imascholar

• Wissen(knowledge)soziologie – attempt to under knowledge of ideas, culture
• Humans think both with and against one another by class, religion, tribe, nationality, individually
• We acquire our ideas, we get indoctrinated
• Marx’s statement in the prefix – its social being (existence) that determines social consciousness – he is not happy about that
• Conditions of social existence determine what we think, how we think
• We are divided not only by material interest but also by diverse ideology
• Ideology as false consciousness, misleading, counter-productive
• Position we occupy in soc tends to determine how we view ourselves, others and h world
• We develop Weltanschauung (world/view+outlook)
• In medieval Europe each group had diffn ideology and it was isolated, no mixing of ideologies at that time, little contact bwn them
• In Enlightenment aristocracy engaged in self-criticism under influence of Voltaire
• In middle ages nothing happened that could change a peasant’s view of the world
• Then in transih to ind/cap society new ideas emerged and penetrated consciousness of all strata and classes
• While we gain clarity from epistemological questions (are our ideas valid or not) or even psycho questions, there is another point of view to take in account is sociological view if u r interested in origin of ideas
• Connection bwn social system in which we live and what we think
• In weber’s study of protestant ethic we find real sociology of ideas, how capitalist spirit is rooted in protestant ethic
• “the last shall b h first” in New Testament, biography, soc structure and history to study to understand it
• phenomenon of resentiment (spiritual revenge) appealed to early Christians bcs of their oppressed state, they created utopian ideas (ideology is ideas how powerful legitimize their privileged status), utopian ideas challenge and attempt to repudiate the claims of privileged and powerful
• only by studying social context we can understand why they say the “last shall be the first”
• early xtian thought was utopian as it xpressed resentiment of the oppressed
• their weakness lead them to deprecate power, and glorify pacific outlook “turn the other cheek”
• since they are too weak to have political aspirations “render into Caesar things that are caesar’s”
• roman values were inverted
• two conceptions of ideology: particular and the total
• particular focus on individual more psychological than sociological
• prostitution of the pen – generate deliberate ideology – outright lying all the way to self-deception or honest ignoramus (Gebbels if u lie enough ppl will believe at least part of it)
• Tocqueville – Gobimeau (races of the world)
• Debunking or unmasking of person (you say that bcs u were brought up this way) there is no end to this, no general criteria
• Total conceph – ideology associated with a class, or an epoch – could be a nationalist ideology : example is Conservative or liberal thought
• RCR as an opposition to Enlightenment ideology
• Reaction not only ag events and new developments but also ideas: its ideas vs ideas
• We first discover Situational determination – being tied up with ideas – of our opponent’s ideas, we fail to look critical at our own ideas and recognize that our own ideas are also situationally determined
• Special form of total conception of ideology – we discover self-serving ideological dterminations that our opponents are doing
• When opponents argue against us we find that our ideas are also sit/determined
• Marxists started to uncover liberal/conservative ideas – bourgeoisie ideas were hypocritical, soon they returned the compliment
• Marxism was also sit/determined, then we start to subject all ideas to analysis – general form of total conceph of ideology – if we do in objective attitude – that’s what is called Sociology of ideas
• Not a relativism – bcs some perspectives gives us more valid insights than others
• Discovering the origin of idea does not prove it true or false (British anthropologists in India)
• So sociology of knowledge is no substitute to of the validity of idea
• …
• in middle ages intellectuals were attached to church for instance so it set limits on their outlook and their expressed ideas
• then they became “relatively-unattached” intellectuals
• it happened during the enlightenment and afterwards in 18-19C with growth of universities
• for first time not only aristocrats went to universities but more and more of middle classes and soon there was maybe even an overproduction of intellectuals
• nothing as dangerous and discontented intellectual bcs he can become a prostitute of the pen
• in 18 c u had a salon, coffee shop, small audiences
• intellectuals are not a class, not above class, they can serve any class, they are ideologues, they can serve any master (prostitutes)
• privileging intellectuals epistemologically is maybe too far (for Zeitlin)
• Mannhaim talks to two groups at least: to bourge he says that their laissa faire leads to disaster – we need democratic planning (S-simonian); to working class leaders he says that u wanted crises to improve ur situation, but look where it led to in Germany and Russia
• M tries to mediate bwn capitalist class d working class
• He tries to introduce the third day (Scandinavia), form of social democracy
• John Keynes a genius, many new ideas – make constructive work to occupy ppl, give them purchasing power to buy accumulated goods, make them build schools, bridges
• Mixture of Keynesiam and Social democracy to avoid eco crysises and totalitarism
• Era of masses easily manipulated by dictators bcs masses are atomized
• 397 last paragraph, hierarchic, organic and guided by scientific elites and need for new social philosophy based upon Christian values, altruism/self-sacrifice, a body of priests to maintain this ethics
•

