u. I give him a hint and he gets the whole point.”
“If you govern with the power of your virtue, you will be like the North Star. It just stays in its place while all the other stars position themselves around it.”
“If you govern the people legalistically and control them by punishment, they will avoid crime, but have no personal sense of shame. If you govern them by means of virtue and control them with propriety, they will gain their own sense of shame, and thus correct themselves.”
“At fifteen my heart was set on learning; at thirty I stood firm; at forty I had no more doubts; at fifty I knew the mandate of heaven; at sixty my ear was obedient; at seventy I could follow my heart’s desire without transgressing the norm.”
“I can talk with Hui for a whole day without him differing with me in any way–as if he is stupid. But when he retires and I observe his personal affairs, it is quite clear that he is not stupid.”
Daoism originated approximately at the same time as Confucianism. It does not name a tradition constituted by a founding thinker, even though the common belief is that a teacher named Laozi founded the school and wrote its major work, called the Daodejing (Book about Dao and De)(3rd c. BC). Besides, there is one more influential text that refers to this philosophical tradition – the Zhuangzi (4th – 3rd c. BC), which is a collection of stories and imaginary conversations known for its creativity and skillful use of language. However, this stream of thought existed in an oral fonn, passed along by the masters who developed and transmitted it before it came to be written in these texts. The problem field of Daoism is more concerned with natural philosophy, relations between man and nature rather than with social –ethical and political aspects of human existence.
Dao is the maiotion of Daoism that gives answers to all the questions about origin of the world and the way it exists. It is the initial cause and the only law of the universe to which nature, society and man are subordinated. Dao is the process of reality itself, the way things come together, while still transforming. It reflects the deep-seated Chinese belief that change is the most basic character of things. A central theme of the Daodejing is that correlatives are the expressions of the movement of Dao. Correlatives in Chinese philosophy are not opposites, mutually excluding each other. They represent the ebb and flow of the forces of reality: yin/yang, male/female; excess/defect; leading/following; active/passive. As one approaches the fullness of yin, yang begins to horizon and emerge. The essence of Dao is non-being, that is why it caeither be cognized by mind nor determined by means of words. Daoism teaches that humans cannot fathom Dao, because any name we give to it cannot capture it. It is beyond what we can conceive. Those who wu wei may become one with it and thus “obtain Dao.” Wu wei is a difficult notion to translate. Yet, it is generally agreed that the traditional rendering of it as “nonaction” or “no action” is incorrect. Those who wu wei do act. Daoism is not a philosophy of “doing nothing.” Wu wei means something like “act naturally,” “effortless action,” or “nonwillful action.” The point is that there is no need for human tampering with the flow of reality. Wu wei should be the way of life, because Dao always benefits, it does not harm. The way of heaven (Dao of tian) is always on the side of good and virtue (de) comes forth from Dao alone. What causes this natural embedding of good and benefit in Dao is vague and elusive, not even the sages understand it. But the world is a reality that is filled with spiritual force, just as a sacred image used in religious ritual might be. Dao occupies the place in reality that is analogous to the part of a family’s house set aside for the altar for venerating the ancestors and gods. When we think that life’s occurrences seem unfair (a human discrimination), we should remember that heaven’s net misses nothing and it leaves nothing undone. What is the image of the ideal person in Daoism, the sage? It is obvious that sages wu wei. In this respect, they are like newborn infants, who move naturally, without planning and reliance on the structures given to them by others. Sages empty themselves, becoming void of pretense. Sages concentrate their internal energies and clean their vision. They manifest plainness and become like uncarved wood. They live naturally and free from desires given by men. They settle themselves and know how to be content. They preserve the female (yin), meaning that they know how to be receptive and are not unbalanced favoring assertion and action (yang). They shoulder yin and embrace yang, blend internal energies and thereby attain harmony. Those following Dao do not strive, tamper, or seek control. They do not endeavor to help life along, or use their heart-mind to “solve” or “figure out” life’s apparent knots and entanglements. Sages do not engage in disputes and arguing, or try to prove their point. They are pliable and supple, not rigid and resistive. They are like water, finding their own place, overcoming the hard and strong by suppleness. Sages act with no expectation of reward. They put themselves last and yet come first. They never make a display of themselves. They do not brag or boast and do not linger after their work is done. They leave no trace. Because they embody Dao in practice, they have longevity. They create peace. Creatures do not harm them. Soldiers do not kill them. Heaven protects the sage and the sage becomes invincible. The sage should follow the three aims: to live long, to overcome the state of enlightenment and to become immortal.
Indian Philosophy
|
I |
|
INTRODUCTION |
Indian Philosophy, along with Chinese philosophy, one of the foremost Eastern traditions of abstract inquiry. Indian philosophy, expressed in the Indo-European language of Sanskrit (see Sanskrit Language), comprises many diverse schools of thought and perspectives and includes a substantial body of intellectual debate and argumentation among the various views.
Among the main classical schools of Indian thought are (1) the so-called orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, which include Exegesis (Mimamsa), Vedanta and its numerous subschools, Atomism (Vaisheshika), Logic (Nyaya), Analysis (Samkhya), and Yoga; and (2) the Buddhist (so-called nonorthodox) schools of Madhyamika, Buddhist Idealism (Yogacara), and Abhidharma (which includes numerous subschools). Indian philosophy also comprises the materialist (see Materialism) and skeptical (see Skepticism) philosophies of Carvaka and the religious schools of Jainism.
Classical Indian philosophy extends from approximately 100 bc to ad 1800, which marks the beginning of the modern period. Ancient Indian thought, which is also philosophic in a broader sense, originated as early as 1500 bc and appears in scriptures called Veda. Ancient Indian philosophy also includes the mystical treatises known as Upanishads (700 bc to 400 bc), early Buddhist writings (300 bc to ad 500), and the Sanskrit poem Bhagavad-Gita (Song of the Lord, 200 BC to 200 AD). Classical Indian philosophy is less concerned with spirituality than ancient thought; rather, it concentrates on questions of how people can know and communicate about everyday affairs.
Indian philosophy of the later classical and modern periods (1200 to present) may be distinguished from most Indian religious and spiritual thought. Among the exceptions are philosophies represented by famous advocates of ancient Indian spiritual views, such as mystic philosopher Sri Aurobindo Ghose—a nationalist revolutionary who opposed British rule of India in the early 20th century—and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, who was president of India from 1962 to 1967, within the period immediately following the country’s struggle for independence.
Indian philosophy is extensive, rich, and complex. Scholars analyze not only its significance and its insights, but also its classical teachings about knowledge and language. Meanwhile, the majority of Western students of Indian thought have been drawn to its religious and mystical teachings.
|
II |
|
RELATIONSHIP WITH WESTERN PHILOSOPHY |
Indian and Western civilizations have maintained some form of contact for at least 2500 years. In the 4th century bc, for example, the Greek emperor Alexander took troops across the
Despite this, it is possible to discern common interests and intellectual positions between Western and Indian philosophy, such as positions concerning logic and epistemology (the study of knowledge). Furthermore, when Indian philosophers ask the question “What is real?” (the subject of metaphysics) and respond by directing their attention to everyday experience and discourse, other interesting parallels to Western traditions become evident.
On the other hand, contrasts between Western and Indian thought dominate the arenas of religion and religious philosophy. For example, there is a certain type of Indian theism that shares similarities with the monotheism of the West. But the nirvana (enlightenment) goal of Buddhism, the mystical monism of Advaita Vedanta (the idea that all reality is a single spiritual being), and the theorizing that forms the foundation of polytheism (belief in the existence of multiple deities) in Hinduism are instances of Indian philosophy that have no, or at best minor and incomplete, parallels in Western philosophy.
Most ethical teachings in Indian philosophy are found in Indian literature but are influenced by religious association. Western types of ethical propositions (“one should behave in a certain manner because of [argument X]”) do occur in Indian philosophy—for instance, the famous Jaina argument that since animals are capable of pain, humans have an obligatioot to harm them—but there is little wrestling with the question of the criteria of ethical norms (standards), unlike in the West. Indian classical philosophers often think about ethics in connection with Indian views about actions, or habits (karma), and rebirth (the belief in reincarnation; see Transmigration). Nevertheless, Indian philosophy is characterized by a highly refined ethical sensibility (common among Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism), along with standards of character and conduct that are common to many other cultures.
|
III |
|
INFLUENCE OF RELIGION |
In ancient Indian philosophy (before 100 bc), philosophy and religion cannot be meaningfully separated, primarily because of the cultural integration of religious practices and mystical pursuits. For example, ceremonies celebrating birth, marriage, and death, performed with recitations of Vedic verses (mantras), were important for bonding within ancient Indian societies. Later in classical Indian philosophy, different social practices developed. Thus, the orthodox classical schools of thought are distinguished from nonorthodox classical schools by their allegiance to established forms of social practice rather than to the doctrines of the Veda. Buddhism, for example, constitutes much more of a break with Vedic practices than with the ideas developed in Vedic traditions of thought. In fact, the Upanishads, mystical treatises continuous with the Vedas, foretell many Buddhist teachings. In ancient
Mysticism, the claim that ultimate truth is only obtainable through spiritual experience, dominates much ancient Indian philosophy. Such experiences are thought to reveal a supreme and transmundane (beyond ordinary experience) reality and to provide the meaning of life. Mysticism shapes much classical and modern Indian thought as well. Through meditation and the meditative techniques of yoga, it is believed that one discovers one’s true self (atman), or God (Brahman), or enlightenment (nirvana). The presumed indications of mystical experiences, such as atman or God, were especially debated in the ancient period and influenced much subsequent Indian philosophy, including the reflections of professional philosophers of late classical times.
