PHI208 Ethics & Moral Reasoning

Most people have views that are strongly influenced and informed by philosophy, often without realizing it. Identify a view you have—whether on politics, religion, science, culture, or even the media and entertainment—that might be regarded as being related to philosophy. What kind of reasons do you have for holding that belief? What figure from the history of philosophy section do you think might have some views that are similar, or at least relevant, to your own? Explain why you chose that particular figure

Radius Images/Photolibrary1

Introducing Philosophy

• Philosophy has a rich and fascinating history.

• Philosophers explore questions ranging from logic and
mathematics to morality and art.

• Philosophy helps us to better understand our beliefs and
those of others and to examine, defend, and criticize
those beliefs.

What We Will Discover

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 1 12/1/10 7:22 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Philosophy?

Philosophy is an unusual discipline, not just because it has an enormously long history, but
because it spends a good bit of time investigating what philosophy itself is. In this chap-
ter, we look at what philosophy is, how philosophers approach their subject, and what the
benefits of philosophical inquiry are. We will also include a brief overview of the rich and
fascinating history of the development of philosophy in the West.

1.1 What Is Philosophy?

Here we will explore what philosophy is, including some of its history. We will focus on Western philosophy, and the most important philosophers of that tradi-tion, but it is good to keep in mind that there are other important traditions in the
history of philosophy. One of the most important things philosophers do is ask questions,
and we will identify some of the questions that have engaged philosophers for thousands
of years.

What Do Philosophers Do?

Plato tells us that philosophy begins in wonder. Human beings wonder about themselves,
about other people, about where they came from, about where they are going, and about
what they should do while they are here. Human beings are naturally curious, and each
question one asks leads to another, then another, and then another. One way of think-

ing about philosophy, then, is that it is the sys-
tematic attempt to answer the general questions
human beings have always asked, and the debate
that naturally follows each proposed answer.
Philosophy combines curiosity—wonder about
the world and all that is in it, and even beyond
it—and criticism—objections to answers, sugges-
tions of new answers, and new objections to those
new answers. As should be clear, philosophical
inquiry has one other important feature: It never
ends. We do, on occasion, seem to discover solu-
tions to specific philosophical questions. But the
pursuit of philosophy will continue as long as
there are things we don’t understand, and as long
as we remain curious.

The word philosophy comes from two Greek
words. We see one of them, philein, or “to love,”
in the name of Philadelphia, “city of brotherly
love,” and in the word philanthropy, love for
human beings. We are familiar with the other
word, sophos, from such words as sophisticated
and sophomore: It means wisdom. Thus, philos-
ophy is, literally, the love of wisdom and refers
to the unending search for answers to questions.
To be successful, then, in philosophy, one must

Hilary Helton/81a/Photolibrary

As humans, we are naturally curi-
ous—something often quite evident in
children.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 2 12/1/10 7:22 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Philosophy?

be curious, want to understand, be willing to learn, and, perhaps most importantly, be
patient. For, as we will see, exploring these questions can take a bit of time and energy.

Philosophers sometimes have a reputation for being a bunch of old guys sitting around
investigating issues that few others are really interested in. But if we stop to think about
some of these issues, we may discover that all of us are interested in getting answers, or
at least a better understanding of the questions with which philosophers concern them-
selves. What is a human being? Does a human being have a soul, and, if so, what happens
to it after death? Is it wrong to steal food to feed one’s family? Are there other intelligent
beings in the universe, and, if so, how would we recognize that they are intelligent? What
kinds of questions can be answered by natural science, and what kinds of questions cannot
be? Is democracy the best form of government? If
it is, who should be allowed to vote? How can a
majority be prevented from oppressing minorities
within their own society? What am I really say-
ing when I claim to know something? Can I know
that something is right or wrong in the same way
I can know the answer to a simple mathematical
equation?

These, and many, many other questions are cen-
tral to philosophy, but we also see that they have
important results for how we conceive of human
beings, how we treat each other, and how we
construct social rules to be able to live as a com-
munity. Anyone who has an opinion about abor-
tion, about the right to die, about what should
be taught in the public schools, or about any of
a wide variety of government decisions on taxes
or military policy, then, may wish to appeal to
philosophy to support that opinion. The better
we understand the philosophical assumptions
behind our own beliefs, the better we understand those beliefs themselves. And, if we
wish to defend those beliefs against those who object to them, we may wish to explore
what exactly those beliefs are and what they imply. We may also wish to improve our
skills at constructing arguments to defend those beliefs. Even though everyone may be
able to have an opinion, it is something else to be able to insist that one’s views aren’t just
opinions, but beliefs backed up with evidence, arguments, and reason. Philosophy is the
attempt to provide that support.

Philosophers, as does everyone else, have disagreements. Two people may disagree about
which is better, football or baseball. They may see a movie together and not agree about
whether it was a good movie. They can debate the merits of two presidential candidates,
or to which restaurant they should go. A parent and young child may have a serious dis-
agreement about what time that child has to go to bed. All these disputes can, and often
do, lead to arguments: Ideally the participants try to establish their claims on the basis
of evidence, reasons, and logic. Sometimes these arguments can become very heated,
and some arguments have been known to lead to violence. Presumably, an argument
that is settled violently is one in which evidence, reasons, and logic don’t play much of a
role. Other arguments are settled by one person simply saying, “This is what is going to

Radius Images/Photolibrary

Philosophy involves the asking of
questions and the pursuit of answers.
It can help us better understand our
own beliefs as well as the beliefs of
others. Can you think of a time where
the “pursuit of wisdom” helped you
defend your ideas or better grasp
someone else’s ideas?

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 3 12/1/10 7:22 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Philosophy?

happen.” Thus, a parent who may legitimately say, “This is when you are going to bed!”
isn’t so much providing an argument as imposing his or her will on the situation.

Philosophers use the word argument in a somewhat different way, one that emphasizes
the idea that arguments put forth reasons to accept a conclusion. A philosopher would call
this an argument, although there is probably little passion or a threat of violence involved
here—the argument for the transitive property in arithmetic:

10 , 20

5 , 10

therefore

5 , 20

For philosophers, then, the term “argument” doesn’t imply the idea it often does when
we use the term to suggest anger, emotion, and hurt feelings. Rather, in this context,
arguments simply present a conclusion and suggest why certain reasons indicate that
conclusion is true, or probable.

Philosophy East and West

As we saw, thinking philosophically comes naturally to people, even though they may
not think of it that way, or describe themselves as doing philosophy. But if we are will-

ing to consider our curiosity about certain ques-
tions to be “philosophy,” then almost everyone,
at one time or another, engages in it. This means,
of course, that wherever there are people, there
is philosophy! Someone in California may gaze
upon a star-filled sky and wonder what her place
is in the universe: Has a loving and benevolent
God placed her there, or is she merely a well-
organized collection of molecules that lacks any
particular significance? Of course, someone in
China, or India, or anywhere else in the world
may have the same question. How we understand
the issues involved here, and how we might go
about trying to resolve them, is certainly doing
philosophy. But the history and traditions that
inform our culture will affect the response we offer.
One general distinction that is drawn to mark con-
trasting cultures divides philosophy into Eastern
philosophy and Western philosophy.

It is clear that a simple distinction between East and West here is far too simple. Just as
there are different philosophical traditions in the West, one might also note that Eastern
thought includes Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, and Persian philosophy, all of
which are quite different from each other. Within each of these traditions, furthermore,

Jon Feingersh/Blend Images RM/Photolibrary

Philosophy exists where there are peo-
ple, but the history and traditions that
inform these individuals’ philosophi-
cal thought processes will differ. What
are some ways your culture and how
you grew up affect how you think and
solve problems?

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 4 12/1/10 7:22 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Philosophy?

there are extensive debates and disagreements; to mention only one, within Chinese phi-
losophy one can find those who follow Confucius disagreeing sharply with those who
propose an alternative to Confucius, and these arguments are over 2,000 years old! We
do a disservice to the long tradition of philosophy found outside the West by not making
clear the many differences found within Eastern philosophy, in terms of religion, politics,
language, and the many contrasting worldviews contained there. At the same time, what
is termed “Eastern philosophy” contains many things in common with what is termed
“Western philosophy,” and to treat them as if they do not share many things would also
be incorrect. The many philosophically important interactions between the East and West
should, therefore, not be ignored.

With that said, however, there is a widely accepted way of talking about the history of
philosophy that contrasts Western and Eastern approaches to it. For our purposes here,
we will focus on Western philosophy. By this term we mean philosophy as it developed
in Greece, and as it has been practiced particularly in Europe and in the Western Hemi-
sphere. Generally, it will be philosophy that was originally written in Greek, Latin, Ital-
ian, French, German, Spanish, and English, although it can be found in other languages,
among them Hebrew, Danish, and Dutch. Western philosophy looks to Greece as its birth-
place: The philosophical traditions that grew out of that Greek conception of philosophy,
and in contrast to it, will keep us more than busy enough.