⁃ He opposed socialism, he tried to conceive of a new type of human organization and community which he described as organic solidarity
⁃ He took many ideas from San Simone
⁃ Organic thinking, society sui genesis (reality in itself), social realism in opposition to social nominalism
⁃ Weber was nominalist, society consists of individuals and this idea is central to discussion of society
⁃ • When people form communities they become realities in themselves – soc realism
⁃ • Durkheim had evolutionist view (from mechanic to organic solidarity) and realist, he was positivist (study human beings as u would study physical phenomena), also a functionalist (from S-Simone, it means in any given society there are social structure/institutions that serve definite functions, which are always positive in traditional view)
⁃ • Tautological argument (circular) if structure exist it performs some kind of function otherwise it won’t exist
⁃ • Merton came up with notion of disfunction, some institutions need to be rid of
⁃ • Durkheim had a view that humans are instruments not authors of social systems, we r passive
⁃ • As opposed to George Herbert Mead, we are not only “me” as objects acted upon but also “I’s” we are creative
⁃ • Industry as a unifying force (S-Simone’s idea), prevent conflict, wars;
⁃ • Du gives a lot of expertise to social scientists who should ran a society, positivistic idea
⁃ • Integrative consequences of industrial division of labor
⁃ Problem of Order for Durkheim as it was for Hobbes
⁃ • S-simonians were v influential in france in promoting industrialization as building rail road systems
⁃ • They proposed hobbesian solution to the problem of order, scientists and industrialists should be the ruling elite in society – leviathan, supreme power for Hobbes
⁃ • Utilitarians opposed s-simonians, it began with Adam smith, David Ricardo, Stuart Mill classic economic English tradition
⁃ • Key ideas are: economic system as guided by invisible hand, gov’t shd’t interfere, laissa faire gov’t it will lead to greatest good for greatest number; property classes were only ones taxed so they preferred as little tax as possible, nobody taxed working class
⁃ • 1819, Swiss Economist Sismondi published a book criticizing utilitarians, he demonstrated that in times of eco crises h poor suffer most and its not the case that laissa fair policies lead to greatest good fr h greatest number
⁃ • there were always gov’t subsidies for projects (railroads) and utilitarian theory never worked
⁃ • Durkheim wasn’t satisfied with that too
⁃ • Utilitarians talked of contractual relations, that are always based on self-interest, it follows that contracts can only bind temporarily bcs if it stops to serve ur interest u will not renew the contract or try to get out of it
⁃ • Also if everyone pursues his own interest won’t it lead to the war of each ag all
⁃ • So interest can’t unite, its fickle
⁃ • Nor hobbesian nor utilitarian theory can solve problem of order
⁃ • They overlooked the non-contractual elements in any contract
⁃ • Contract is always made according to law and moral elements which are outside the contract, they impose concrete duties and obligations on the two parties
⁃ • Jaurez, famous socialist and also Durkheim’s students were almost all socialist
⁃ • So He had to deal with socialist arguments, he didn’t like socialist presuppositions such as necessity of class conflict, D tried to get around it
⁃ • Socialists proposed radical revolutionary changes, which D despised
⁃ • Socialists argued that ind division of labor is not a matter of regulation but a system of structural inequality based on classes with conflicting material interests so u need fundamental changes to deal with it
⁃ • D rejects all three schools d tries t offer his own alternative, a convincing rebuttle, a theory that mediates between Comte and Marx by relying on their common ancestor: S-Simone
⁃ • Dispersion or even conflict in complex division of labor between various occupations, lack of common interest between people, division labor will pull people apart
⁃ • “Division of labor in society” later thesis of Durkheim
⁃ • concept of mechanical solidarity, pre-industrial system in primitive village community or medieval feudal village, demographically small (300 ppl)