In some schools of classical Indian philosophy, such as Nyaya (Logic), neither religioor mysticism is central. Rather, the questions of how human beings know what they know—and how they can mean what they say—are given priority.
|
IV |
|
HISTORY |
The oldest literature of Indian thought is the Veda, a collection of poems and hymns composed over several generations beginning as early as 1500 bc. The Veda was composed in Sanskrit, the intellectual language of both ancient and classical Indian civilizations. Four collections were made, so it is said that there are four Vedas. The four as a group came to be viewed as sacred in Hinduism.
Most of the poems of the Veda are religious and tend to be about the activities of various gods. Yet some Vedic hymns and poems address philosophic themes that became important in later periods, such as the henotheism that is key to much Hindu theology. Henotheism is the idea that one God takes many different forms, and that although individuals may worship several different gods and goddesses, they really revere but one Supreme Being.
Indian philosophy was more decisively established with the Upanishads (secret doctrines), the first of which may have been written in the 7th century bc. Early Upanishads, which dominate the late ancient period (475 bc to 100 bc) of thought, were key to the emergence of several classical philosophies. In the Upanishads, views about Brahman (the Absolute, or God) and atman (one’s true self) were proposed.
Buddhism, now a major world religion, also appeared in the ancient period of Indian philosophy. The Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, lived during the 6th century bc. He preached a goal of a supreme personal good—enlightenment (nirvana)—that may be compared to the later mystical so-called Brahman-knowledge of Upanishadic philosophy. In the reign of the Buddhist emperor Ashoka (3rd century bc), an enormous canon of literature, sometimes called the Southern Buddhist Canon, or the Pali Canon, was compiled. Other scriptures, eventually key to a Northern or Mahayana tradition, were composed later.
Most of the great classical schools of Indian philosophy, seven or eight iumber, were first articulated in texts dating from as early as 100 bc. The founders of these schools are largely unknown except by traditional names—such as Gautama, with the Logic (Nyaya) school, and Badarayana, with Vedanta. Early classical Indian philosophy is expressed in aphoristic (sutra) texts complete with elaborate commentaries. The Sanskrit word sutra means thread and, by extension, an “aphorism” that captures a philosophic tenet in a succinct statement. The sutra texts, usually accompanied with commentaries made by a second great thinker of a tradition, express world views, or philosophies, organized around reasons and arguments.
The most outstanding individuals in subsequent classical Indian philosophical writing include Buddhist Idealist Dharmakirti, who lived in the 7th century; Advaita Vedantin Samkara, of the 8th century; and Logic philosopher Gangesa, of the 14th century. The writings of these thinkers represented a steady advance in persuasiveness over previous arguments. As a whole, Indian philosophic reasoning and reflection advanced—both in overall sophistication of argument and in the volume and scope of new texts—by the gradual effort of numerous authors.
|
V |
|
INDIAN THOUGHT |
|
A |
|
Exegesis |
The Mimamsa-sutra of the Exegesis school appears to be the oldest text (100 bc) of an emergent philosophic sastra (craft or science). Exegesis is primarily concerned with questions of Vedic interpretation. Broadly philosophic questions—such as, “Why is the Veda sacred?”—come to be addressed, and, in general, a realist (see Realism) view of nature (the belief that a world exists independent of the mind) and a common-sense view of knowledge (human beings know things by directly perceiving them or by deducing from other known things) become part of the basis of the philosophic system. Exegesis arguments about dharma (Sanskrit for “duty” or “the right way to live”) have been the focus of philosophic efforts through most of the many centuries of this school. In the later classical period, Exegesis philosophy focuses less on dharma, and more attention is given to technical issues in the philosophy of language. The school continues into the modern period.
|
B |
|
Vedanta |
Vedanta also has a long and distinguished history, as well as a bewildering number of subschools. Vedanta models itself after the philosophy of the Upanishads. For purposes of study, Vedantic philosophy may be said to fall into two subschools: (1) Advaita (monistic or nondual) Vedanta, and (2) theistic Vedanta. The main point of contention between the two schools is the reality of God, along with the reality of the world that God presumably has created, or emanated. Advaita Vedanta holds that Ultimate Reality (Brahman), which is identical with one’s true self (atman), transcends all forms. Thus, God and the world are illusions. Theistic Vedantins disagree, holding that God and the world exist separately from one’s self. The early 8th-century Advaitin philosopher Samkara is the most famous classical Vedantin. Vedanta extends through all periods of Indian philosophy and remains important among present-day philosophers in
Vedanta
|
I |
|
INTRODUCTION |
Vedanta (Sanskrit veda,”knowledge”; anta,”end”), one of the six orthodox philosophies of Hinduism, chiefly concerned with knowledge of Brahman, the universal supreme pure being. Vedanta is based on the speculative portion of late Vedic literature, primarily the treatises known as Aranyakas and Upanishads.
Differing Indian traditions ascribe the first truly Vedantic manuals, the Vedanta sutras (also called Brahma sutras), to two semilegendary figures: the philosopher Badarayana (circa 4th century bc), and a vaguely identifiable sage named Vyasa. To the latter these same traditions also ascribe definitive compilations of the Vedas, as well as a compilation of the later epic poem Mahabharata. Most modern scholars, without totally rejecting the traditions, state that the Sanskrit name Vyasa (“arranger” or “collector,”) has been applied to many ancient Hindu authors and compilers.
Whoever first formulated the Vedanta set down its teachings in aphorisms so pithy that they are virtually unintelligible without the aid of interpretation. Different interpretations have given rise to numerous schools of Indian philosophy, the most important being Advaita, or nondualism, founded by the Hindu philosopher and theologian Shankara.
|
II |
|
SHANKARA |
The central problem in Shankara’s system of interpretation is the nature of the relation between Brahman and atman, the individual self, breath, or soul. According to Shankara, the two are identical. The individual self, however, is prevented by avidya, or ignorance, from understanding the nondual universal nature of pure being (Brahman). Thus it perceives only separate selves and things (that is, the whole world of material, temporal existence), and never realizes that all separate existences are essentially unreal (these being phenomena produced by maya, the power of illusion mysteriously inherent in and projected from Brahman). As long as the individual self remains without real knowledge, it will blindly look for its true self in the phenomenal world. It remains enmeshed in that world, again and again experiencing samsara, or the series of existences, deaths, and rebirths each unenlightened soul undergoes as a consequence of its karma (its good and evil actions in past existences, which determine the form of future existences). Through the proper knowledge of Vedanta, however, the individual soul recognizes the limitless reality forever existing behind the cosmic veil of maya, realizes that its own true nature is identical with Brahman, and through this self-realization achieves moksha (release from samsara and karma) and Nirvana.
|
III |
|
LATER INTERPRETERS |
Later modifications of this philosophy were introduced by the philosophers Ramanuja and Madhva. In modern times, Vedanta has received attention outside
|
C |
|
Buddhism |
Like much Vedanta philosophy, Buddhism is concerned with mystical experience. Buddhist thinkers commonly compare enlightenment (nirvana) experience to awakening from a dream. (The Sanskrit word buddha means awakened.) Buddhists have contributed significant ideas in epistemology and metaphysics to Indian philosophy, and have exerted a complex influence on its overall history. Buddhist philosophies were prominent in the earlier classical period (100 bc to ad 1000). The 2nd-century Buddhist Nagarjuna and the 7th-century Buddhist Dharmakirti are two of the greatest thinkers in classical Indian philosophy. Nagarjuna was an advocate of skepticism and mysticism, and his arguments continue to influence a majority of Indian philosophic schools. Dharmakirti was an astute logician (see Logic) and pragmatist (see Pragmatism) who worked largely on idealist premises, such as the idea that appearances are dependent on the mind, or consciousness. Dharmakirti taught that everything is, or is directly dependent upon, Buddha Mind or Buddha Body (awakened mind or awakened body).
Buddhism
|
I |
|
INTRODUCTION |
Buddhism, a major world religion, founded in northeastern
Originating as a monastic movement within the dominant Brahman tradition of the day, Buddhism quickly developed in a distinctive direction. The Buddha not only rejected significant aspects of Hindu philosophy, but also challenged the authority of the priesthood, denied the validity of the Vedic scriptures, and rejected the sacrificial cult based on them. Moreover, he opened his movement to members of all castes, denying that a person’s spiritual worth is a matter of birth. See Hinduism.
Buddhism today is divided into two major branches known to their respective followers as Theravada, the Way of the Elders, and Mahayana, the Great Vehicle. Followers of Mahayana refer to Theravada using the derogatory term Hinayana, the Lesser Vehicle.
Buddhism has been significant not only in India but also in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), and Laos, where Theravada has been dominant; Mahayana has had its greatest impact in China, Japan, Taiwan, Tibet, Nepal, Mongolia, Korea, and Vietnam, as well as in India. The number of Buddhists worldwide has been estimated at between 150 and 300 million. The reasons for such a range are twofold: Throughout much of Asia religious affiliation has tended to be nonexclusive; and it is especially difficult to estimate the continuing influence of Buddhism in Communist countries such as
|
II |
|
ORIGINS |
As did most major faiths, Buddhism developed over many years.
|
A |
|
Buddha’s Life |
No complete biography of the Buddha was compiled until centuries after his death; only fragmentary accounts of his life are found in the earliest sources. Western scholars, however, generally agree on 563 bc as the year of his birth.
Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, was born in Lumbini near the present Indian-Nepal border, the son of the ruler of a petty kingdom. According to legend, at his birth sages recognized in him the marks of a great man with the potential to become either a sage or the ruler of an empire. The young prince was raised in sheltered luxury, until at the age of 29 he realized how empty his life to this point had been. Renouncing earthly attachments, he embarked on a quest for peace and enlightenment, seeking release from the cycle of rebirths. For the next few years he practiced Yoga and adopted a life of radical asceticism.
Eventually he gave up this approach as fruitless and instead adopted a middle path between the life of indulgence and that of self-denial. Sitting under a bo tree, he meditated, rising through a series of higher states of consciousness until he attained the enlightenment for which he had been searching. Once having known this ultimate religious truth, the Buddha underwent a period of intense inner struggle. He began to preach, wandering from place to place, gathering a body of disciples, and organizing them into a monastic community known as the sangha. In this way he spent the rest of his life.
|
B |
|
Buddha’s Teachings |
The Buddha was an oral teacher; he left no written body of thought. His beliefs were codified by later followers.
|
B1 |
|
The Four Noble Truths |
At the core of the Buddha’s enlightenment was the realization of the Four Noble Truths: (1) Life is suffering. This is more than a mere recognition of the presence of suffering in existence. It is a statement that, in its very nature, human existence is essentially painful from the moment of birth to the moment of death. Even death brings no relief, for the Buddha accepted the Hindu idea of life as cyclical, with death leading to further rebirth. (2) All suffering is caused by ignorance of the nature of reality and the craving, attachment, and grasping that result from such ignorance. (3) Suffering can be ended by overcoming ignorance and attachment. (4) The path to the suppression of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path, which consists of right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right-mindedness, and right contemplation. These eight are usually divided into three categories that form the cornerstone of Buddhist faith: morality, wisdom, and samadhi, or concentration.
|
B2 |
|
Anatman |
Buddhism analyzes human existence as made up of five aggregates or “bundles” (skandhas): the material body, feelings, perceptions, predispositions or karmic tendencies, and consciousness. A person is only a temporary combination of these aggregates, which are subject to continual change. No one remains the same for any two consecutive moments. Buddhists deny that the aggregates individually or in combination may be considered a permanent, independently existing self or soul (atman). Indeed, they regard it as a mistake to conceive of any lasting unity behind the elements that constitute an individual. The Buddha held that belief in such a self results in egoism, craving, and hence in suffering. Thus he taught the doctrine of anatman, or the denial of a permanent soul. He felt that all existence is characterized by the three marks of anatman (no soul), anitya (impermanence), and dukkha (suffering). The doctrine of anatman made it necessary for the Buddha to reinterpret the Indian idea of repeated rebirth in the cycle of phenomenal existence known as samsara. To this end he taught the doctrine of pratityasamutpada, or dependent origination. This 12-linked chain of causation shows how ignorance in a previous life creates the tendency for a combination of aggregates to develop. These in turn cause the mind and senses to operate. Sensations result, which lead to craving and a clinging to existence. This condition triggers the process of becoming once again, producing a renewed cycle of birth, old age, and death. Through this causal chain a connection is made between one life and the next. What is posited is a stream of renewed existences, rather than a permanent being that moves from life to life—in effect a belief in rebirth without transmigration.
|
B3 |
|
Karma |
Closely related to this belief is the doctrine of karma. Karma consists of a person’s acts and their ethical consequences. Human actions lead to rebirth, wherein good deeds are inevitably rewarded and evil deeds punished. Thus, neither undeserved pleasure nor unwarranted suffering exists in the world, but rather a universal justice. The karmic process operates through a kind of natural moral law rather than through a system of divine judgment. One’s karma determines such matters as one’s species, beauty, intelligence, longevity, wealth, and social status. According to the Buddha, karma of varying types can lead to rebirth as a human, an animal, a hungry ghost, a denizen of hell, or even one of the Hindu gods.
Although never actually denying the existence of the gods, Buddhism denies them any special role. Their lives in heaven are long and pleasurable, but they are in the same predicament as other creatures, being subject eventually to death and further rebirth in lower states of existence. They are not creators of the universe or in control of human destiny, and Buddhism denies the value of prayer and sacrifice to them. Of the possible modes of rebirth, human existence is preferable, because the deities are so engrossed in their own pleasures that they lose sight of the need for salvation. Enlightenment is possible only for humans.
|
B4 |
|
Nirvana |
The ultimate goal of the Buddhist path is release from the round of phenomenal existence with its inherent suffering. To achieve this goal is to attaiirvana, an enlightened state in which the fires of greed, hatred, and ignorance have been quenched. Not to be confused with total annihilation, nirvana is a state of consciousness beyond definition. After attaining nirvana, the enlightened individual may continue to live, burning off any remaining karma until a state of final nirvana (parinirvana) is attained at the moment of death.
In theory, the goal of nirvana is attainable by anyone, although it is a realistic goal only for members of the monastic community. In Theravada Buddhism an individual who has achieved enlightenment by following the Eightfold Path is known as an arhat, or worthy one, a type of solitary saint.
For those unable to pursue the ultimate goal, the proximate goal of better rebirth through improved karma is an option. This lesser goal is generally pursued by lay Buddhists in the hope that it will eventually lead to a life in which they are capable of pursuing final enlightenment as members of the sangha.
The ethic that leads to nirvana is detached and inner-oriented. It involves cultivating four virtuous attitudes, known as the Palaces of Brahma: loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. The ethic that leads to better rebirth, however, is centered on fulfilling one’s duties to society. It involves acts of charity, especially support of the sangha, as well as observance of the five precepts that constitute the basic moral code of Buddhism. The precepts prohibit killing, stealing, harmful language, sexual misbehavior, and the use of intoxicants. By observing these precepts, the three roots of evil—lust, hatred, and delusion—may be overcome.
|
III |
|
EARLY DEVELOPMENT |
Shortly before his death, the Buddha refused his disciples’ request to appoint a successor, telling his followers to work out their own salvation with diligence. At that time Buddhist teachings existed only in oral traditions, and it soon became apparent that a new basis for maintaining the community’s unity and purity was needed. Thus, the monastic order met periodically to reach agreement on matters of doctrine and practice. Four such meetings have been focused on in the traditions as major councils.
|
A |
|
Major Councils |
The first council was held at Rajagrha (present-day Rajgir) immediately after the Buddha’s death. Presided over by a monk named Mahakasyapa, its purpose was to recite and agree on the Buddha’s actual teachings and on proper monastic discipline.
About a century later, a second great council is said to have met at Vaishāli. Its purpose was to deal with ten questionable monastic practices—the use of money, the drinking of palm wine, and other irregularities—of monks from the Vajjian Confederacy; the council declared these practices unlawful. Some scholars trace the origins of the first major split in Buddhism to this event, holding that the accounts of the council refer to the schism between the Mahasanghikas, or Great Assembly, and the stricter Sthaviras, or Elders. More likely, however, the split between these two groups became formalized at another meeting held some 37 years later as a result of the continued growth of tensions within the sangha over disciplinary issues, the role of the laity, and the nature of the arhat.
In time, further subdivisions within these groups resulted in 18 schools that differed on philosophical matters, religious questions, and points of discipline. Of these 18 traditional sects, only Theravada survives.
The third council at Pātaliputra (present-day
A fourth council, under the patronage of King Kanishka, was held about ad 100 at Jālandhar or in
|
B |
|
Formation of Buddhist Literature |
For several centuries after the death of the Buddha, the scriptural traditions recited at the councils were transmitted orally. These were finally committed to writing about the 1st century bc. Some early schools used Sanskrit for their scriptural language. Although individual texts are extant, no complete canon has survived in Sanskrit. In contrast, the full canon of the Theravadins survives in Pali, which was apparently a popular dialect derived from Sanskrit.
The Buddhist canon is known in Pali as the Tipitaka (Tripitaka in Sanskrit), meaning “Three Baskets,” because it consists of three collections of writings: the Sutta Pitaka (Sutra Pitaka in Sanskrit), a collection of discourses; the Vinaya Pitaka, the code of monastic discipline; and the Abhidharma Pitaka, which contains philosophical, psychological, and doctrinal discussions and classifications.
The Sutta Pitaka is primarily composed of dialogues between the Buddha and other people. It consists of five groups of texts: Digha Nikaya (Collection of Long Discourses), Majjhima Nikaya (Collection of Medium-Length Discourses), Samyutta Nikaya (Collection of Grouped Discourses), Anguttara Nikaya (Collection of Discourses on Numbered Topics), and Khuddaka Nikaya (Collection of Miscellaneous Texts). In the fifth group, the Jatakas, comprising stories of former lives of the Buddha, and the Dhammapada (Religious Sentences), a summary of the Buddha’s teachings on mental discipline and morality, are especially popular.
The Vinaya Pitaka consists of more than 225 rules governing the conduct of Buddhist monks and nuns. Each is accompanied by a story explaining the original reason for the rule. The rules are arranged according to the seriousness of the offense resulting from their violation.
The Abhidharma Pitaka consists of seven separate works. They include detailed classifications of psychological phenomena, metaphysical analysis, and a thesaurus of technical vocabulary. Although technically authoritative, the texts in this collection have little influence on the lay Buddhist. The complete canon, much expanded, also exists in Tibetan and Chinese versions.