This is hardly to dismiss Eastern philosophy, its interest, and its profound relevance for many
of the questions we will be exploring. Indeed, a number of Eastern conceptions have consid-
erable circulation within the West. Many of us are familiar with the idea of karma, the idea
that the way one lives will determine one’s future.
Karma is an ancient idea from Indian religion and
philosophy (these are often difficult to distinguish)
and plays an important role in Hinduism and Bud-
dhism. Taking this perspective on questions about
morality, and the afterlife, produces responses
quite distinct from those one tends to find in a
Western tradition dominated by Judaism, Christi-
anity, and, in a complicated way, Islam.

Rather, we will focus on Western philosophy
here for two reasons. First, as noted, Western
philosophy alone has more than enough to keep
us occupied. Second, Eastern philosophy is far
too rich a subject; to attempt to summarize it
will almost invariably reduce it to a set of vague
and general claims that fail to do justice to that
richness. For this reason, Eastern philosophy is
generally treated as a separate subject, worthy
of intense and critical study. Rather than trying to do too much, then, we will focus on
philosophy as it developed in the West. Consequently, when the term “philosophy”
is used here, it should always be regarded as meaning only the philosophical views,
and traditions, that emerged from Greece and developed in Europe and in the Western
Hemisphere.

DEA Picture Library/De Agostini Editore/Photolibrary

Some elements of Eastern philosophy
circulate broadly in Western culture.
Yoga, for example, is sometimes used
for exercise and relaxation but origi-
nates from Buddhist and Hindu medi-
tative practices.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 5 12/1/10 7:22 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Philosophy?

Classical Philosophy and the Greeks

The British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead is famous for having remarked that
Western philosophy is nothing but a “series of footnotes” to Plato (Whitehead, 1929, p.
63). While that may be a bit of an exaggeration, Whitehead’s point is important: Plato,
along with his teacher Socrates, and his student Aristotle, played a fundamental role in
setting the agenda for philosophy, including both what kinds of questions philosophy
should examine and how it should go about examining them. The influence of Socrates,
Plato, and Aristotle on the history of philosophy is difficult to overestimate.

While we refer to Greek philosophy, it should be
pointed out that during this era, there wasn’t a
single country called Greece, but many different
communities in the general area of the country
we now call Greece. This included Asia Minor,
now part of Turkey, and Italy. What was distinc-
tive about the approach found in this area was the
willingness to explore fundamental and general
questions and to develop rigorous arguments
with others to try and answer these questions.

Pre-Socratics
The “father of philosophy” is traditionally consid-
ered to be Thales (approximately 624 bce–c. 546
bce), although it seems unlikely that he was really
the first to think about such issues. Thales, from
Miletus in Asia Minor, asked a very basic but very
difficult question: What is the world made of? His
answer, “water,” may seem odd until we consider
that the human body is about 60% water, that he
lived close to the sea that supported his commu-
nity and its economy, and that water is indispens-
able for life itself. For our purposes, though, we
merely need to note that he was willing to pose
such a general question and investigate it, a clear
indication that philosophical inquiry had begun.

Before Socrates, other important thinkers put forth
their views on what the world was like, and what
rules, if any, governed that world. Parmenides
famously insisted in his “On Nature” that the
world is fixed and unchanging, reality is one,
and there is no motion and that the world we see
changing around us is not the real world but an
illusion. In contrast, Heraclitus argued that real-
ity was constantly changing—he said all was in
flux, or “always flowing”—and indicated this by
his saying “no one can step into the same river
twice.” For Heraclitus, the person stepping into

Ken Welsh/Photolibrary

Thales, one of the Seven Sages of
Greece, is traditionally known as the
father of philosophy.

G. Dagli Orti/De Agostini Editore/Photolibrary

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato is
considered one of the most influential
in the history of Western philosophy.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 6 12/1/10 7:22 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Philosophy?

the river is always changing, and the waters of
the river are always flowing; thus, anytime a per-
son steps into that river, both the person and the
river have changed. Heraclitus did seem to think
that there was some kind of cosmic order to all of
this change, which he called logos, a complex and
abstract notion that would, several hundred years
later, become an important notion in the Gospels
of the Christian Bible. Pythagoras, after whom
a famous theorem in geometry is named (which
students still learn in high school) insisted on the
importance of mathematics for our understanding
of reality; although little is known of the philoso-
pher himself, he emphasized that numbers and
mathematics might allow us to penetrate the world
of appearances to the fundamental real world that
underlies those appearances.

Socrates
These philosophers, and many others, are called
pre-Socratic philosophers to note the obvious
fact that they preceded Socrates (469 bce–399
bce), an extraordinarily influential philosopher.
Socrates spent his life in Athens, conversing with
anyone who wished to talk with him about basic
moral concepts. His student Plato wrote down
these conversations, and there we can see Socrates
engaged in discussions about courage, love, piety,
friendship, education, and other topics. Here we
can also see the famous Socratic method, where
Socrates proceeds with his conversational partner
to explore issues through a series of questions and
answers. We also have Plato’s account of Socrates’
trial, where he is charged with not believing in the official gods of Athens and with corrupt-
ing the youth of Athens. Philosophers still argue about the question of Socrates’ guilt, and
what the relationship was between the trial and Athenian politics, but we do know that
he was found guilty and executed. Yet it tells us a great deal about Socrates that his dying
words were to ask a friend to sacrifice a rooster to Asclepius, the god of healing. Socrates,
that is, saw death as being cured, in the sense that his mind, or soul, was released from its
body. In Ancient Greek, sema is “tomb,” and soma is “body”; Socrates seems to suggest,
through this sign of respect of Asclepius, that the body is the tomb of the soul, from which
it is released upon one’s death.

Plato
Socrates had many followers, but by the far the most famous of these is Plato (428/427
bce–348/347 bce), whose writings are carefully read and studied still today. The writings of
Plato we have are almost exclusively written as dialogues, and he is generally regarded as

Imagesource/Photolibrary

A statue of Socrates outside the Acad-
emy in Athens, Greece.

Rubberball/Photolibrary

Pre-Socratic philosopher Pythagoras
is traditionally credited with discover-
ing what is now widely studied as the
Pythagorean theorem. The theorem
states that in a right triangle, c2 = a2 + b2,
or in other words, the square of the
hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the
squares of the other two sides.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 7 12/1/10 7:22 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Philosophy?

one of the two or three greatest prose stylists in the
history of philosophy. Although Socrates seemed
interested almost exclusively in moral and ethical
questions, Plato seemed interested in everything;
he wrote on moral philosophy and made funda-
mental and permanent contributions to political
philosophy, metaphysics, the study of knowledge
(epistemology), and cosmology. It is hard to dis-
cover something Plato was not interested in, and
in a sense he combined the views of the three pre-
Socratics mentioned earlier. Plato saw that the
world we experience through our senses—our
eyes, ears, etc.—provided us with information that
could be deceptive, but that the world we can know
through reason is perfect, eternal, and unchanging.
Humans, that is, experience the world of Heracli-
tus in that we see how it changes and how we can
be mistaken about what we experience, but we

also have access, through reason and the human mind, to the perfect world of Parmenides,
which never changes and is eternal. Pythagoras seemed to influence Plato through the sug-
gestion that much of what we know about the unchanging eternal world we can discover
through mathematics. Thus, Plato constructs a picture of our world as containing the world
of experience, which we access imperfectly through our senses, and a contrasting world
(what he calls the real world) that we access through the mind and through reason. One can
probably see how this picture of a flawed world in which we live temporarily, opposed to a
perfect and eternal world, played an important role in the development of Christian philos-
ophy. Plato’s most famous book, The Republic, describes how a society might be constructed
that would be well-run, and make its citizens both informed and just; The Republic is one
of the most influential books in the history of political philosophy although, as do many of
Plato’s writings, it remains very controversial.

Aristotle
Plato’s most famous student is Aristotle (384 bce–322 bce). Although very much influ-
enced by Plato, Aristotle also emphasized observation and the collection of data and was
more oriented toward empiricism, or the idea that we gain important information about
the world through our senses. Thus, rather than trying to determine how an animal ran by
just thinking about it, Aristotle made many observations of animals in motion; rather than
just making hypotheses about how animals developed, he opened up chicken eggs at spe-
cific intervals to see at what stages, and how, the various parts of the chicken developed.
Much like his teacher, if not more so, Aristotle seemed interested in everything. He was
the first Western philosopher to write a systematic treatment of logic; he explored biology,
physics, the natural world, and objects in the sky extensively. He wrote long, detailed dis-
cussions of the human soul, or mind; he collected constitutions of various states in order
to examine and compare them; and he wrote a systematic treatment of political philoso-
phy. He also wrote at least two books on ethics, which continue to be extremely influential
in contemporary moral philosophy. He wrote on questions of beauty and on language
and made a number of explorations of human reason. He also wrote a very difficult but
fascinating and rich treatment of the fundamental questions of philosophy; he called this
investigation “First Philosophy,” but because it was placed in the standard collection of

Visions LLC/Photolibrary

In this famous Vatican fresco by Ital-
ian Renaissance artist Raphael, Plato
stands in the center in a red robe sur-
rounded by various philosophers, sci-
entists, and other thinkers, including
Plato’s student Aristotle, who stands
next to him, clad in blue.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 8 12/1/10 7:22 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Philosophy?

his work after his book The Physics, this study is now referred to by the Greek term mean-
ing “after physics”: metaphysics. While the development of Western philosophy may be a
series of footnotes to Plato, that history is equally unimaginable without Aristotle. Indeed,
a later and very important thinker, St. Thomas Aquinas, paid Aristotle the ultimate com-
pliment: In Aquinas’ writings, Aristotle is simply referred to as “The Philosopher”!