⁃ • they have common consciousness of kind “conscience collective” to illustrate it one must not say that action shocks the common conscience because its criminal but its criminal because it shocks the common conscience, deviant act its one that violates common fundamental principles of our community
⁃ • crime is a wound, to heal it ppl punish, retaliate the offender
⁃ • D, new industrial division of labor has positive, integrative consequences; objectively speaking division of labor unifies people because of objective interdependence, we need each other bcs of specialization, exchange of services and reciprocal obligations
⁃ • But he admits that newer higher form of solidarity is not emerging in reality, he said if the system was working normally it would have the above proposed positive consequences, its not happening bcs its afflicted with 2 pathological forms of division of labor
⁃ • First one is Anomic (greek nomos, rule law or norm, so a nomos = absence of that)
⁃ • Second is Forced division of labor
⁃ • at first there was absence of legal norms that could regulate labor management relations so to avoid anomie u need to introduce them
⁃ • p341-2, relation of order to justice, higher organic solidarity requires new rules and they have to be just, justice implies basic social equality
⁃ • p342-3-5, contracts need to be not only legal but just
⁃ • some contracts are made bwn unequals when some are compelled to enter into contracts, weber’s whip of hunger, voluntary contract when u have no choice, such a contract can’t be just, even if it is based on mutual consent, on p343 he says, “only when freely given, consent is just and is a binding force in contract”
⁃ • he talks about abolition of private inheritance (!!!)
⁃ • contract is just only if its not the means of exploiting one of the sides
⁃ • inequality at birth prevents just society, private inheritance is an obstacle
⁃ • he wants inheritance to pass onto to occupational guilds
⁃ • voluntary associations that would mediate bwn individual and the state, only if organized people can argue with the state
⁃ • problem is that some guilds can impose their will on the state (like Lawyer association or medical)
⁃ • p345, equity, D addresses cultural capital, man shouldn’t be better treated if he has more talent
⁃ Sociology of Deviant Behavior
⁃ • he tried to counter act Cesare Lambrosa’s theory of deviance as psychological/physiological traits
⁃ • D suggested that crime/deviance is a normal phenomena
⁃ • But u need to study biography of people who are sociopaths and psychopaths, they exist
⁃ • Suite crime
⁃ • P346, even in society of saints u will have deviant behavior
⁃ • Generally normal human beings engage in crime and there is no society without crime or deviance
⁃ • There is normal deviance and extraordinary deviance as Socrates
⁃ • P345, Normal is what is statistically prevalent, most widespread behavior
⁃ • Punishment as reaffirmation of societies values
⁃ Sociology of Religion
⁃ • “elementary forms of religious life” D’s book
⁃ • Australian aboriginals as most primitive
⁃ • What is religion, E.B. Tylor “religion as belief in spiritual being” D rejects it
⁃ • Buddhism has no such beliefs and all societies distinguish bwn sacred and profane
⁃ • Animism – Tylor, idea of soul originates in dreams and visions
⁃ • How did people become Sacred after death? Like in ancestor cult veneration
⁃ • Other school – naturism, they argued that divine/sacred idea emerged from awesome natural spectacle’s (volcano, hurricanes)
⁃ • Totemism most primitive elementary form of religion
⁃ • Totem is an emblematic symbolic representation of animal species or vegetable
⁃ • Aboriginal exogamous clan units each under an emblem
⁃ • Totem was perceived as a father often
⁃ • And its v Sacred
⁃ • Churinga – sacred instrument, bull roarer, only special people could touch it
⁃ • Even though females and children could not touch it but they could contact with a totemic animal, but not totemic emblem
⁃ • Its sacredness did not come from the animal, but it means that it represents something else – the divine, supra divine impersonal force “moira” fate
⁃ • Where does idea of divine comes from? It comes from society, divine is collective representations of social experience, society is powerful, it existed before and will exist after us
⁃ • Effervescent occasion – excitement feeling, sense of bliss