Two noncanonical texts that have great authority within Theravada Buddhism are the Milindapanha (Questions of King Milinda) and the Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification). The Milindapanha dates from about the 2nd century ad. It is in the form of a dialogue dealing with a series of fundamental problems in Buddhist thought. The Visuddhimagga is the masterpiece of the most famous of Buddhist commentators, Buddhaghosa (flourished early 5th century ad). It is a large compendium summarizing Buddhist thought and meditative practice.
Theravada Buddhists have traditionally considered the Tipitaka to be the remembered words of Siddhartha Gautama. Mahayana Buddhists have not limited their scriptures to the teachings of this historical figure, however, nor has Mahayana ever bound itself to a closed canon of sacred writings. Various scriptures have thus been authoritative for different branches of Mahayana at various periods of history. Among the more important Mahayana scriptures are the following: the Saddharmapundarika Sutra (Lotus of the Good Law Sutra, popularly known as the Lotus Sutra), the Vimalakirti Sutra, the Avatamsaka Sutra (Garland Sutra), and the Lankavatara Sutra (The Buddha’s Descent to Sri Lanka Sutra), as well as a group of writings known as the Prajnaparamita (Perfection of Wisdom).
|
C |
|
Conflict and New Groupings |
As Buddhism developed in its early years, conflicting interpretations of the master’s teachings appeared, resulting in the traditional 18 schools of Buddhist thought. As a group, these schools eventually came to be considered too conservative and literal minded in their attachment to the master’s message. Among them, Theravada was charged with being too individualistic and insufficiently concerned with the needs of the laity. Such dissatisfaction led a liberal wing of the sangha to begin to break away from the rest of the monks at the second council in 383 bc.
While the more conservative monks continued to honor the Buddha as a perfectly enlightened human teacher, the liberal Mahasanghikas developed a new concept. They considered the Buddha an eternal, omnipresent, transcendental being. They speculated that the human Buddha was but an apparition of the transcendental Buddha that was created for the benefit of humankind. In this understanding of the Buddha nature, Mahasanghika thought is something of a prototype of Mahayana.
|
C1 |
|
Mahayana |
The origins of Mahayana are particularly obscure. Even the names of its founders are unknown, and scholars disagree about whether it originated in southern or in northwestern
Speculation about the eternal Buddha continued well after the beginning of the Christian era and culminated in the Mahayana doctrine of his threefold nature, or triple “body” (trikaya). These aspects are the body of essence, the body of communal bliss, and the body of transformation. The body of essence represents the ultimate nature of the Buddha. Beyond form, it is the unchanging absolute and is spoken of as consciousness or the void. This essential Buddha nature manifests itself, taking on heavenly form as the body of communal bliss. In this form the Buddha sits in godlike splendor, preaching in the heavens. Lastly, the Buddha nature appears on earth in human form to convert humankind. Such an appearance is known as a body of transformation. The Buddha has taken on such an appearance countless times. Mahayana considers the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, only one example of the body of transformation.
The new Mahayana concept of the Buddha made possible concepts of divine grace and ongoing revelation that are lacking in Theravada. Belief in the Buddha’s heavenly manifestations led to the development of a significant devotional strand in Mahayana. Some scholars have therefore described the early development of Mahayana in terms of the “Hinduization” of Buddhism.
Another important new concept in Mahayana is that of the bodhisattva or enlightenment being, as the ideal toward which the good Buddhist should aspire. A bodhisattva is an individual who has attained perfect enlightenment but delays entry into final nirvana in order to make possible the salvation of all other sentient beings. The bodhisattva transfers merit built up over many lifetimes to less fortunate creatures. The key attributes of this social saint are compassion and loving-kindness. For this reason Mahayana considers the bodhisattva superior to the arhats who represent the ideal of Theravada. Certain bodhisattvas, such as Maitreya, who represents the Buddha’s loving-kindness, and Avalokitesvara or Guanyin, who represents his compassion, have become the focus of popular devotional worship in Mahayana.
|
C2 |
|
Tantrism |
By the 7th century ad a new form of Buddhism known as Tantrism (see Tantra) had developed through the blend of Mahayana with popular folk belief and magic in northern
|
IV |
|
FROM INDIA OUTWARD |
Buddhism spread rapidly throughout the land of its birth. Missionaries dispatched by King Ashoka introduced the religion to southern
|
A |
|
Asian Expansion |
King Ashoka’s son Mahinda and daughter Sanghamitta are credited with the conversion of
According to tradition, Theravada was carried to
Both Mahayana and Hinduism had begun to influence
About the beginning of the Christian era, Buddhism was carried to
From
Buddhism was carried into
Buddhism was first introduced into
Some seven centuries later Tibetan Buddhists had adopted the idea that the abbots of its great monasteries were reincarnations of famous bodhisattvas. Thereafter, the chief of these abbots became known as the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lamas ruled
|
B |
|
New Sects |
Several important new sects of Buddhism developed in
Zen advocated the practice of meditation as the way to a sudden, intuitive realization of one’s inner Buddha nature. Founded by the Indian monk Bodhidharma, who arrived in
Instead of meditation,
A distinctively Japanese sect of Mahayana is Nichiren Buddhism, which is named after its 13th-century founder. Nichiren believed that the Lotus Sutra contains the essence of Buddhist teaching. Its contents can be epitomized by the formula “Homage to the Lotus Sutra,” and simply by repeating this formula the devotee may gain enlightenment.
|
V |
|
INSTITUTIONS AND PRACTICES |
Differences occur in the religious obligations and observances both within and between the sangha and the laity.
|
A |
|
Monastic Life |
From the first, the most devoted followers of the Buddha were organized into the monastic sangha. Its members were identified by their shaved heads and robes made of unsewn orange cloth. The early Buddhist monks, or bhikkus, wandered from place to place, settling down in communities only during the rainy season when travel was difficult. Each of the settled communities that developed later was independent and democratically organized. Monastic life was governed by the rules of the Vinaya Sutra, one of the three canonical collections of scripture. Fortnightly, a formal assembly of monks, the uposatha, was held in each community. Central to this observance was the formal recitation of the Vinaya rules and the public confession of all violations. The sangha included an order for nuns as well as for monks, a unique feature among Indian monastic orders. Theravadan monks and nuns were celibate and obtained their food in the form of alms on a daily round of the homes of lay devotees. The Zen school came to disregard the rule that members of the sangha should live on alms. Part of the discipline of this sect required its members to work in the fields to earn their own food. In
|
B |
|
Lay Worship |
Lay worship in Buddhism is primarily individual rather than congregational. Since earliest times a common expression of faith for laity and members of the sangha alike has been taking the Three Refuges, that is, reciting the formula “I take refuge in the Buddha. I take refuge in the dharma. I take refuge in the sangha.” Although technically the Buddha is not worshiped in Theravada, veneration is shown through the stupa cult. A stupa is a domelike sacred structure containing a relic. Devotees walk around the dome in a clockwise direction, carrying flowers and incense as a sign of reverence. The relic of the Buddha’s tooth in
In Mahayana countries ritual is more important than in Theravada. Images of the buddhas and bodhisattvas on temple altars and in the homes of devotees serve as a focus for worship. Prayer and chanting are common acts of devotion, as are offerings of fruit, flowers, and incense. One of the most popular festivals in
|
VI |
|
BUDDHISM TODAY |
One of the lasting strengths of Buddhism has been its ability to adapt to changing conditions and to a variety of cultures. It is philosophically opposed to materialism, whether of the Western or the Marxist-Communist variety. Buddhism does not recognize a conflict between itself and modern science. On the contrary, it holds that the Buddha applied the experimental approach to questions of ultimate truth.
In
Under the Communist republics in
Only in
Growing interest in Asian culture and spiritual values in the West has led to the development of a number of societies devoted to the study and practice of Buddhism. Zen has grown in the
As its influence in the West slowly grows, Buddhism is once again beginning to undergo a process of acculturation to its new environment. Although its influence in the
|
D |
|
Analysis and Yoga |
Analysis (Samkhya) and Yoga are relatively minor philosophies, compared to others discussed in this overview. Both emerged before the 2nd century bc, but neither spawned a continuing philosophy comparable to that of the schools already mentioned. Neither school participated significantly in later classical debates. The Analysis school subscribes to a metaphysical dualism (the claim that two types of things ultimately exist) of individual souls and nature. The school is devoted to the analysis of nature, in order to aid one’s knowledge of oneself as liberated from karma and rebirth, and as pure and blissful, self-conscious, and aloof from nature. Yoga takes a similar metaphysical stance, though it also pursues a psychological and yogic-practice dimension that the Analysis school lacks. Although few modern philosophers find substantial merit in Yoga’s metaphysical claims, many find profound psychological wisdom in Yoga literature.
|
E |
|
Logic and Atomism |
Logic (Nyaya) and Atomism (Vaisesika) are schools that specialize in questions of epistemology (nyaya means critical inquiry) and of what sorts of objects and generalities we experience every day. Both schools have extensive literatures, and later Logic (after 1400) is known for its professional techniques of cognitive analysis. Founded in the early classical period, both schools relied upon early sutra texts, and their literatures are distinct for almost 1000 years. However, the traditions became combined with the great 11th-century innovator Udayana, and became known simply as Logic. From the inception of both schools, reflection about knowledge in Logic was matched, roughly, by Atomist views about what is known (the objects of knowledge).