Skeptics
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle justifiably dominate discussion of Greek philosophy—what is,
along with the study of Roman philosophy, often called Classical philosophy—however, one
other important aspect of Greek philosophy should be noted. Originating in Plato’s school,
quite a while after Plato had died, was a group of philosophers who took their name from
the Greek term for “to examine” or “to look at.” In time, after this inspection of various philo-
sophical views, these philosophers and their followers came to doubt the truth or reliability
of many of these views, and hence are known as skeptics. Even though there were various
forms of skepticism, it in general came to be known as a doctrine that questioned whether
human beings could actually come to know and understand the fundamental philosophical
truths, or even if there were such truths to be known and understood. The influence of the
skeptics has been substantial, although it has played a larger role in some eras than in others.
However, the skeptics play an important role in any philosophical era: reminding us to be
wary of bold philosophical claims, to keep in mind that some claims need to be challenged,
and to remember that all philosophical claims must be subject to critical scrutiny.

Medieval Philosophy

Philosophy has such a long history that its history must be subdivided. Classical philosophy
takes in the beginnings of philosophy (although much of those beginnings is very murky)
up to, more or less, the fall of the Roman Empire (around 400 CE). Due to Plato’s influence
on both Christian and non-Christian philosophers, an important thread developed, known
as neo-Platonism, originating around the third century CE and continuing to be significant
for many centuries after, and it still maintains some influence. The general term for those
philosophers who flourished after the fall of the Roman Empire, up to what is now called
modern philosophy (which began around 1600), is medieval philosophy. It should be kept
in mind, however, that any such distinctions will be, to a certain extent, arbitrary; some phi-
losophers of the modern period may have much in common with neo-Platonism or medi-
eval philosophy, whereas some late medieval philosophers during the Renaissance may
seem firmly “modern” in their thought. But the terms are useful, if only as very rough and
general guidelines to the long, complicated, and involved history of philosophy.

Medieval philosophy is most profoundly marked by a single event: the birth of Christ and
the subsequent development of Christianity into the dominant religious view of the West.
Religious and theological discussions dominate philosophy in this period, and much of
Classical philosophy was incorporated into philosophical discussions of Christian doc-
trine. Thus, Plato’s conception of “the real” and his contrast between the imperfect world
of everyday experience and the perfect, eternal, unchanging world were easily adopted to
compare this world with the afterlife. Thus, St. Paul compares our vision in this world to see-
ing “through a glass darkly” in 1 Corinthians 13. More systematically, philosophers such as
St. Augustine found Plato to be profoundly important, but argued that Platonism was only
completed with Christ. In a different way, St. Thomas Aquinas adopted many of Aristotle’s

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 9 12/1/10 7:22 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Philosophy?

arguments to Christian doctrine, developing a view known as “Thomism” and establishing
Aristotle as the philosopher of the Roman Catholic Church (and, indeed, of Christianity until
the Reformation and the emergence of Protestantism). For centuries, to contradict Aristotle
was to contradict Church teaching, and modern philosophy really began when Aristotle’s
unquestioned authority came to be challenged.

In general, then, what is distinctive about medieval philosophy is its combination of Classical
philosophy with Christian doctrine. Often the attempt to combine these wasn’t very smooth;
some might see it very difficult, for instance, to reconcile Aristotle’s conception of God, which
is very abstract, with the Christian conception of a God who sacrifices his only son to cleanse
human beings of sin. An enormous amount of work went into questions such as these, and
into philosophical questions that arose within Christianity, such as those about the relation-
ship between faith and reason. Questions about free will, evil, and the nature of God kept
medieval philosophers very busy. There were also extensive explorations into logic and meta-
physics, while natural science was examined within the dominant framework of Aristotle.

While we may tend to think of medieval philoso-
phy as an era dominated by Christianity, there were
important philosophers working in different tradi-
tions. Moses Maimonides (1135–1204), for instance,
was an influential Jewish philosopher, discussing
not just traditional philosophical questions but also
examining problems in medicine, religion, and eth-
ics. His famous and important commentary on the
Torah, or the first five books of the Hebrew Bible,
required 14 volumes. Maimonides gave another of
his books, presenting some of his own views, what
is perhaps the best title ever given to a philosophy
book: Guide for the Perplexed.

Islam also was an important influence on many
medieval philosophers, such as Ibn Sina (980–
1037) (whose name is often given as Avicenna) and
Ibn Rushd, or Averroës (1126–1198). Both of these
thinkers reflected the curiosity we have already
seen as the chief characteristic of the philosopher:
They seemed to be interested in everything. Ibn
Sina was particularly interested in questions of
logic, physics, astronomy, law, theology, and geol-
ogy, and as a practicing physician he also made
fundamental contributions to medicine. Ibn Rushd
was also what is known as a “polymath”—some-
one who knows a great deal about a great many
different subjects. In his case, his interests included
logic, natural science, medicine, theology, math-
ematics, and psychology.

As we can see, then, while Christianity was the
dominant influence on philosophy in the Europe
of the Middle Ages, elsewhere Judaism and Islam

Toni Vilches/age footstock/Photolibrary

Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd, or
Averroës, was known as a polymath;
That is, someone who knows a lot about
many subjects. This statue of Averroës
is in Cordoba, Andalusia, Spain.

The Print Collector/Imagestate RM/Photolibrary

Medieval philosophy blends Classical
philosophy with Christian doctrine, as
seen in how Catholic philosopher St.
Thomas Aquinas developed Thomism
and established Aristotle as the philos-
opher of the Roman Catholic Church.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 10 12/1/10 7:22 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Philosophy?

played similar roles. In any case, the relationship between religion and philosophy was the
central source of philosophical issues, and religion provided various methods to under-
stand those issues. A significant challenge, however, was soon to offer an alternative way
of thinking about philosophical questions, and would lead to the development of what is
known as “modern philosophy.”

Modern Philosophy

The “modern” period of philosophy is usually dated from around 1600 to around 1800.
Sometimes philosophers themselves are used to indicate when this period began, either
René Descartes (born 1596) or Francis Bacon (born 1561); the death of G.W.F. Hegel in 1831
is often regarded as the end of modern philosophy. But, again, these dates are necessarily
a bit arbitrary.

Three great events, or changes, mark the development of modern philosophy, and each had
a profound effect not just on philosophy but on the culture, politics, and history of Europe. It
is not surprising, therefore, that each of these developments was resisted. First, the Reforma-
tion challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and led to the development of
Protestantism and a distinct conception of the relationship between God and human beings.
In addition to causing a variety of religious wars, including the devastating Thirty Years War,
the Reformation indicated that one might challenge the authority of the Church. Second, a dif-
ferent kind of challenge to the authority of the Church came with the development of natural
science, perhaps most famously Copernicus’s heliocentric hypothesis that saw the earth as
one of a set of planets revolving around the sun, rather than the geocentric hypothesis that
placed the earth at the center of the universe. Other scientists defended this view; Galileo,
for doing so, spent the last 10 years of his life under house arrest. But the observations of
astronomers not only challenged the authority of the Church on issues of science, it also led
to the important intellectual result that Aristotle might, in fact, be in error, indicating that sci-
ence should look to evidence and reason, rather than to the authority of Aristotle, to discover
its truths. Third, at least of great significance for phi-
losophers, was the reintroduction of classical, “Pyr-
rhonic” skepticism, a radical view that challenged
whether any claim could be shown to be true. After
its reintroduction in the 16th century, philosophers
were always aware of the challenge presented by
skepticism and recognized that it must be defeated
in order to establish any claim as true.

Empiricism
The modern period is traditionally regarded as
being dominated by two competing philosophical
approaches, empiricism and rationalism. Empiri-
cism, particularly prominent in English-speaking
countries, insisted that our knowledge ultimately
comes from our senses. What we know, then, can
be traced back to its sources in how we interact
with the world through such ways as seeing it,

The Print Collector/Imagestate RM/Photolibrary

A drawing of Copernicus’s hypothesis
that the earth revolved around the
sun. The heliocentric hypothesis is an
example of how science began to chal-
lenge the authority of the Church—one
of three changes that mark the devel-
opment of modern philosophy.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 11 12/1/10 7:22 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Philosophy?

hearing it, and touching it. This sensory informa-
tion provides the information that our mind can
then take up, combine, and make judgments about.
Empiricists regarded the human mind at birth as a
“blank slate,” and thus rejected the idea that we are
born with, or have, “innate ideas.” It is important
to see that empiricism doesn’t suggest we don’t
need a mind; the human mind plays an indispens-
able role in how we understand the world. Rather,
empiricism insists that the contents of our mind
ultimately have their source in the world of experi-
ence, which we gain through our senses. The three
traditional great empiricists are often thought to be
John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.