⁃ pareto reacts ag premises of libera demo and marxian socialism
⁃ irrational man is his image that he tries to assert
⁃ they are engaged in debate with marxist ghost
⁃ marx chapter on historical sociology for next test
⁃ neo-machiavellian or elite theorists
⁃ humans r self-interested, its constant and immutable, will never change to altruistic
⁃ it led to good possibilities if we study history, where we find recurrent patterns
⁃ hindsight provides a servicable degree of foresight, we can't predict the future but we can get a sense of range of possibilities
⁃ pareto participates in revolt ag enlightenment in 19, 20 c
⁃ he argues that humans aren't rational wherein marx was heir of enlightenement and saw humans as perfectible, class conflict encreased human potential of freedom but pareto talked about circulation of elites instead of class struggle, he said that this circulation had no positive consequences for the people
⁃ he said humans are impelled to act by non-rational forces: sentiment=instinct (cultural factor or value) and Ideology moves us: religion as product of sentiments and human needs, its constant and fundamental regardless of forms it assumes
⁃ religions of socialism and humanitarianism is growing while personal god religion is in decline (pro-Nietzschean)
⁃ "treatise on sociology" of 4 volumes, first deals with logico-experimental thinking and non-logical-exp thinking and action
⁃ logico-experimental means that there are few areas in human conduct that confirms to it, scientist in laboratory is guided by strict rules in laboratory to achieve a goal; economic man, homo economic, capitalist entrepreneur is at least logico-experimental in self-interested way and is guided by certain rational rules
⁃ his aim is to propose that sentiment is determining factor in human conduct
⁃ his key concepts are: sentiment, residue, derivation
⁃ sentiment has causal priority for most part but not always
⁃ creates a pater of action, verbal or non-verbal
⁃ derivation is ideology (roughly) "ideology is like breath ..." it blinds us to certain truths, equivalent to ruling ideology in Marx which leads to false consciousness
⁃ also equivalent to Max Webbers "legitimation" formula for authority and power, how do rulers seem to deserve to rule and claim legitimacy for themselves, they do it with formula ie divine right of kings, or will of the people under constitution (president)
⁃ Mosca's political formule to claim legitimacy to ur position
⁃ sentiment is fundamentally ambiguous
⁃ Pragmatists rebunked concept of instict (?): instintualists vs behaviorists
⁃ instict is mechanism that tells organism how to behave in specific circumstances, so humans don't have it and certain animals like bears and tigers don't have it too
⁃ impulse and capacity, animals come into the world without knowledge of behavior how to hunt, but they come into the world with potential to become, if they are raised in captivity they won't know how to hunt
⁃ what about sexual instinct, not instinct but impulse, humans are perennially sexual, not time limits governing behavior, but for some animals its estro(us)cycle
⁃ is there such thing as maternal instict (?) not really, not everybody has it and to different degrees
⁃ only 7.000 yrs bcs when people began to practice agriculture in neolithinc revolution and they settled down and attached to territory
⁃ attachment to territory is not bio but due to economic, cultural
⁃ instict is waste-basket term, it doesn't explain anything
⁃ pareto does something misleading when he uses sentiment as instinct
⁃ two forms of residue
⁃ one is instinct for combination 31, qualities such as inventiveness originality
⁃ second is instinct is for persistence of agrigates, repeating patterns of behavior (unoriginal behavior)
⁃ most people show little talent and originality - instinct for combination - Elite - superiority of 2 out of 20, while other 18 persist in certain patters over and over again
⁃ elite, grade people on score of 0-10 :D
⁃ 6 classes or types of residue, 6th one is sex residue on page 279 ff;
⁃ 281, sentiment in thinking and theory of derivations
⁃ Pareto is positivist, materialist and functionalist, every institution performs a function and hence it exists
⁃ Malinovski's "magic, science and religion" even thought natives Trobrianders practice magic, they are scientific in their behavior (agriculture or deep sea fishing) they won't go out in a cloudy day to fish and they know how to build boats, but they realize that unexpected things happen and people die, so they carry a canoe magician, it fulfills the function of lowering their anxiety
⁃ they also do lagoon fishing, very safe and boring, and in that case they used no magicians
⁃ Pareto with his blanket generalization is not adressing sociological questions
⁃ section Society, Elites, and Force
⁃ elite is not a sociological concept
⁃ some pikpockets are elite even (they can score 9 our 10), if they always succeed in picking pockets, eliteness is superiority in any area, its not yet governing elite, not yet in sociological realsm
⁃ all those who are elite are not necessarily in government (doctors can't be politians at the same time)
⁃ governing elite consists of very small minority of total population and among those there is preponderance of class one residues (instinct for combination) and preponderance of class 2 residues (persistence of aggregates) in masses
⁃ its not classes, where there is class consciousness and defence of their own itnerests
⁃ class implise recognition of collective interest, solidarity and consciousness where as elite theory implies mass, masses are atomized, they are torn from class context and they are vulnerable to demagogue and tyrant as there is a way of appealing to those people, u can control the masses with certain kinds of derivations by appealing to certain kinds of sentiments