|
F |
|
Carvaka |
The Carvaka school, a classical school of materialism and skepticism, is known for its attacks on religious practices, and, from a Western perspective, provides evidence that not all classical Indian philosophy is religiously or mystically oriented. The Logic school also rejects the influence of religious beliefs. But Carvaka, unlike Logic, goes beyond advocating knowledge based oatural experience by ridiculing what it sees as superstition, including the belief in rebirth widespread among all of the major Indian schools of thought.
|
VI |
|
PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES |
Most of the classical Indian schools present veritable world views—comprehensive philosophies formed by interlocking positions of the main branches of philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics). Although systematic philosophies are intended to stand as whole bodies of thought, it is often desirable to separate and delineate issues within them, particularly in study and debate. In the case of Indian philosophy, examining specific classical arguments and general philosophic views also facilitates comparison with Western philosophy. This section is devoted to a broad contemporary perspective of classical Indian thought on some of the great issues of philosophy.
|
A |
|
Metaphysics |
Religious, or spiritual, metaphysics, a field that currently receives little attention among philosophers in academia in the West, considers the question of the nature of a Supreme Being and its relation to the world. Indian Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, and theistic Vedanta all have contributed to this debate. Within spiritual metaphysics, an insistence on spiritual monism (only one spiritual being ultimately exists) is probably the most important consideration that Indian thought upholds, though with numerous variations: Much Buddhist philosophy promotes the idea of the interdependence of everything; theistic Vedanta finds no gap between the world and God (the world is God’s body); and Advaita Vedanta insists that everyone’s true self is nothing other than Brahman, the Absolute.
The field of analytic metaphysics, which examines everyday experience and language, is currently more prominent among Western philosophers. The Indian
|
B |
|
Epistemology |
One of the more active branches of philosophy in the West is epistemology, which attempts to answer questions involving the nature and limits of knowledge. In epistemology, too, the Indian Logic school has much to offer for contemporary analysis, as does the
With a vast wealth of mystical literature and philosophic defenses of mysticism, Indian thought has much to offer the epistemology of religious belief. In particular, several Indian philosophers, of different schools, have over time advanced the argument that mystical experience has objective epistemic value in revealing a spiritual reality. These philosophers find a parallel between this value of mystical experience and the value of sense experience in revealing physical reality.
|
C |
|
Ethics |
Another major branch of Western philosophy is ethics, which examines human actions. Classical Indian thought presents little philosophic ethics in the Western sense (for example, concern with the fundamental criteria of ethical norms). On the other hand, Indian interest in ethics—from the ethical teachings of enlightenment, to the caste system of society, and to Mohandas Gandhi’s (see Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand) political philosophy of noninjury (ahimsa)—is much more widespread than interest in metaphysics or epistemology. Noninjury, properly qualified, is a persuasive candidate for a universal ethical prescription, transcending boundaries of culture as well as religion.
Indian philosophy also considers the ethical implications of the Indian classical theories of karma (action or habit). These theories usually presuppose rebirth—that is, reincarnation in a human or animal form, in this or in other worlds. Since, on the presumption of karma, the nature of one’s deeds determines one’s future state, the universe includes laws of moral payback. Indian classical philosophers weave numerous variations on such views into their overall stances, including Buddhist, Vedantic, Logic, and Carvaka views.
|
VII |
|
CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENTS |
There is comparatively little original philosophy still being written in Sanskrit. Philosophers in
Many philosophers, particularly in
Some of the great names of modern Indian spiritual thought are also great names of modern Indian history. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, sometimes referred to as the father of modern
Academic philosophy in
Chinese Philosophy
|
I |
|
INTRODUCTION |
Chinese Philosophy, collective designation for the various schools of thought originated by Chinese scholars and sages. Chinese philosophy has passed through three distinct historical stages: the classical age, a creative period from the 6th to the 2nd century bc; the medieval age, from the 2nd century bc to the 11th century ad, a period of synthesis and absorption of foreign thought; and the modern age, from the 11th century to the present, a period of maturation of earlier philosophical trends and introduction of new philosophies from the West. Throughout all these periods, Chinese thought has tended toward humanism rather than spiritualism, rationalism rather than mysticism, and syncretism rather than sectarianism.
|
II |
|
CLASSICAL AGE |
The classical age of Chinese philosophy occurred in the late years of the Zhou (Chou) dynasty, which lasted from about 1045 bc to 256 bc. During this era of political and social turmoil, feudal states long subordinate to the house of Zhou gained economic and military strength and moved toward independence. When their power eclipsed that of Zhou, feudal bonds were broken, and widespread interstate warfare broke out in the 5th century bc, developing into political anarchy in the 4th and 3rd centuries. Meanwhile, the social and economic changes resulting from new currents of trade and commerce were disrupting the simple agricultural society. In this climate of political anarchy and social upheaval a new class of scholar-officials emerged, consisting of men who aspired through their learning and wisdom to reunify the empire and restore order to society.
|
A |
|
Confucius and Later Disciples |
The most important of these scholars was Confucius, a minor aristocrat and official of the state of Lu, in the present
Confucius did not speak directly on such basic issues of his day as the nature of human beings, the rights of the people against tyrannical rulers, and the influence of the supernatural in human affairs. Two of his 4th and 3rd century bc disciples, Mencius and Xunzi (Hsün-tzu), did much to clarify these issues. Mencius asserted that humaature was basically good and that it could be developed not only by study, as Confucius had taught, but also by a process of inner self-cultivation. Like Confucius, Mencius accepted the hierarchically ordered feudal society in which he lived, but he placed far greater stress on the responsibilities of the ruler for the welfare of the people. The Zhou rulers held their position under a doctrine known as the Mandate of Heaven; Heaven was thought to be the impersonal authority governing all the operations of the universe. Mencius held that the Mandate of Heaven was expressed by the acceptance of a ruler by the people. If the people rose up and overthrew a tyrant, it was proof that Heaven had withdrawn its mandate. In the name of Heaven Mencius claimed for the Chinese people the right of rebellion. Xunzi took an exactly opposite view of humaature; he asserted that rebellion was fundamentally evil. Xunzi, however, was sufficiently optimistic to believe in people’s unlimited capacity for improvement. He taught that through education, the study of the classics, and the rules of propriety, virtue could be acquired and order could be reestablished in society. Xunzi thus endowed Confucianism with a philosophy of formal education and a tendency toward rigid rules for the regulation of human conduct.
|
B |
|
Daoism and Other Important Schools |
The second great philosophy of the classical age was Daoism (Taoism). The philosopher Laozi (Lao-tzu), who probably lived during the 6th century bc, is usually regarded as the founder of this school. Whereas Confucianism sought the full development of human beings through moral education and the establishment of an orderly hierarchical society, Daoism sought to preserve human life by following the Way of Nature (Dao, or Tao) and by reverting to primitive agrarian communities and a government that did not control or interfere with life. Daoism attempted to bring the individual into perfect harmony with nature through a mystical union with the Dao. This mysticism was carried still further by Zhuangzi (Chuang-tzu), a Daoist philosopher of the late 4th century bc, who taught that through mystical union with the Dao the individual could transcend nature and even life and death.
Among the other important schools of this period were Mohism, Naturalism, and the Dialecticians. Mohism, founded by Mozi (Mo-tzu) during the 5th century bc, taught strict utilitarianism and mutual love among all people regardless of family or social relationships. During the 4th century bc, naturalism offered an analysis of the workings of the universe based upon certain cosmic principles. The best known of these were yin and yang, which represented the interacting dualities of nature, such as female and male, shadow and light, and winter and summer. Also in the 4th century bc, dialecticians moved toward a system of logic by analyzing the true meaning of words so as to avoid the logical pitfalls inherent in language.
|
C |
|
Legalism |
Legalism emerged as the dominant philosophy in the state of Qin (Ch’in) during the chaotic years of the 4th and 3rd centuries bc. Two disciples of Xunzi, Han Fei (Han-fei-tzu) and Li Si (Li Ssu), were respectively, the leading philosopher and the leading practitioner of Legalism. Basing their ideas on Xunzi’s teachings that humaature was incorrigibly evil and that strict controls were needed to regulate human conduct, the Legalists developed a political philosophy that emphasized strict laws and harsh punishments in the control of every aspect of human society. All personal freedom was subordinated to their objective of creating a strong state under a ruler of unlimited authority.
Legalism proved an effective instrument in creating a powerful and totalitarian military and economic machine in the state of Qin. By 221 bc, Qin had succeeded in conquering the other feudal states and establishing the first imperial dynasty of China, a unified, centrally-administered empire characterized by strict laws, harsh punishment, rigid thought control (for example, the burning of all nonlegalist books in 213 bc), government control of the economy, and enormous public works projects, such as the Great Wall, accomplished with forced labor and at great cost in human life.