Rationalism
In contrast, rationalism puts much greater emphasis
on the mind, and on reason, and sees sensory infor-
mation as being either less important or as actually
interfering with our ability to discover fundamen-
tal philosophical truths. For instance, one might see
that a stick half-submerged in water looks broken,
yet our mind knows, or judges, that it is not. Rational-
ists, then, focused on the mind and what it could do,
simply by examining its own content and the results
of that examination. This may sound a bit abstract,
but we can see mathematics as an excellent example
of what can be accomplished by reasoning alone. It
is no accident that two of the great rationalist think-
ers were brilliant, world-class mathematicians; René
Descartes invented analytic geometry, while Gott-
fried Leibniz (along with Isaac Newton) invented
the calculus. The third traditional great rationalist,
Benedict Spinoza, worked as a lens grinder, which
required substantial mathematical knowledge. Ratio-
nalists do not reject the information we gain through
the senses; rather, they don’t regard it as the chief
source of our most important philosophical truths,

and insist that such sensory information cannot justify those truths. Rather, our most impor-
tant and eternal claims—about ourselves, about others, about the world, about God—can
only be discovered and justified by reason.

Some see the modern period as concluding not with G.W.F. Hegel but with the philosophy
of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). In many ways, Kant is seen as combining aspects of both
empiricism and rationalism, while rejecting what he saw as an overemphasis on either
the senses as fundamental, or the mind as fundamental. Kant, instead, saw that human
experience needed both, and that the senses and the mind had to work together. Kant
insisted that there were certain rules that we must recognize as true, but that such rules
were meaningless without working with the content provided by the senses. Kant argued

S T Yiap/age footstock/Photolibrary

While rationalists do not reject the
information gained through the senses,
they argue that the most important
philosophical claims can only be dis-
covered and justified through reason.

Ableimages/Photolibrary

Empiricists say that knowledge ulti-
mately comes from our senses.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 12 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Philosophy?

that there were absolutely necessary commands in moral philosophy, which he called
“categorical imperatives” (Kant, 1998), but also insisted that moral philosophy required
a fundamentally different approach to things. Thus, in contrast to both the rationalists
and empiricists, Kant did not speak in terms of “knowing” that we should respect oth-
ers as human beings, or that we can claim to cognize the existence of God. Rather, these
were fundamentally moral claims, and required different methods than might be found
in knowing, for instance, that 2 + 2 = 4 or that a ball thrown into the air will fall back to
the earth in a generally predictable way. Kant produced fundamental achievements in
the theory of knowledge, metaphysics, ethics, and the philosophy of art and is frequently
regarded, along with Plato and Aristotle, as indispensable to our understanding of what
philosophy is and what philosophy can accomplish, as well as the important recognition
of what philosophy cannot accomplish.

Contemporary Philosophy

In a basic sense, “contemporary philosophy” refers to the philosophy that was produced
after the death of Hegel in 1831. This sounds a bit peculiar, by saying, for instance, that
someone writing in 1850 is “contemporary.” At the same time, few thinkers have had
more contemporary influence than Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, and
Friedrich Nietzsche, all of whom wrote, at least in part, in the 19th century. Again we see
that these historical divisions should be regarded as merely useful conventions, and too
much emphasis on where they begin and end should not be placed upon them.

Contemporary philosophy is marked by the increasing attention paid to language, an
increased emphasis on the role of mathematics and science, and the development of new
methods for posing and exploring philosophical questions. It is impossible to summarize
briefly contemporary philosophy, but we can look at two central approaches that have
seemed to many to dominate it: continental and analytic philosophy. Again, these labels
are used mostly for convenience, and it is risky to put too much emphasis on them.

Continental Philosophy
Continental philosophy is called that because of its particular importance in Europe, specifi-
cally France and Germany, but important analytic philosophers also lived and worked in
Europe. Continental philosophy, in general, adopts as its focus the human condition; it tends
to use less frequently formal and mathematical logic and is much more likely to express its
ideas in literature than other traditions. It is often seen as having a substantial interest in
cultural, political, and historical issues and the philosophical assumptions our understand-
ing of those issues involves. It investigates the specific condition of being human in a world
that may not be best, or wholly, explained by natural science. Many distinct philosophi-
cal traditions are lumped together, perhaps unfairly, as “continental.” Chief among them
are phenomenology and existentialism, and the most prominent representative of these are
Martin Heidegger and his one-time mentor, Edmund Husserl. Phenomenology emphasizes
the consciousness one has of being in the world, and what first-person, or subjective, reflec-
tion tells us about what is given to that consciousness. Connected with, but also distinct
from, phenomenology, existentialism insists that human beings provide their own meaning
in a world that may well not otherwise have meaning. These philosophers emphasize the
importance of the fact that human beings are radically free and must make choices with-
out being very confident about what those choices will lead to. Many existentialists were

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 13 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Philosophy?

atheists, but there were also Christian existentialists; perhaps the most famous Christian
existentialist was Søren Kierkegaard, who insisted that one who chose God did so on the
basis of a “leap of faith.” A number of other traditions, such as various versions of Marxism,
as well as important developments in feminism, literary theory, and philosophical anthro-
pology, are often regarded as part of this continental conception of philosophy.

Analytic Philosophy
Analytic philosophy, which tends to be the dominant tradition in England and in the
United States and Canada, tends to focus, in contrast, on specific details and utilizes the
techniques of formal logic and the results of natural science in order to explore philosoph-
ical issues. Analytic philosophy also emphasizes the importance of language for under-
standing philosophical issues; an analytic philosopher is often just as likely to examine if a
seemingly well-posed philosophical question is really meaningful as she is to try to answer
that question. Perhaps the most influential thinker for this tradition was Ludwig Witt-
genstein, who famously insisted in his Philosophical Investigations (1951) that most “philo-
sophical” questions were really traps presented by language. Wittgenstein argued that
if we looked carefully at how we use our language, questions that seem important and
difficult may well be revealed not to even be meaningful questions at all. As Wittgenstein
observed, philosophy really begins when “language goes on holiday” (1951, § 23); that is,
if we paid more attention to the fact that words mean what they do because of how we
use them to communicate with each other, most (or maybe all?) philosophical questions
would disappear. Wittgenstein might suggest, then, that rather than working very hard to
discover the meaning of free will and all of the complicated issues that notion implies, we
should see how this term is used in ordinary conversation, and what people mean by the
term when they talk with each other.

Contemporary philosophy flourishes today, constantly developing new ways of looking
at problems, as well as considering the philosophical implications of new technology, new

forms of communication, and an increasingly
interdependent and globalized planet. Philoso-
phers continue to present their results in books,
journals, and conferences, but philosophers have
also exploited the resources of the Internet to con-
tinue the conversation. It seems that the problems
philosophy confronts will be the kinds of perma-
nent concerns it has always dealt with, such as the
nature of the human mind, the role of faith and
reason, and how we should make moral evalua-
tions of ourselves and others. At the same time,
new developments also mean that philosophers
will have to be flexible enough to take those devel-
opments into account. Whether philosophers
include the results of molecular genetics into
their discussion of the human soul, or examine
the challenges presented to the question of eutha-
nasia by new medical technology, contemporary
philosophy will continue to combine traditional
inquiry with understanding how these develop-
ments can affect that inquiry.

Nacho Moro/age footstock/Photolibrary

Continental philosophy focused on
the human condition. Phenomenology,
for instance, emphasized first-person
consciousness, while existentialism
explored the implications of human
existence. Think of Sartre’s famous
quote: “Man is condemned to be free;
because once thrown into the world, he
is responsible for everything he does.”

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 14 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.1 What Is Philosophy?