⁃ revolutions are great religious tides, upward thrusts of lower classes strong in class 2 residues
⁃ to gain power u need to rely on power, force - lion tactic, but once u establish urself u become more like a fox, u become vulnerable to new lions, u need to allow for circulation of elites, lower classes are more physical eager to use force, so clever governing elite with even invite cooptation, if u use force against new emerging leaders, others may be offended and revolt, so its smart to invite the new elites, it beheads the masses, it renders them incompetent, as they now lack leaders (!) the mass can't do anything worthwhile without leadership
⁃ if circulation ceases, the elite collapses sweeping off the whole country
⁃ humanitariasnims is a desease, if elites don't use force it degrades and deserves to be overthrown
⁃ since governing elite is small, it is strenghtened by influx of class one residues and mass is weakened by loss of it, even thought masses have many class one in proportion to the whole number its small, so masses remain leaderless
⁃ soc296 social change seminar course
⁃ after the brake
⁃ Mosca is political liberal, he tries to debunk the rousseunian marxian fantasy, he saw some aspect of marxian outlook which are utopian, such as that there will be society without class and without ruling class
⁃ he is more sociological and more liberal politically
⁃ he rejects social darwinism and racial theories
⁃ social darwinism is survival of the fittest, he is there because he deserves to be there, it justifies the position of successful people, others are losers
⁃ social darwinism ingonres social/cultural conditions that allow people to achieve success "positions deja prises" = positions are already occupied, u have poor parents with no network for instance
⁃ social hierarchy is justified in darwining terms, but it simply does not apply
⁃ Morsca recognized that
⁃ he uses social structure, social types and social forces terms
⁃ its not struggle for survival but preeminence, struggle for wealth, powe and prestige and control over means of controlling others (means of production and control of the means of violence, administration) Trotsky - state is those who successfully claim religimate use of most effective form coercive force and have monopoly over it
⁃ Mosca cites Saint Simone who had influence over him
⁃ we need proper ruling elite possessing proper qualities at a particular for good leadership, need for new elites and new hierarchy
⁃ marx said that all history was history of class struggle, Mosca agrees with it but he rejects the vision of future state of classless society, marx was a little bit of evolutionist
⁃ Marx believed that class society rests on certain conditions, Mosca and Pareto saw this vision as utopian
⁃ Mosca's theory rests on the fact that ruling group in any society is organized minority d urles over unorganized majority, atomized masses
⁃ Mosca allows that pressure of discontent masses influence the ruling class
⁃ translating private troubles into public issues
⁃ organized minority is also strong by controlling strategic resources in society
⁃ there is no way to eliminate positions deja prises, some people will always have cultural, family, networks advantages
⁃ although organized minority has superior might and can repel any offence, they use it as last resort, his point is similar to marx and webber, generally ruling group stabilizes its rule by making it acceptable to masses by means of political formula (ideology), its not a trick and not something superficial, it has to resonate with fundamental values and sentiments of people thats why nationalism succeeds often
⁃ Fussel historian,
⁃ concentrate on Aristotle and MOntesque
⁃ Aristotle - decent society has to prevent polarization
⁃ class conflict had positve results in widening freedoms of lower classes (marx believed it too as did MOntesque)
⁃ mixed gov't , check's and balances and large middle class
⁃ and "balance of social forces", corporate interests, ethnic/cultural itnerests
⁃ in sociol-economic sphereu need dynamic equilibrium of social forces of approx same size (concern with Huge corporations)
⁃ juridical defence concept - civil rights and freedoms of press, assembly and right to trial by jury
⁃ he believed in unviersal sufferage but it wil never eliminate well organized ruling minorities
⁃ parlamentarism has defects but they can't be abolished bcs of BAD consequences
⁃ no autonomous social forces in USSR as in NAzi germany, no autonomous organizations to check the pwoer of the state
⁃ withotu all that tyranny and totalitarianism will result genocidally
⁃ Michel's classic work (student of max webber) "political parties" (!), he wants to demonstrate the iron law of olygarchy (its a metaphor, not a real law, but just a powerful tendency)
⁃ even in the most democratic party (as in germany "social-demo party") olygarchical tendency
⁃ August Bebbel leader of soc-demo party said "the party is me" he didn't like criticism
⁃ Rousseau recognized that price of liberty is eternal vigilance (keep an eye on ur elected leaders)
⁃ Michels said that demo requires organization of some kind of organizatio d leadership and organization almost inevitable leads to oligarchy
⁃ growth of complexity and demographical size requires some kind of functional coordinator, organizator such as when u play alone or two violisits, and with an orchestra u definitely need a leader, the structure of organization and growth of number of participants imposed structural needs for organization
⁃ symphany orchestra requires a CONDUCTOR, it doesn't work without it
⁃ Rousevelt was reelected 4 times and died in office, was he an olygarch bcs he got reelected?
⁃ the very people whom we choose to be our servants tend to transform ouselves into our masters