It was not long before the oppressive rule of the Qin dynasty drove the Chinese people to rebellion. In 206 bc a rebel leader of plebeian origin proclaimed the Han dynasty. The Legalist-inspired centralized administration was retained (it endured in principle until 1912), but government controls over the economy and ideology were relaxed. Numerous beliefs that had flourished during the late Zhou dynasty were resurrected and reexamined with a view toward establishing a system of thought of adequate compass and sophistication to serve as a philosophical basis for the new and vastly expansive Han empire.
|
D |
|
Han Confucianism |
Basing their ideas largely on Xunzi’s concept of the universe as a triad of heaven, earth, and humanity, the Confucian philosophers of the Han welded a system of thought that incorporated the yin-yang cosmology of the naturalists; a Daoist concern for perceiving and harmonizing with the order of nature; Confucian teachings on benevolent government, rule by virtuous leaders, and respect for learning; and Legalist principles of administration and economic development. They hoped that this all-encompassing philosophy would give the ruler and the government the knowledge to understand the heavenly and earthly sectors of the triad and the means necessary to regulate the human sector so as to coordinate it with heaven and earth and establish perfect harmony in the universe. The rationalistic systematization that prompted this formulation eventually led to farfetched notions and superstitions to explain the mysterious workings of heaven and earth. Although Han Confucianism was supported by the government from 136 bc and subsequently became the required learning for government service, its excessive superstitiousness produced a camp of opposition during the first several centuries ad, and the school divided over questions of the authenticity of classical texts.
|
III |
|
MEDIEVAL AGE |
During the 2nd and 3rd centuries ad, a variety of social and economic causes brought the downfall of the Han dynasty, leading to political disunity and foreign invasion. The philosophical void created by the collapse of Han Confucianism was filled by Daoism and also by Buddhism, a philosophy theew to
|
A |
|
Buddhism |
Buddhism filtered into
The development of Buddhism in
|
B |
|
Syncretistic Period |
The reunification of
It was not until the Song dynasty, after
|
IV |
|
MODERN AGE |
Neo-Confucianism found expression in three schools. These schools were the
|
A |
|
School of Principle |
The metaphysical speculation of the 11th century was synthesized in the 12th century by the great Neo-Confucian Zhu Xi (
|
B |
|
School of Mind |
The Neo-Confucian School of Mind originated in the 11th and 12th centuries, but it was not until the late 15th century that it found a formidable spokesperson in the scholar-statesman Wang Yangming. Following the early teachings of the school, Wang held that the mind was not a combination of li and qi but pure li, or principle. Because the mind was pure principle, unencumbered by qi, it had the essential goodness of humaature. All people therefore possessed innate good knowledge and need only look within their minds to find it. Wang held, moreover, that truly good knowledge must have a practical consequence. This led him to conclude that knowledge and action formed an inseparable unity. He advocated a philosophy that started with discovery of principle, or knowledge of the good, in one’s mind and carried the promptings of the mind into virtuous actions beneficial to society. After Wang’s death, the
|
C |
|
School of Practical Learning |
During the early Qing, or Manchu, dynasty, beginning in 1644, Confucian philosophers reexamined the Ming civilization in an attempt to discover the weaknesses that had led to the downfall of that dynasty. The
|
D |
|
19th- and 20th-Century Speculation |
The shortcomings of Neo-Confucianism became abundantly clear in the 19th century. Metaphysical speculation provided no explanation for the changes that the impact of the West necessitated in
By about 1897 Western philosophy had appeared in
The Western philosophies most influential in 20th-century
The best known of the 20th-century Confucian philosophers is Fung Yulan, who developed and reconstructed the Neo-Confucian School of Principle. Although his conclusions were similar to those of the Song Neo-Confucianists, Fung supplied new and logical arguments and clarified the original system. In the 1960s Fung moved toward historical materialism and revised his work The History of Chinese Philosophy (1931, 1934; supplement, 1936; translated 1948) according to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism.
References
11. http://www.answers.com/topic/philosophy#ixzz2ggPxbwQP
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
13. Copleston F. С. History of Philosophy, 8 vol.
14. Edwards, Paul, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8 vol.
15. Jones, W. T. A History of Western Philosophy, 5 vol.
16. Pojman L. P. Philosophical Traditions. – London: WPC, 1998.
ANTIQUE PHILOSOPHY
Plan
1. General characteristics of antique philosophy.
2. Pre-Socratic philosophy.
3. Classical period in development of antique philosophy (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle).
4. Philosophy of Hellenism.
1. General characteristics of antique philosophy
Philosophy begins with wonder, and eveow is wonder that causes philosophers to philosophize. Gazing into the heavens, contemplating the altering patterns of the stars, beholding the Sun and Moon and its effects on the land, the sea, on life itself, some people wondered how the universe had come about. They pondered stmcture of the world. How is it constructed, and why does nature work as it does? Is there one fundamental substance that underlies all of reality, or are there many substances? What is the really real, and not just a matter of appearance?
The first philosophers were Greeks who lived on the Ionian coast of the Aegean Sea, in
Ancient Greek philosophy originated in the 7th – 6th centuries BC and existed till the 6th century AD. This time line is called “antique philosophy” period, which established the background not only for European philosophy, but also for European culture in general. We distinguish three stages of development of antique philosophy:
1. Pre-Socrates period (7th – 6th c. BC) – the questions about the essence and beginning of the universe, and the origin and construction of space were considered to be of primary importance in this period.
2. Classical period (5th – 4th c. BC) – period of high level of development of Greek democracy, literature, philosophy, art, etc. The problem field of that time was oriented at the problem of man, one’s consciousness and thinking.
3. Hellenistic period (end of 4th BC – 6th AD) – period was marked with the crisis phenomena in the slave-owning society, political and economic decay of the Greek cities-states and, finally, with breakdown of the
2. Pre–Socratic philosophy
The first philosophers are called “Presocratics” which designates that they came before Socrates. They embraced materialism and naturalism. Thus, they are sometimes called Hylicists (from the Greek hule, meaning “matter”), for they rejected spiritual and religious causes and sought naturalistic explanations of reality. The standard date for the beginning of philosophy is May 23, 585 BC, when Thales of Miletus (625 – 545 BC) predicted a solar eclipse that ended a war. Thales used mathematical and astronomic investigation to make his prediction. In this sense, he may have been the first scientist. An engineer by training, Thales asked “What is the nature of reality? What is the ultimate explanation of all that is? ” and speculated and experimented to come up with the answer. What was his answer? Water. Water is necessary for the production and sustenance of life. Water is everywhere. Heat water and it becomes a gas like air; freeze it and it becomes solid. Thales thus concluded that the earth was just especially solid water, a hard flat cork that floated in a sea of liquid of the same substance. After Thales, his fellow Ionian Anaximander of Miletus (612 – 545 BC) rejected the idea that water was the root substance and assumed as the first principle an undefined, unlimited substance (Infinite) itself without qualities, out of which the primary opposites, hot and cold, moist and dry, became differentiated. Anaximander rejected Thales’ notion of a flat Earth and suggested that Earth was a revolving, cylindrical body, whose flat top was our home. He put forth a theory of evolution based on the need of species to adapt to their environment. Anaximander’s disciple Anaximenes (585 – 528 BC) took for his principle air, conceiving it as modified, by thickening and thinning, into fire, wind, clouds, water and earth. Philosophy was first brought in connection with practical life by Pythagoras of Samos (582 – 504 BC). He rejected the Hylicists‘ materialism and opted for a refined spiritualism, a mathematical mysticism, aiming at the purification of the whole person, body and soul. Knowledge and Music would purify the soul and Gymnastics and Medicine the body. All living things (including plants life) had souls and were related to one another and involved in the transmigration of souls. The Pythagoreans were vegetarians. At the end of each day they asked themselves what wrongs they had committed, what duties had neglected, what good they had done. Nevertheless, the Pythagoreans were not egalitarians but held to a social order that resembled nature itself. Pythagoras’s fundamental doctrine was that the world is really not material but made up of numbers. Numbers are things and constitute the essence of reality.
That country was also home of Eleatic doctrine of the One, called after the town of
They are simple, indestructive, internally solid, homogeneous particles that are perpetually in motion in the void of empty space. On the one hand they maintained the unchangeable nature of substance; on the other, they supposed a plurality of such substances. The materialists were hedonists who believed that the only thing that is good is pleasure and the only thing bad is pain. They did not believe in the gods or in immorality. Anaxagoras of Klazomenae (500 – 428 BC) also maintained the existence of an ordering principle as well as a material substance, and while regarding the latter as an infinite multitude of imperishable primary elements, qualitatively distinguished, he conceived divine reason or Mind (Nous) as ordering them. Mind is the cause of all motion. Nous is a material (airy) substance, but it is the purest and most rarefied of things, having power over all else. Mind is godlike, homogeneous, omnipotent and omniscient and orders all phenomena. This last phrase turned Socrates away from speculations about the physical world towards the study of human existence.
To summarize, we can state the following. The first philosophers were Greeks, living in the 6th century BC off the coast of
Pre-Socratic philosophy is Greek philosophy before Socrates (but includes schools contemporary with Socrates which were not influenced by him). In Classical antiquity, the Presocratic philosophers were called physiologoi (Greek: φυσιολόγοι; in English, physical or natural philosophers). Diogenes Laërtius divides the physiologoi into two groups, Ionian and Italiote, led by Anaximander and Pythagoras, respectively.
Hermann Diels popularized the term pre-socratic in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (The Fragments of the Pre-Socratics) in 1903. However, the term pre-Sokratic was in use as early as George Grote‘s Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates in 1865. Major analyses of pre-Socratic thought have been made by Gregory Vlastos, Jonathan Barnes, and Friedrich Nietzsche in his Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks.
It may sometimes be difficult to determine the actual line of argument some Presocratics used in supporting their particular views. While most of them produced significant texts, none of the texts has survived in complete form. All that is available are quotations by later philosophers (often biased) and historians, and the occasional textual fragment.