Concept Review 1.1 History of Classical Philosophy

Key Figures Dates Major Idea

Ancient Philosophy—Pre-Socratics

Thales c. 624 bce–c. 546 bce Everything is water

Heraclitus c. 535–c. 475 bce Everything is in motion

Parmenides Flourished early fifth century bce Nothing real is in motion

Pythagoras c. 570–c. 495 bce Mathematics explains nature

Ancient Philosophy—Classical Philosophers

Socrates 469–399 bce People must critically examine their own lives

Plato 428/427 bce–348/347 bce Reality lies beyond what humans experience

Aristotle 384 bce–322 bce Reason and actual exploration of the world
can help explain our deepest truths about
that world

Medieval

St. Augustine 354–430 Platonic-inspired Christian worldview

Maimonides 1135–1240 Expert on Jewish ethics and textual interpre-
tation, each providing guidance for one’s life

St. Thomas Aquinas 1225–1274 Aristotelian-influenced Christian worldview

Ibn Sina 980–1037 Brilliant thinker and writer on medicine,
Islamic thought, science, and many other fields

Ibn Rushd 1126–1198 One truth about the world, which can be
attained either through religion or through
philosophy

Modern

René Descartes 1596–1650 Reason reveals the fundamental truths about
the world, as guaranteed by God

John Locke 1632–1704 Nothing is in the mind before it is in the series

David Hume 1711–1776 Except for mathematics, our knowledge is
understood in terms of degrees of certainty,
from very high to very low certainty

Immanuel Kant 1724–1804 Experience requires both necessary concepts
and content provided by a world we don’t create

Contemporary

Martin Heidegger 1889–1976 The understanding (and misunderstanding) of
being, and concern about death, inform our
place in the world

Ludwig Wittgenstein 1889–1951 Our understanding of the world is mediated
by language, and we understand language by
seeing how it is actually used

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 15 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section

1.2 What Do Philosophers Think About?

1.2 What Do Philosophers Think About?

Philosophers, ever since Socrates, have been willing to ask questions and seek answers, regardless of how aggravating they may appear and how frustrating the inquiry may be.
Socrates and Examination

Socrates was, as they say, a little different. He lived in Athens, a society where one was cel-
ebrated for being able to talk beautifully and forcefully in public; Socrates chose to speak
in a very ordinary, down-to-earth way, and in private. Fame awaited those who achieved
political power and prominence; Socrates chose not to participate in political affairs at all.
An important aspect of being an excellent Athenian was to be handsome; Socrates was
happy to describe himself as rather ugly. Yet 2,500 years later, we continue to read about
his life, and continue to read the dialogues where Socrates’ views are presented, while the
handsome, well-spoken, and politically powerful Athenians are long forgotten. It is worth
considering why this occurred.

Socrates, as we saw, was put on trial and, after losing the argument, was executed.
During his trial, he famously declares that “the unexamined life is not worth living
for human beings.” (Plato, 1997, 38a) This may be a good indication of why Socrates is
such a remarkable character; while on trial for his life, he insists that living correctly is
much more important than simply living. His trial, presented by Plato as The Apology—
“apology” meaning defense—is really Socrates’ defense of the philosophical life. It is a
life that refuses to accept easy answers, inquires after what is true, and seeks to deter-
mine the right way to live. It is a life devoted to philosophical examination of his own
beliefs and those of others.

In a very early dialogue of Plato, Socrates confronts a young man named Euthyphro.
Euthyphro’s father has inadvertently caused the death of one of his workers, and Euthy-
phro has come to court to bring his father up on legal charges. Treating one’s father this
way, particularly in Athens, would seem to violate a very important part of Athenian
religious practice, and thus would be impious. When Socrates asks Euthyphro about this,
Euthyphro insists he is doing the pious thing. Naturally, Socrates then suggests that if
Euthyphro is so knowledgeable about what is, and what is not, pious, perhaps he can
answer Socrates’ simple question: What is piety?

Part of Socrates’ charm, but also what may make him a bit aggravating, is his tendency to
claim that he has no expert knowledge of anything. Indeed, he insists that the only thing
he truly knows is that he does not know anything! When reading the dialogues of Plato,
it seems Socrates is actually quite brilliant and is able to defeat virtually any argument
he encounters. Often Socrates is regarded as being ironic, in that he claims not to know
anything, but really does. Of course, his standards for knowing something are extremely
high, and, as it turns out, few can satisfy Socrates’ standards for knowledge or defend
their view against his criticism. But this reveals the genuine gift that Socrates presents to
philosophy: the insatiable curiosity and desire to know, the unending inquiry into ques-
tions that may never be fully answered, and a willingness to engage in debate over the
most important issues in one’s life.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 16 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.2 What Do Philosophers Think About?

Socrates, therefore, presents a challenge to all of
us. Can we defend our own beliefs? What justifies
the things we believe? Should we simply accept
what others tell us? If we accept answers on the
basis of someone else, what makes that person an
authority? Should we examine our lives, our val-
ues, and our beliefs? What are the implications if
we do not? Do we have the energy, stamina, and
courage to submit our most cherished beliefs to
critical scrutiny? If we do not, what does that tell
us about our beliefs, and our reasons for having
them? If we are willing to examine our beliefs,
what do we do if we are confronted with a criti-
cism we cannot refute?

These are fundamental philosophical questions
Socrates suggests we consider. If he is right, only
this kind of examined life will be worth living for
human beings.

Philosophical Questions

As we have seen, such philosophers as Ibn Sina and Aristotle were interested, more or
less, in everything. There are, in fact, few issues wherein philosophers don’t have some-
thing to offer, and think they do, and this means that there is an enormous number of
philosophical investigations into specific topics. One can find philosophical explorations
of engineering, military science, law, information science, mathematics, and history; some
schools even offer courses on the philosophy of physical education. However, here we
will focus on three traditional areas of philosophy: knowledge, conduct, and religion.

The study of human knowledge is called epistemology, which investigates the wide range
of issues involved when a person is said to know something. To know something is dis-
tinct from believing something, of course; I may believe I am going to win the lottery, but,
as we know, that is quite different than knowing I am going to win the lottery.

Few questions are more important for human beings than those that arise about how they
behave toward each other. Parents spend a great deal of time teaching, or trying to teach
their children to behave in certain, specific ways, and to not behave in other ways. We may
not even know what another person believes, but we may be quick to object to what that
person does. We also generally think we ourselves should act in accordance with certain
rules; the sensation of guilt comes from our recognition that we have failed to do so. The
systematic study of these rules for behavior and conduct, for ourselves and for others, is
called ethics.

Some of the most profound, enduring, and difficult questions philosophers (and many oth-
ers) consider are those that arise in the context of discussions of religion. Such questions
are seen as sufficiently significant that they have received as much or more attention from
philosophers as any other. But the topics they bring up are also sufficiently personal, and

The Print Collector

The famous painting The Death of
Socrates by French artist Jacques-
Louis David depicts Socrates before
he drinks hemlock, surrounded by his
mourning followers. Even while on
trial for his life, Socrates declared that
living correctly was more important
than simply living.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 17 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.2 What Do Philosophers Think About?

sensitive, that many people feel uncomfortable talking about religion with people they don’t
know very well, let alone arguing about it. The philosophy of religion seeks to investigate
these and many other questions that arise within the context of faith and attempts to pro-
vide arguments and justifications for various conclusions. It provides a rich opportunity for
discussion about topics that are often regarded as the most important a person can consider,
but it also confronts believers and nonbelievers alike with challenges that can require sub-
stantial frustration as well as profound rewards.

Other Disciplines of Philosophy

We will focus on the three topics here men-
tioned—epistemology, ethics, and religion—nev-
ertheless, there are large areas of philosophy we
will not examine, or examine directly. This does
not mean that these other areas are without inter-
est! Rather, it is that they are themselves suffi-
ciently rich and sufficiently interesting that they
require separate study. Many find, after studying
some traditional topics of philosophy, that even
more fascinating material lies in these other sub-
disciplines of philosophy.

Metaphysics is one of the most celebrated parts
of philosophy, but also one of the most difficult
to define. One way of describing it is to see meta-
physics as dealing with the ultimate questions
about existence, the nature of human beings, and
the world. In the 17th century, a useful distinction
was introduced between General Metaphysics and
Special Metaphysics. General Metaphysics was, on
this view, ontology, or the study of being; that is,
General Metaphysics sought to answer a remark-
ably simple-looking question: What is there? Spe-
cial Metaphysics took as its area of study three
specific topics: God, Freedom, and Immortality.
Although Special Metaphysics examined these
topics separately, it is clear that each has signifi-
cant importance for other areas of philosophy.
Metaphysics continues to be an active subject
of philosophical investigation but, as is perhaps
obvious, can lead to extremely difficult and puz-
zling philosophical results.

Logic is the study of reasoning, and how we
think; logicians offer various accounts of what
rules human reason must follow to think coher-
ently. Symbolic logic, in particular, uses symbols
instead of words in order to focus on the structural

Thinkstock

Logicians study how we think. Using
deductive reasoning to solve a Sudoku
puzzle is a simple, concrete example of
using logic.

PureStock/Photolibrary

Philosophers also might examine the
implications of religious belief; for
example, how one might read and
understand various religious texts.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 18 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.2 What Do Philosophers Think About?

elements of reason. In so doing, close connections between symbolic logic and mathemat-
ics have developed; indeed, one frequently encounters the term “mathematical logic” to
refer to the rigorous and highly technical study of logic. In contrast, informal logic, or criti-
cal reasoning, is a less technical exploration of how humans reason and usually includes
an account of the many mistakes humans make in doing so. These mistakes are known as
fallacies; studying them provides a valuable way to understand how we can avoid these
mistakes and improve our reasoning abilities.

Political philosophy is the rigorous and systematic examination of various ways societies
and communities are structured (or could be structured). Political philosophers look at
what makes a society just, or unjust, and what the advantages and disadvantages of vari-
ous systems may be. Thus, on one political view, private property and individual rights
may be fundamental, but from another perspective they may be criticized as contributing
to an insufficiently robust sense of community. Similarly, a political theory may eliminate
private property and be criticized as being oppressive of a human being’s natural right to
liberty.