1/10/2006
Lec1: Berkeley

Knowledge begins with experience
Berkely, ideas in the mind, Locke/Hume, experience objects in the world

For rationalists We need god to guarantee that our ideas correspond to reality. For empiricist we can’t know that world corresponds to ideas produced in the mind, we have no guarantee (God). Unless we involve god we are left with skepticism in both cases, concerning connection b/w real world and our experience (ideas).

Rationalists, innate ideas -> (God) world

Empiricists, experience -> ideas, impressions in the mind

- Kant’s Theocentric view of knowledge (God’s eye view)
- it presupposes that there is a thing called a world that is completely independent of me and ways I can come to know it. External world and perceivers (cognisers), independent world,
- THING IN ITSELF, it has qualities that is not related to kind of conceptualization that we employ to understand the world.
- Why should world correspond to any theoretical framework? Can we ever have certain knowledge? Can we bridge this gap?

- Kant’s Copernican Revolution. Invert the picture about nature of knowledge and physical reality. Interactive model that implies interactive relation b/w mind the world which allows us to know some things about the world with certainty, to bridge the gap b/w mind and world.
- We come to world with certain kind of conceptual apparatus that allows us to gain knowledge about the world in a particular way. The world is structured such that there is connection b/w structure of the world and conceptual framework that we bring. What do we need to presuppose to make sense of fact that we distinguish in our experience b/w objective and subjective? This distinction creates skepticism. We always make distinctions but we resolve them at some later point.

- Kant looks for justification of Newtonian physics and theory of ethics, rightness of moral judgments. Kant believe that appealing to supernatural does not give truth about our world. Reason always pushes us beyond the bounds of knowledge. When we cross the line, we can’t answer any questions. Reason doesn’t see the line of boundary. Understanding knows and operates w/in limits of knowledge. Reason pushes us to extend knowledge.
- General structural level of experience, law of causality etc, regular stable features are necessary truths, we exp it in the same way.