The Presocratic philosophers rejected traditional mythological explanations of the phenomena they saw around them in favor of more rational explanations. These philosophers asked questions about “the essence of things“:
· From where does everything come?
· From what is everything created?
· How do we explain the plurality of things found iature?
· How might we describe nature mathematically?
Others concentrated on defining problems and paradoxes that became the basis for later mathematical, scientific and philosophic study.
Later philosophers rejected many of the answers the early Greek philosophers provided, but continued to place importance on their questions. Furthermore, the cosmologies proposed by them have been updated by later developments in science.
Western philosophy began in ancient
Milesian school
The first Presocratic philosophers were from Miletus on the western coast of
Pythagoreanism
The practical side of philosophy was introduced by Pythagoras of Samos (582-496 BCE). Regarding the world as perfect harmony, dependent oumber, he aimed at inducing humankind likewise to lead a harmonious life. His doctrine was adopted and extended by a large following of Pythagoreans who gathered at his school in south Italy in the town of
Ephesian school
Heraclitus of Ephesus on the western coast of Anatolia in modern
Eleatic school
The
Pluralist school
Empedocles of Agrigentum (490-430 BCE) was from the ancient Greek city of
Atomist school
The first explicitly materialistic system was formed by Leucippus (5th century BCE) and his pupil Democritus of Abdera (460-370 BCE) from
Others
The last of the Presocratic natural philosophers was Diogenes of Apollonia from
Sophism
The Sophists held that all thought rests solely on the apprehensions of the senses and on subjective impression, and that therefore we have no other standards of action than convention for the individual. Specializing in rhetoric, the Sophists were more professional educators than philosophers. They flourished as a result of a special need at that time for Greek education. Prominent Sophists include Protagoras (490-420 BCE) from Abdera in
3. Classical period in development of antique philosophy (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle)
A new profession arose in the 5th century in
1. The Sophists were secularists-agnostic or atheist on religion, cynical of religion as a mechanism for social control. The gods are invented to function as invisible, all-seeing police force;
2. The Sophists developed the art of rhetoric, the process of using language to persuade. Their chief tool was eristics, argument used in order to win debates, not pursue truth; aiming at defeat rather than at enlightenment. Aristotle called eristics “dirty fighting in argument”;
3. The Sophists made education into business. They were the first teachers to receive pay for their services, charging fees for teaching “wisdom” and “virtue”;
4. The Sophists were pragmatists. Truth is what works for you. They were not speculative, systematic or concerned with cosmology as the pre Socratic philosophers were. However, they took the joint, mutually exclusive conclusions of the pre-Socratics to show that not even the best minds could know the nature of ultimate reality;
5. The Sophists believed that egoism was both natural and right – “Might makes right”;
6. The Sophists were relativists, often of a subjectivist cast, contending that each person is his own measure of truth, thus abandoning the idea of an independent reality apart from our consciousness. Truth is whatever you take it to be, and, similarly, morality is whatever you believe to be good;
The Sophists challenged the traditional values and opinions of Greek society. They undermined its religion and myths. They asserted that the state is founded on power, custom and conventions, not eternal truth. They argued that there was no objective truth or right or wrong, unless it is the realistic adage that might makes right.
A dramatic turn occurs in philosophical inquiry under the influence of Socrates (470 – 399 BC). He rejected both the cynicism and pragmatism of the Sophists and speculations of the Cosmologists. As
1. Care for the soul is all that matters – What good would it do to me to gain the whole world and lose my own soul? What good is it to live in a perfect society if I see no value in life itself or in my life?
2. Self-knowledge is a prerequisite for the good life – The unexamined life is not worth living.
3. Virtue is knowledge – No such thing as weakness of will. Evil is ignorance. To know the Good is to do the good.
4. You cannot harm the good person, but in trying to harm the other you harm yourself. The Good is good for you, and the Bad is bad for you.
5. The autonomy of ethics: Is the God good because God chooses it, or does God choose the Good because it is good? Socrates answers that God chooses it because it is good.
Socratic ethics lack a transcendental dimension. If there is an afterlife, well and good, it’s icing on the cake, but it is not necessary for the justification of morality. Goodness has to do with the proper functioning of the soul and can be discovered through reason alone. There is no need for revelation, and if there are gods, they too must obey the moral law and keep their souls pure through following virtuous living. There is not even a hint that religion helps motivate people to virtuous living. Goodness is the only reward, and it is obvious so to anyone who knows what virtue is and hoe the soul functions.
Socrates was an enormously magnetic figure who attracted many followers, but he also made many enemies. Socrates was executed for corrupting the young of
Plato’s study of man is established on the idea about unity of man (microcosm) and the universe (macrocosm). For him man consists of physical body and soul, which in its turn has the following parts: intellect, will and sense. To conclude, we can say that Plato sought to find the One in the Many, a unifying idea (the Form) that existed independently of objects in the world of appearances (the world of space and time) and in which those objects participated. All beautiful things are beautiful through the Form of the Beautiful. The Forms are divine, eternal, simple, immutable and self-subsisting. The highest form is the Good. Plato held that we had innate ideas of the Forms, and through suitable education (recollections). The way of the philosopher was to make his or her way out of the world of appearance (the caves) to the world of reality (the world of sunlight), wherein one participates in the Good.
The most important among Plato’s disciples is Aristotle of Stagira (384 – 322 BC), who shares with his master the title of the greater philosopher of antiquity. But whereas Plato had sought to elucidate and explain things from the supra-sensual standpoint of the forms, his pupil preferred to start from the facts given us by experience. Philosophy to him meant science and its aim was the recognition of the purpose in all things. Hence he established the ultimate grounds of things inductively – this is to say, by a posteriori conclusions from a number of facts to a universal. In the series of works collected under the name Organon, Aristotle sets forth the laws by which the human understanding effects conclusions from the particular to the knowledge of the universal. Like Plato, he recognized the true being of things in their concept, but denied any separate existence of the concepts apart from the particular objects of sense. They are inseparable as matter and form. In matter and form Aristotle sees the fundamental principles of being. Matter is the basis of all that exists; it comprises the potentiality of everything, but of itself is not actually anything. A determinate thing only comes into being when the potentiality in matter is converted into actuality. Form and matter are relative terms, and the lower form constitutes the matter of a higher (e.g. body, soul, reason). This series culminates in pure, immaterial form, the Deity, the origin of all motion, and therefore of the generation of actual form out of potential matter.
All motion takes place in space and time; for space is the potentiality; time is the measure of the motion. Living beings are those, which have in them a moving principle, or soul. In plants the function of soul is nutrition; in animals, nutrition and sensation; in humans, nutrition, sensation and intellectual activity. The perfect form of a human soul is reason separated from all connections with the body, hence fulfilling its activity without the help of any corporeal organ and, so imperishable. By reason the apprehensions, which are formed in the soul by external sense-impression, and may be true or false, are converted into knowledge. For reason alone can attain to truth either in cognition or action. Impulse towards the good is a part of humaature, and on this is founded virtue; for Aristotle does not, with Plato, regard virtue as knowledge pure and simple, but as founded oature, habit and reason. The end of human activity, or the highest good, is happiness, or perfect and reasonable activity in a perfect life. To this, however, external goods are more or less necessary conditions.
Aristotle was the first to make attempts to systemize all the scientific achievements of his time. He divided all sciences into three groups: theoretical – Metaphysics, Physics and Mathematics; practical – Ethics, Politics, Economics; artistic – Poetics, Rhetoric, Craft art.
In his study about state Aristotle faced the dilemma “Either the power of law or the power of people”. He underlined that the power of law is much better that the power of a separate personality. The followers of Aristotle, known as Peripatetics (Theophrastus of Lesbos, Eudemus of Rhodes, Strato of Lampsacus, etc), to a great extent abandoned metaphysical speculation, some in favor of natural science, others of a more popular treatment of ethics, introducing many changes into the Aristotelian doctrine in a naturalistic direction. A return to the views of the founder first appeared among the later Peripatetics, who did good service as expositors of Aristotle’s works. Both Plato and Aristotle did not think that
4. Philosophy of Hellenism
Epoch oh Hellenism is a period of despair out of the surrounding world. Pessimism turns to be a constituent of people’s outlook and world perception, so that it gradually becomes more subjective and individualistic. The problem of personality or individual turns to be a dominant one. The main questions of that time are: What is the essence of happiness? and How is it possible to be happy? Two philosophical schools – stoicism and Epicureanism tried t find answers for these questions.
Stoicism was founded by Zeno of Citium (in
Important stoic writers of the Roman period include Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Their doctrine contained little that was new, seeking rather to give a practical application to the dogmas, which they took ready – made from previous systems. With them philosophy is the science of the principles on which the moral life ought to be founded. The only allowable effort is towards the attainment of knowledge of human and divine things, in order to thereby regulate life. The method to lead man to true knowledge is provided by logic; physics embraces the doctrines as to the nature and organization of the universe; ethics draws from them its conclusions for practical life.
Regarding Stoic logic, all knowledge according to them originates in the real impressions of things on the senses, which the soul, being at birth a blank slate, receives in the form of presentations. These presentations, when confirmed by repeated experience, are syllogistically developed by the understanding into concepts. The test of their truth is the convincing or persuasive force with which they impress themselves upon the soul.