Aesthetics, or the philosophy of art, looks at beauty and its representation in order to
identify—if possible—criteria for what “good” art is. The relationship between art and
pleasure is also examined, and numerous questions arise about how criteria for one kind
of artistic achievement, say music, might be different from another kind, such as cinema
or sculpture. Philosophers of art also explore what makes something art at all, and what
role “taste” plays in making evaluations about art and about beauty.

The philosophy of mind examines the nature of the mind and its abilities; with some per-
spectives, this may also include an examination of the human soul, and what the relation-
ship is, if any, between the mind and the soul. With the development of such disciplines as
evolutionary biology, cognitive science, computer science, and evolutionary psychology, the
philosophy of mind is one of the most active fields in contemporary philosophical research.

The philosophy of language investigates the role language plays in human understand-
ing and behavior. It explores how people are able to communicate with each other, what
assumptions must be made to understand adequately that communication, and why there
are fundamental difficulties, on occasion, in our understanding each other. At its most
abstract, philosophy of language seeks to show how our understanding of the world is
fundamentally connected to the language we use to describe and explain that world, in
order to clarify philosophical claims and philosophical puzzles.

As is probably clear, there is a great deal of overlap between and among the various sub-
disciplines of philosophy. One working in metaphysics may offer an account of human
freedom that has important consequences for ethics—after all, our notion of responsibility
is radically altered if one isn’t free—as well as religion. Ethics will have significant conse-
quences for political philosophy; if treating another human being as property is morally
wrong, a just political system must be structured so it is prohibited. If my mind, or brain,
perceives certain colors as pleasing, and others as disagreeable, that may indicate why
I prefer one kind of painting to another when making an aesthetic evaluation. Thus, in
order to study philosophy we often focus on one specific sub-discipline or another, the
results in one area can have significant and substantial repercussions in one or more of the
other related sub-disciplines.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 19 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.2 What Do Philosophers Think About?

The Never-Ending Search for Answers

Philosophy, more than most disciplines, spends a great deal of time thinking, discussing,
and arguing about what exactly philosophy is and what it can accomplish. Few account-
ing courses spend very much time talking about what the nature of accounting is; very
little time is spent in a chemistry classroom arguing about what precisely is meant by the
term “chemistry.” But this kind of self-reflection is common in philosophy. Philosophers
sometimes even joke about it: The well-known philosopher Jerry Fodor has described his
discipline as “the cure for which there is no adequate disease” (Dworkin, 2009), while
another, David Hills, describes philosophy as “the ungainly attempt to tackle questions
that come naturally to children, using methods that come naturally to lawyers” (Dworkin,
2009).

This can lead to very frustrating attempts: The questions, even when answered, sim-
ply lead to still more questions. Furthermore, philosophers are rarely satisfied with the
answers provided; sometimes they aren’t even satisfied by their own answers! We seem
left with a situation in which we examine and inquire, only to generate more and more
questions, more and more disputed answers, and more and more argument, without any
genuine sense that these things will be resolved.

That frustration is natural, but, at the same time, it is worth considering the topics involved.
Here are just a few standard philosophical questions:

1. Do I have a soul?
2. Is there a God?
3. Is there an afterlife?
4. Why do good people suffer?
5. Why do wicked people prosper?

It is worth considering just how difficult these questions are and how much is involved
in trying to provide a satisfactory response. There are different ways of reacting to such
questions, of course. For instance, one might simply insist that whatever one thinks is
correct, and ignore any other views or any criticism. This is a view known as dogmatism,
and it brings with it certain risks. The dogmatist must be correct, know that he is correct,
and thus know that any other, conflicting views must be wrong. That is quite a claim to

be able to make for a finite human being, given
our familiarity with human error. The dogmatic
unwillingness to investigate one’s beliefs seems
less a mark of wisdom than it seems the height
of intellectual arrogance. A related response does
not insist that its views are correct, but merely
that a person lacks the time, energy, or intellec-
tual curiosity to examine her own beliefs. Rather
than arrogance, this seems to be intellectual cow-
ardice; what does it tell us about a person’s beliefs
if that person can’t suggest any particularly good
reasons for holding them and is unwilling to
examine if they are actually worth believing? Yet
another response is to suggest that nothing can
ever be known, a position adopted by a specific

Stockbrokerextra images/Photolibrary

Philosophy may involve a search for
answers, but it can also be a discipline
of never-ending questions.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 20 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 Why Study Philosophy?

kind of radical skeptic. To adopt such an attitude
at the outset of studying philosophy is to give up
a bit too easily, however; it is also to risk running
into this problem: How can I know that I cannot
know anything? Philosophical skepticism, on the
other hand, is usually the result of a great deal of
effort and is a position seen as requiring some sort
of defense or justification.

Philosophers resist these positions, for they want
to understand themselves, others, and the world
in which they find themselves. This may be a view
worth ridiculing, as philosophers are often ridi-
culed, concerning themselves with unanswerable
questions and discussing topics that are obscure,
confusing, and mysterious. Philosophers are more
than willing to admit that the issues they explore
are difficult; yet, as can be seen from the ques-
tions listed above, they are very important issues, and deserve to be thought about and
examined. While recognizing that the search for answers brings with it a certain degree
of frustration, the philosopher accepts that as part of the package. At the same time, the
discussion, argument, and debate over such topics can help make clear, or clearer, what
our own beliefs are and to what extent we can defend those beliefs. Philosophy may be a
search for answers to questions that will always endure, but achieving greater clarity and
understanding of ourselves can itself be a remarkably satisfying accomplishment.

1.3 Why Study Philosophy?

People have philosophical views on a wide range of issues, from abortion to the envi-ronment. Philosophy offers us the opportunity to explore our views critically, as well as provides us tools to better defend our beliefs.
Intellectual Self-Defense

Soldiers and police officers are frequently placed in harm’s way; they are well aware of the
hazards that they are likely to confront and have to be prepared for the worst. They spend
a great deal of time preparing for such situations; ideally, that danger never occurs, but if
it does, they will be ready to handle it, deal with it, and overcome it. This kind of prepara-
tion—this self-defense—probably seems so obvious that we would question someone in
such a dangerous job who did not take such precautions.

Philosophy doesn’t present these kinds of problems; someone who fails to defend his or
her views is unlikely to suffer any actual physical injuries. But philosophers do like to
insist that philosophy offers a certain kind of protection, and offers one analogous weap-
ons against one’s opponent. Seen from this perspective, then, philosophy offers what
might be called intellectual self-defense.

Morgan David de Lossy/Flirt Collection/Photolibrary

Some might get frustrated with dif-
ficult questions and insist that they
know all they need to know or
that they don’t need to hear other
perspectives.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 21 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 Why Study Philosophy?

Specific philosophical tools, such as logic, as
well as more general information, or evidence,
allowing one to back up one’s claims, are indis-
pensable to justifying one’s beliefs. Again,
assuming one’s beliefs deserve not just to be
examined but to be defended, philosophy offers
substantial advantages to one who had learned
its methods.

Another way philosophers suggest looking at the
practice of philosophy is to compare it to exercise.
Most of us know that various kinds of physical
activity—biking, running, playing basketball or
soccer, swimming, and the like—are good for us.
Many of us take part in such things because they

keep us healthier, more alert, and more physically fit. Presumably, our minds are at least
as important to take care of as our bodies; doesn’t it make sense to offer a work out for
the mind, just as we would our body? Challenging our beliefs, looking at issues from
new and different perspectives, and engaging in philosophical discussions might, then,
be considered “low-impact aerobics” for the mind. Philosophy offers the kind of mental
activity that improves the mind and keeps it in shape, just as physical exercise does so for
the body.

We may not always win the argument, but being prepared for such arguments about
issues that concern us deeply is very valuable. Philosophy, done well, provides that prep-
aration, exercises the mind, and helps one’s skills at intellectual self-defense.

Beliefs Worth Defending

It is often said that a belief worth having is a belief worth defending. Imagine leaving
church and asking the minister if he really believed what he had said in his sermon; should
he be willing to defend those ideas? Should a teacher be expected not just to believe the
information she provides in the classroom but be able to say why? Would we expect a
general leading troops into battle be able to justify the reasons for doing so and to provide
a defense of why such a mission was worth undertaking?

Assuming we all have philosophical beliefs—about the human being, about how children
should be taught morals, about religion, about science—then we seem to be in a similar
situation. If a mother teaches her children not to lie, she should, it seems, be able to explain
to them why they should not lie. If a person believes that if one lives in accord with one’s
faith that he will be rewarded with eternal life, should he be able to say why? If a biologist
argues that evolution offers the most compelling account of the variety of species on earth,
is it also part of that biologist’s responsibility to defend that claim, and offer the strongest
arguments one can to justify it?