- Level of particulars, color of table (colorblind) it varies, individual particular exp differ from person to person.

p686

- Berkeley's Dialogues
- Hylas, materialist
- Philonous, immaterialist (Berkley)

- Immediate objects of perception are ideas, what is the source? Other ideas or empirical objects that cause these ideas?
- B wants to deny existence of material objects, ideas are all that exist.
- What is wrong with materialist notion of objects, primary and secondary qualities distinction.

- For P material things can’t be perceived, thus are not real. Only ideas are real because they can be perceived by human mind. Real things are what is immediately perceived (ideas), thus only they are real.
- Philors introduce problem by means of introducing objects that can’t be directly perceived. It creates skepticism.

- Argument from relativity of sensible qualities, different ppl perceive qualities of objects differently,
- so are they real w/o stability?

- Second argument from inability of abstract, We can’t differentiate qualities from objects, so we can’t attribute reality to qualities and thus to objects.

Those 2 arguments are not successful ag materialist, yes we perceive ideas immediately not material objects but they are causes of ideas. What else is source of ideas?

- Argument, no ideas exist w/o mind. All things like ideas, are ideas, therefore, no things like ideas exist w/o the mind

- Another argument, all things like ideas must be compared. All things compared must be perceived. All things perceived are ideas, therefore, all things like ideas are ideas. He gives this ar to justify second premise of prev ar.


1/17/2006
Lec2: Berkeley ctnd

Is matter an ultimate foundation for reality? Place of god in explanation of phys reality, is he immediate cause of reality that we perceive or was he replaced by matter? Until Scientific revolution God played active role in the works of the world.
- If matter becomes the ultimate explanatory mechanism then what is god’s role? Berkeley wants to restore the proper place of god in context of phys explanation.

- Two versions of materialism.
1. primary qualities were real, resided in material bodies, ideas were copies of those primary qualities
2. neither primary qualities nor bodies are immediately perceivable, but ideas are, but they cause ideas

B argues against both version of materialism. We don’t get access to these objects and qualities so how can we talk about them, name them as causes of our ideas. To show that material bodies don’t exist, B says:
"that everything that resembles and idea must be an idea, so material bodies don’t do any work. Notion of material bodies defined in terms of primary qualities are unperceivable and impossible"

If our ideas resemble material objects and only ideas resemble other ideas than correspondence b/w material objects and ideas is undermined.

- Ideas don’t resemble material objects but only ideas.
- Ok, still mo are causes of ideas.
- What reason we have for saying that something that is unperceivable is cause of ideas that we have? We have no evidence for their existence.
- 2 arguments. From resemblance and resemblance.

B brings god into play as a guarantee stability of our ideas when we do not perceive them. “to be is to be perceived”.

- 3 problems with materialist position.
§ 1. belief in existence of matter entails skepticism, but we have no way of knowing that ideas resemble real objects, we don’t perceive it.
§ 2. belief in matter is a source of paradoxes, qualities that we perceive are in object so we mustn’t believe our senses (ideas tells us about things that we cannot perceive.
§ 3. belief in matter leaves God w/out an immediate presence, he becomes remote and unnecessary.

Argument in 2nd dialog. Matter is useless as a working hypothesis. Relation of similarity and relation of causation, two relations materialist appeals two in connection of ideas to material objects.

- Against matter as causal
§ 1). matter is an inadequate scientific hypothesis
§ 2) entities like mathematical hypothesis Don’t exist in nature
§ 3) materialist confuse the physical with metaphysical

i. distinction b/w useful things like laws of nature (Newton, empiricist) and math hypothesis (Descartes) (ex. There is infinite # of points on the line) they don’t function in real world, they have no relation to real world, no guaranteed reference and quality of measurement. B wants to equate things and ideas, whole world in our head, the whole world that we perceive is one of our ideas. We perceive external objects that are in themselves ideas. Things are not distinct from ideas – Immaterialism vs Materialism, things distinct from ideas.