In physics the foundation of the Stoic doctrine was the dogma that all true being is corporeal. Within the corporeal they recognized two principles, matter and force – that is the material and the Deity (logos, order, fate) permeating and informing it. Ultimately, however, the two are identical. There is nothing in the world with any independent existence: all is bound together by an unalterable chain of causation. The agreement of human action with the law of nature, of the will with the divine will, or life according to nature, is virtue, the chief good and highest end of life. All that lies between virtue and vice is neither good nor bad; at most, it is distinguished as preferable, undesirable or absolutely indifferent. Virtue is fully possessed only by the wise person, who is no way inferior to Zeus; he is lord over his own life, and may end it by his own free choice. In general, the prominent characteristic of Stoic philosophy is moral heroism, often verging on asceticism.
The same goal, which was aimed at in Stoicism was also approached from a diametrically opposite position, in the system founded about the same time by Epicurus and Gargettus in
The standards of knowledge and canons of truth in theoretical matters are the impressions of the senses, which are true and indisputable, together with the presentation formed from such impressions, and opinions extending beyond those impressions, in so far as they are supported or nit contradicted by the evidence of the senses. In practical questions the feelings of pleasure and pain are the tests. Epicurus’ physics, in which he follows in essentials the materialistic system of Democritus, are intended to refer all phenomena to a natural cause, in order that a knowledge of nature may set men free from the bondage of disquieting superstitions.
In ethics he followed within certain limits the Cyrenaic doctrine, conceiving the highest good to be happiness, and happiness to be found in pleasure, to which the natural impulses of every being are directed. But the aim is not with him, as it is with the Cyrenaics, the pleasure of the moment, but the enduring condition of pleasure, which, in its essence, is freedom from the greatest of evils, pain. Pleasures and pains are, however, distinguished not merely in degree, but in kind. The renunciation of a pleasure or endurance of a pain is often a means t a greater pleasure; and since pleasures of sense are subordinated to the pleasures of the mind, the undisturbed peace of the mind is a higher good than the freedom of the body from pain. Virtue is desirable not for itself, but for the sake of pleasure of mind, which it secures by freeing people from trouble and fear and moderating their passion and appetites. The cardinal virtue is prudence, which is shown by true insight in calculation the consequences of our actions as regards pleasure or pain.
The practical tendency of Stoicism and Epicureanism, seen in the search for happiness, is also apparent in the
The latest Academics, such as Antiochus of Ascalon (about 80 BC), fused with Platonism certain Peripatetic and many Stoic dogmas, thus making way for Eclecticism, to which all later antiquity tended after Greek philosophy had spread itself over the Roman world. Roman philosophy, thus, becomes an extension of the Greek tradition.
After the Christian era Pythagoreanism, in a resuscitated form, again takes its place among the more important systems. Pyrrhonian skepticism was also re –introduced by Aenesidemus, and developed further by Sextus Empiricus. But the preeminence of this period belongs to Platonism, which is notably represented in the works of Plutarch of Chaeronea and the physician Galen.
The closing period of Greek philosophy is marked in the third century AD by the establishment of Neoplatonism in
At the summit of existence stands the One or the God, as the source of all things. It emanates from itself, as if from the reflection of its own being, reason, wherein is contained the infinite store of ideas. Soul, the copy of the reason, is emanated by and contained in it, as reason is in the One, and, by informing matter in itself non –existence, constitutes bodies whose existence is contained in soul. Nature, therefore, is a whole, endowed with life and soul. Soul, being chained to matter, longs to escape from the bondage of the body and return to its original source. In virtue and philosophic thought soul had the power to elevate itself above the reason into a state of ecstasy, where it can behold, or ascend up to, that one good primary Being whom reason cannot know. To attain this union with the God, or God, is the true function of humans, to whom the external world should be absolutely indifferent.
Plotinus’ most important disciple, the Syrian Porphyry, contented himself with popularizing his master’s doctrine. But the
The last home of philosophy was at
The era of Hellenism was the period of exhaustion, decay and breakdown. Aristotle was the last philosopher whose outlook position preserved its optimistic character. After him all the philosophers to this or that extent spread the idea of escape from life. Gradually, alongside with the philosophical ideas of antiquity new philosophy was growing. A new era – era of Christianity originated.
Greek Philosophy
|
I |
|
INTRODUCTION |
Greek Philosophy, body of philosophical concepts developed by the Greeks, particularly during the flowering of Greek civilization between 600 and 200 bc. Greek philosophy formed the basis of all later philosophical speculation in the Western world. The intuitive hypotheses of the ancient Greeks foreshadowed many theories of modern science, and many of the moral ideas of pagan Greek philosophers have been incorporated into Christian moral doctrine. The political ideas set forth by Greek thinkers influenced political leaders as different as the framers of the U.S. Constitution and the founders of various 20th-century totalitarian states.
|
II |
|
THE IONIAN SCHOOL |
Greek philosophy may be divided between those philosophers who sought an explanation of the world in physical terms and those who stressed the importance of nonmaterial forms or ideas. The first important
|
III |
|
PYTHAGORAS, THE |
The division between idealism and materialism became more distinct. Pythagoras stressed the importance of form rather than matter in explaining material structure. The Pythagorean school also laid great stress on the importance of the soul, regarding the body only as the soul’s “tomb.” According to Parmenides, the leader of the Eleatic school, the appearance of movement and the existence of separate objects in the world are mere illusions; they only seem to exist. The beliefs of Pythagoras and Parmenides formed the basis of the idealism that was to characterize later Greek philosophy.
A more materialistic interpretation was made by Empedocles, who accepted the belief that reality is eternal but declared that it is composed of chance combinations of the four primal substances: fire, air, earth, and water. Such materialistic explanations reached their climax in the doctrines of Democritus, who believed that the various forms of matter are caused by differences in the shape, size, position, and arrangement of component atoms. Materialism applied to daily life inspired the philosophy of a group known as the Sophists, who were active in the 5th century bc. With their stress on the importance of human perception, such Sophists as Protagoras doubted that humanity would ever be able to reach objective truth through reason and taught that material success rather than truth should be the purpose of life.
|
IV |
|
SOCRATES |
In contrast were the ideas of Socrates, with whom Greek philosophy attained its highest level. His avowed purpose was “to fulfil the philosopher’s mission of searching into myself and other men.” After a proposition had been stated, the philosopher asked a series of questions designed to test and refine the proposition by examining its consequences and discovering whether it was consistent with the known facts. Socrates described the soul not in terms of mysticism but as “that in virtue of which we are called wise or foolish, good or bad.” In other words, Socrates considered the soul a combination of an individual’s intelligence and character.
|
V |
|
PLATO AND ARISTOTLE |
The idealism of Socrates was organized by Plato into a systematic philosophy. In his theory of Ideas, Plato regarded the objects of the real world as being merely shadows of eternal Forms or Ideas. Only these changeless, eternal Forms can be the object of true knowledge; the perception of their shadows, that is, the real world as heard, seen, and felt, is merely opinion. The goal of the philosopher, he said, is to know the eternal Forms and to instruct others in that knowledge.
Plato’s theory of knowledge is implicit in his theory of Ideas. He argued that both the material objects perceived and the individual perceiving them are constantly changing; but, since knowledge must be concerned only with unchangeable and universal objects, knowledge and perception are fundamentally different.
In place of Plato’s doctrine of Ideas with a separate and eternal existence of their own, Aristotle proposed a group of universals that represent the common properties of any group of real objects. The universals, unlike Plato’s Ideas, have no existence outside of the objects they represent. Closer to Plato’s thought was Aristotle’s definition of form as a distinguishing property of objects, but with an independent existence apart from the objects in which it is found. Describing the material universe, Aristotle stated it consists of the four elements, fire, air, earth, and water, plus a fifth element that exists everywhere and is the sole constituent of the heavenly bodies “above” the moon.
In the writings of Plato and Aristotle the dominant strains of idealism and materialism in Greek philosophy reached, respectively, their highest expression, producing a body of thought that continues to influence philosophical inquiry. Subsequent Greek philosophy, reflecting a historical period of civil unrest and individual insecurity, was less concerned with the nature of the world than with the problems in the individual. During this period four major schools of largely materialistic, individualistic philosophy arose: that of the Cynics, and those espousing Epicureanism, Skepticism, and Stoicism. For a detailed history of these and earlier schools, see Philosophy.
References
17. http://www.answers.com/topic/philosophy#ixzz2ggPxbwQP
18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
19. Hartman, Robert S. (1967). The Structure of Value. USI Press. 384 pages.
20. Findlay, J. N. (1970). Axiological Ethics. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-00269-5. 100 pages.
21. Rescher, Nicholas (2005). Value Matters: Studies in Axiology. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag. ISBN 3-937202-67-6. 140 pages.
22. Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, Chicago: The Great Books foundation 1959.
23. Copleston F. С. History of Philosophy, 8 vol.
24. Edwards, Paul, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8 vol.
25. Brisson, L. et al. Lire les Présocratiques. Presses universitaires de France, Paris, 2012.
26. Burnet, John, Early Greek Philosophy, Meridian Books,
27. Colli, Giorgio, The Greek Wisdom (
28. De Vogel, Cornelia J., Greek Philosophy, Volume I, Thales to Plato, E.J. Brill,
29. Lloyd, G. E. R., Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle.
30. Kirk, G.S., Raven, J.E. & Schofield, M., The Presocratic Philosophers (Second Edition), Cambridge University Press, 1983
31. Nahm, Milton C., Selections from Early Greek Philosophy, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1962
32. Giannis Stamatellos, Introduction to Presocratics: A Thematic Approach to Early Greek Philosophy with Key