Philosophers, in general, regard it as intellectually irresponsible not to defend one’s beliefs,
or at least not to be prepared to do so if challenged. This is not to say that one’s defenses are
always successful. For instance, Socrates may have been able to demonstrate that many of

Sodapix/Photolibrary

Engaging in philosophy can be seen as
practicing intellectual self-defense or
mental exercise.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 22 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 Why Study Philosophy?

those with whom he talked could not defend their
views. That does not mean the views, themselves,
are incorrect; it means that one must work harder
to make that defense stronger. We can abandon
all such attempts—after all, they can be very diffi-
cult and exhausting—and simply ignore any such
insistence that we have a responsibility to be able
to defend our views. But this returns us to this
fundamental philosophical question: What does it
tell us about the person who holds a certain belief
that he or she is unwilling to defend it? Is it not
worth defending? Is it too much work to defend it?
And if someone holds a view to which we object,
but tells us that they are unwilling to show why
that view is correct, are we not more likely to be
suspicious about why this person has this view?
This may sound as if it is an abstract intellectual
exercise, but when one acts on a belief, and those
actions are morally objectionable, then the unwill-
ingness to defend that belief casts doubt on the
merits of both the belief and what is done on the
basis of that belief. Thus, shedding one’s obliga-
tions to say why one believes what one does can
lead to dangerous results and, therefore, is an atti-
tude viewed by philosophers as both very suspi-
cious and very risky.

Skills Philosophy Can Develop

If we accept the obligation that we should be able to articulate our beliefs, and do the best
we can to defend those beliefs, philosophy offers specific skills that can be very helpful in
doing this.

One of the most powerful tools philosophy provides is logic, the rules for reasoning and
for constructing arguments. Those who study logic have at least two advantages: They
can understand and critique their own arguments, and recognize if they are “good” argu-
ments, and they can also use these tools to critique the arguments of those with whom
one is debating. Formal logic offers a way to show that the structure of a given argument
is flawed; for instance, if the structure of your opponent’s argument is invalid, this is a
devastating critique of that argument. Similarly, to identify that your opponent is commit-
ted to an inconsistent set of premises, or reasons, is to show that all the premises cannot
be simultaneously true, and that the argument fails. But, in line with the idea of intellec-
tual self-defense, we can always appeal to such logical rules in order to examine our own
arguments, and prevent ourselves from making any obvious logical mistakes. Thus, our
arguments become stronger, and our skills at criticism are enhanced.

While symbolic logic looks at the structures of arguments and ignores the actual con-
tent or meanings of the specific sentences in a given argument, informal logic focuses

Medioimages/Photodisc

Philosophy can help you spot the
cracks in your own arguments as well
as those of others.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 23 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 Why Study Philosophy?

much more on those meanings and the content
of what is being said. Informal logic can there-
fore allow us to identify when someone is try-
ing to win an argument by introducing subtle
changes of meaning, by assuming the conclusion
of the argument instead of showing that it fol-
lows from the premises, or by adopting other
illegitimate reasoning strategies. Again, being
familiar with these kinds of mistakes not only
allows us to spot them in the arguments of our
opponent but can also prevent us from making
the same mistakes.

Philosophers also insist that discussions of vari-
ous views and beliefs should take place within
the context of criticism. That is, one simply can-
not assert one’s views, but must be willing to
entertain objections to them. Often, these objec-
tions can be deflected, or shown how they are not
relevant to a particular position one holds; but at
other times, a strong critique can help us clarify
our beliefs and our reasons for holding them.
This critical context, however, does not have to
be hostile or unpleasant (although some argu-
ments can lead to that result, of course). Rather,
in a genuine and sincere philosophical dispute,

both parties should recognize that criticism is a valuable tool to help everyone reach the
desired goal of the conversation.

Similarly, arguments themselves need not be the kinds of arguments one may be famil-
iar with in talking with parents, children, and friends, among others. Philosophers
use the word argument to indicate that a conclusion is put forth, and that reasons
are offered to support that conclusion. There need be no yelling, or tears, or fighting
in a philosophical argument. Instead, the goal is to find the truth, or to get closer to
the truth, about a given claim. Rather than a hostile situation, a good philosophi-
cal argument will resemble a conversation, designed to achieve increased clarity and
understanding.

As can be seen from these points, philosophical disputes seek to increase our under-
standing, of both our own views and those of others. Ideally, this will involve a con-
versation between two partners with a common goal and will minimize emotion and
passion and focus on reasons, evidence, and arguments. This does not mean that philos-
ophers want to eliminate passion from such topics; after all, if we don’t really care about
something, it isn’t clear why we would argue about it. It means, instead, that emotion
should not drive the argument, and the emphasis should be on how well the reasons
offered support the conclusion. Passion, and emotions such as anger and defensiveness,
can therefore interfere with reaching the goal, and philosophy helps remind us that a
philosophical dispute involves both mutual respect and a mutual desire to seek greater
understanding and, ideally, the truth.

Alvaro Leiva/age footstock/Photolibrary

A philosophical argument is not a
hostile encounter, but a conversation
designed to facilitate understanding.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 24 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 Why Study Philosophy?

Practical Applications

The most common complaint heard about phi-
losophy is that its topics are of little relevance
for everyday life, and therefore its issues may be
interesting but have little practical application.
In some cases, this may well be true; an abstract
philosophical discussion about the nature of time
may not prevent us from being late. Philosophers
have been known to debate which came first,
thought or language; it is difficult, after all, to
think without language, but also difficult to see
how language developed without thought. In any
case, we may not be able to pinpoint any obvious
practical applications that emerge from this topic!

Yet, to insist that a discipline is only of value if it
produces immediate and obvious practical results
not only may eliminate a good deal of art, but
would also potentially eliminate some of the the-
oretical components of some disciplines that have
unquestioned practical applications. Mathemat-
ics, physics, chemistry, and biology, among other
disciplines, all include abstract aspects, the prac-
tical relevance of which is not clear. Is space-time
“really” Euclidean, reflecting the kind of geometry most of us learned in high school? Or
is it non-Euclidean, where odd and counterintuitive results can emerge? Similar confusing
results can also be found in theoretical physics, in such fields as quantum dynamics. But
rarely does one hear the complaint that mathematics and physics are of little relevance
for everyday life. Indeed, in both the history of philosophy and the history of science,
claims that at first sounded very strange and “weird” turned out quite likely to be true.
So, we might want to hesitate in embracing only
those things whose immediate practical value can
be demonstrated.

Furthermore, there are areas in which philoso-
phy has had practical applications and provided
results that, in retrospect, appear to be quite valu-
able. For centuries, the very distinction we make
today between natural science and philosophy
did not exist. Isaac Newton, as great a physicist
and mathematician as the world has ever seen,
called his most famous book Mathematical Prin-
ciples of Natural Philosophy. Only in the last two
hundred years or so has the distinction even been
drawn between natural science and philosophy,
and certainly scientists are both attracted to, and
draw on, philosophical discussions of space, time,
causality, and other topics fundamental to natural

Nick Dolding/Cultura/Photolibrary

The field of ethics is arguably philoso-
phy’s greatest contribution to daily
life. These days, environmental eth-
ics—how our behavior affects the envi-
ronment—has become an increasingly
larger part of mainstream thought.

Digital Vision/Thinkstock

Even disciplines that seem to have no
practical applications have some value.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 25 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 Why Study Philosophy?

science. Today, it continues to be difficult to see where the speculative use of the scientific
imagination ends and philosophy begins.

It is probably most obvious that philosophy’s biggest contribution to everyday life has been
in ethics, whether in consideration of how individuals should act toward each other, of
what rules society should adopt, and of what the relationship is between human beings and
their surroundings. Fundamental to our self-conception, and to human behavior in general,
is the notion of good and bad (and good and evil); few topics have more relevance for our
lives, and no topic has been more extensively debated by philosophers. Respect, tolerance,
charity, generosity, and any number of other notions that inform our everyday life are fun-
damentally philosophical concepts; ignoring the contribution philosophy has made to our
understanding of these issues would leave these ideas without much content. The growing
and important field of environmental ethics clearly depends on the philosophical explora-
tions of the relationship between human beings and their planet. Is earth, as some argue,
simply here for us to exploit and use as we see fit? Or, rather, are we the “stewards” of the
earth, with an obligation to respect it, care for it, and preserve it? Few policy decisions we
make in this area lack a philosophical component, and few decisions have more relevance
for human beings and their descendants. In the same way, philosophy has made, and con-
tinues to make, essential contributions to discussions of our relationship to other animals,
and our understanding of how they should be treated. The discussion does not have to
proceed for very long before we discover we are, in fact, doing philosophy.

If ethical questions are clearly relevant for our everyday life, so, too, are political ques-
tions. Whether we are discussing human rights in our country, or another country, or
discussing the doctrine of when it is just to go to war, these questions have an essential
philosophical component. It is, then, difficult to be able to have a productive conversa-
tion about a nation’s treatment of its own citizens, and its relationship to other nations,
without drawing explicitly on what philosophers have had to say about these issues. In
the same way, philosophers have contributed fundamentally to our understanding of
religion; if one’s religion plays a central role in one’s life, then our conception of that role,
and what it implies, will, again, be drawing fundamentally on what philosophers have
had to say.

Philosophers find themselves on the defensive, sometimes, feeling it necessary to justify
their discipline. But, two things make this a bit easier. First, as we have seen, philosophy

has much to contribute to our understanding of
how we think, how we act, and how we conceive
of ourselves and our future. Second, virtually
everyone already thinks philosophically, even
if they may not realize it or describe it that way.
If one has an opinion about whether abortion
should be legal, or the death penalty abolished,
or how wealth should be taxed, or whether one’s
country should go to war, and any of a vast num-
ber of other issues, one is thinking philosophi-
cally. As we shall see, philosophy can help us take
those opinions and, by providing arguments, rea-
son, and evidence, make them more rigorous and
more informed, and by doing so, provide us with
a deeper understanding of our own beliefs.

Corbis/Photolibrary

Often, when you express your opin-
ion, you’re engaging in some form of
philosophy.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 26 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 Why Study Philosophy?

Self-Examination

One central claim, articulated by Socrates and
Plato, drives the philosophical enterprise. Phi-
losophy begins in wonder: Human beings are
naturally curious about the world and their
place in that world. This is what motivates phi-
losophers and others; they have this basic desire
to understand their world and their place within
that world. As Socrates insisted, however, this
requires that we examine, before all else, our-
selves. For only if we submit our own views,
opinions, and beliefs to rigorous critical scrutiny
can we expect to make progress elsewhere; for
this reason, as we have seen, Socrates proclaims
that the “unexamined life is not worth living for
human beings.”

By now, of course, we have seen that a good philosopher, being told this, will immediately
ask, “Why?” What is so important about this kind of self-examination? Can’t we get along
without the exhausting, and sometimes painful, inquiry Socrates demands? After all, isn’t
there an old saying that “ignorance is bliss”?

Socrates, naturally, has a response; in fact, one might say his entire life was his response to
those who wish to avoid self-examination. Socrates held others to a high standard, after
all: Those who claimed to be experts in their field were subjected to intense, and some-
times humiliating, inquiry at the hands of Socrates. But, as he and Plato’s readers dis-
cover, their reputation as possessing expertise was, generally, undeserved. But it should
always be remembered that Socrates held himself up to the highest standard of all: it was
Socrates who recognized his ignorance, it was Socrates who sought wisdom from those
who had the reputation for possessing it, and it
was Socrates who, therefore, examined his own
life with the most rigorous and harshest scrutiny.

Socrates might generalize these results as indicat-
ing that one who fails to examine his or her life
fails to do justice to one’s potential. Not to inves-
tigate one’s beliefs, and to criticize them, is to sug-
gest that one either is already perfectly wise—a
claim made much more often than it is demon-
strated!—or that one is happy to rely solely on the
authority of others, and simply to do what one is
told, without questioning whether it is right.

People often complain that philosophers think
too much. This may or may not be right, but when
one reflects on the evils that human beings have
committed, one might wonder whether they were
done because those committing them thought
about what they were doing too much, or too little.

Marie Docher/Photononstop/Photolibrary

Perhaps a more rigorous philosophi-
cal examination might have prevented
or sooner ended some of the atrocities
committed in the past.

Con Tanasiuk/Design Pics Inc./Photolibrary

Socrates insisted that we must, above
all, examine ourselves. Why do you
think Socrates thought this was so
important?

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 27 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1Section 1.3 Why Study Philosophy?

There may be some harm that comes from overanalyzing a situation, but genocide, holo-
causts, slavery, and the systematic oppression of large groups of people seems to result in
much greater harm. Should the people responsible for such things have stopped to ask if
they were doing the right thing?

We may not be successful at determining what all of our beliefs are, let alone providing
sufficient justification for those beliefs. But, as is often the case in philosophy, it may be that
it is the journey that counts, more than the destination. The benefits of self-examination at
least help us get clearer on what we believe and why we believe it. Think of it as a very long
drive, late at night. We may not reach our destination, ultimately, but won’t we have better
luck if at least our headlights work? Philosophy may not be able to get us to our final goal,
but it can provide the light that will at least be necessary for the attempt to do so.

Humans and the World Around Them

The philosopher Immanuel Kant famously wrote “Two things fill the mind with ever new
and increasing wonder and awe: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me”
(Kant, 1956, p. 166). This is a beautiful, succinct account of what one can take away from the
study of philosophy, and its appeal: trying to understand better the world around us and our
place within that world. Of course, part of that world also includes other people; as noted
earlier, it seems to be people (including, if not especially, themselves) that human beings find
the most fascinating. But Kant also recognizes here that part of this wonder is found within
us: our soul, our self-conception, and our willingness and desire to act morally. Thus, we
have these two fundamental aspects of philosophical inquiry combined here: the subjective
consideration of ourselves and the consideration of all those objects, including other people
that make up that world within which we find ourselves.

In recent times, philosophers have come to use,
more and more often, the term “conversation”
to characterize philosophical inquiry. This word,
interestingly enough, comes originally from the
Latin for “to live with or among,” and “to keep
company with,” and indicates a somewhat dif-
ferent conception than philosophy has tradi-
tionally had of itself. Rather than writing long,
complicated texts that present one’s views and
await responses—although, of course, this still
takes place—a philosophical conversation is
seen as fundamentally interactive. That is, the
parties participating in a philosophical conversa-
tion seek to learn from each other. This requires
respect, tolerance, empathy, and honesty, but
also the willingness to engage in a constructively
critical enterprise. In short, those participating
must be willing to listen to each other.

Creatas/Thinkstock

The study of philosophy encompasses
examining the world around us as well
as ourselves.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 28 12/1/10 7:23 PM

CHAPTER 1What We HaveLearned

Philosophers are not so naïve as to think this is a
particularly easy thing to do. As long as people
have engaged in debate and discussion, there has
also been the dogmatic refusal to listen to one’s
opponents and to offer genuinely constructive
criticism. It is not especially difficult to encoun-
ter intolerance for others’ views, and frequently
those views are rejected without being heard or
even taken seriously. Some views, naturally, don’t
deserve to be taken seriously, although it is not
always easy to determine whether a given claim
does or does not. But philosophers who empha-
size the conversational approach to philosophy
recommend our operating assumption is to listen
and try to understand others before challenging or rejecting those views with which we
disagree. While this approach may seem novel, in contrast to the practice of philosophy
for much of its history, it seems, in fact, to return us to Socrates. According to this view,
then, philosophy is a cooperative search for truth, requiring patience and a willingness to
listen to others, and within which we all have much to learn from each other.

In short, the philosophical pursuit seeks to help people examine their lives and their
behavior, as well as the lives and behavior of those who surround them and the natu-
ral world within which this all takes place. Critical self-scrutiny, honest and constructive
debate, and a cooperative and shared effort to seek the truth while learning from each
other marks the philosophical enterprise and provides a unique opportunity for us to
learn about ourselves, each other, and the world we share.

What We Have Learned
Philosophers, as we have seen, love to argue, and love to ask questions. While some find
philosophy frustrating because there never seem to be final answers, it is worth consider-
ing whether the kinds of questions philosophers examine are the sort for which we should
expect such final answers. One way of thinking about it may be to see that philosophy is
often quite a bit more interested in how we get to our destination rather than the destina-
tion itself. But it also offers systematic and rigorous ways of developing arguments, look-
ing at evidence, and providing reasons for us to navigate our way toward that destination.

• Western philosophy has explored the fundamental questions that confront
human beings.

• Some of these questions concern what we can know (epistemology), what we
should do (ethics), and what we believe (philosophy of religion).

• Understanding these issues may not solve our questions but will offer us many
advantages in supporting our own views, and provide important results in
defending our own beliefs.

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Philosophical inquiry often requires
cooperation and respect.

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 29 12/1/10 7:24 PM

CHAPTER 1Some Final Questions

Some Final Questions
1. What kinds of things have you wondered about that philosophers have also

spent some time thinking about?
2. What distinguishes the answers philosophers provide from the kinds of answers

an accountant or a chemist might offer?
3. Why is it important for a person to be able defend his or her beliefs?

Web Links

History of Philosophy Timeline
A very helpful Website that provides a timeline as well as a handy glossary, can be found
here:

http://www.radicalacademy.com/diahistphil.htm

Ancient Greek Philosophy
This Website offers more detailed discussions of classical philosophy, including those phi-
losophers after Aristotle known as “Hellenistic” philosophers:

http://www.philosophy.gr/

Empiricists and Rationalists
A quick summary of the different views held by empiricists and rationalists can be found
here:

http://www.mesacc.edu/~yount/text/empm-v-ratm.html

Introduction to the Five Branches of Philosophy
A nice overview of the basic components of philosophical inquiry can be seen here, with
links to more detailed discussions of each:

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/FiveBranchesMain.html

mos66103_01_ch01_001-030.indd 30 12/1/10 7:24 PM

http://www.radicalacademy.com/diahistphil.htm

http://www.philosophy.gr/

http://www.mesacc.edu/~yount/text/empm-v-ratm.html

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/FiveBranchesMain.html