How do we get new ideas, infinite existence of ideas = infinite mind. Only minds and ideas exist, ideas has to be perceived, so there has to be somebody else, mind greater than ours that perceives ideas and causes new ideas, infinite mind. Cause has to be efficient and active. Ideas are passive, they can’t be a cause of other ideas. Material objects are also passive, thus they can’t explain and produce ideas.

i. sensible world exists only if perceived by mind
ii. (troublesome) sensible world exists unperceived by human minds
iii. thus, sensible world must be perceived by an infinite mind.

- There is no guarantee that world is stable unless we introduce an infinite mind.

1/24/2006
Lec3: Berkeley last

- Immaterialism is not crazy, but only view that is consistent with common sense
- By 3rd dialog Hylos succumbed to immaterialism
- He begins doubting everything, complete skeptic
- Phylonus sees reason for this his prior belief in material objects, by which he created a dichotomy b/w ideas and things, mind and the world
- The rout of all skepticism is belief in material objects
- Immaterialist accepts testimony of the senses and he doesn’t try to draw inferences about how things can be, but he accepts world as he sees it
- Berkley equates being with perception, so it makes no sense to question reality of what you perceive “esse est percipi” or “to be is to be perceived”
- Common sense it that it makes no sense that what you perceive is ideas
- Being a good Christian implies being an immaterialist who sees god as cause of our ideas and mind instead of material objects
- God is the explanatory mechanism for knowledge and everything
- P4 (handout), about “Idea”: ideas are actually things, attempt to unite immaterialism with common sense, we are not giving up of things, rather things are ideas, rather than external material objects, immaterialism is [ things = ideas ] (!), other wise you don’t get agreement with common sense.
- 10 Objections to immaterialism, 3 strategies for answering objections to 3 types of objections
- we get idea of God upon reflection on my soul (?)
- what we indirectly perceive are copies of original divine ideas, we indirectly perceive ideas in God’s mind, looks like god has all of the ideas

1/31/2006
Lec4: Hume (God is “beep”)

- Hume’s argument about induction – opening – refocus ideas on human nature to understand human understanding
- All philosophy = moral (history, ethic and politics) phil or natural phil’
- Relation of ideas – conclusions about ideas
- Matter of fact
- a is b, b is c, then a is c -> deduction
- the sun rose yesterday and every day before it, so it will rise tomorrow – induction, probabilistic argument, experience
- we seem to be able to cause and justify our inferences on the baiss of experience
- what is the nature of our minds in general
- diff between perceptions
- Perceptions:
o impressions - sensations (colors etc), feelings (sadness, love);
o ideas – copies of impressions – less vivid and lively
- To think, I combine, enlarge and diminish ideas, I transpose them and abstract them
- Copy principles – all ideas are copies of impressions, so then what is the example of the missing shade of blue? Presence of counter example does not mean that we are not justified in believing in this principles, all things are probable in fact, not certain
- So whence idea of god?
- Not only perceptions are in the mind but also associative mechanisms (principles) – ways in which ideas are linked and follow one another
- Such as: resemblance, contiguity (closeness in space/time), causation (cause & effect)
- We draw conclusions (one idea following another) based on relations between ideas and matters of fact*
- Deductive reasoning have nothing to do with matter of fact
- [Disgust linked to sexual attraction/repulsion]
- What is the nature of the conclusions I draw on the basis of matters of fact
o Present testimony of the senses
o Memory
- Why should we trust our senses? Because of cause & effect, the world causes impressions
- How do we get knowledge of relationship of Cause & Effect?
- Entirely from my experience from constant conjunction of objects or events
- We think that future will resemble the past -> that’s how we think of the world, principle of uniformity of nature
- My belief in causation is just custom or habit to draw these inferences
- What gives authority to my experience?
- There is principle of human nature that causes me to habitually make this inference from effect to cause or that the world is uniform and future will resemble the past
- Belief is a manner of conception more vivid and lively that an ordinary idea
- Is then everything that happens is due to chance? NO! its not chance, its not a priori but all is probabilistic arguments (!) how much we expect the outcome given the information we have, and that’s how probable the outcome is

2/7/2006
Lec5: Hume ctnd

Nature of Causation and Necessity d its relation to Liberty

- diff b/w fiction and belief is important, cause belief is placing the mind in certain kind of circumstance, customs give in large part birth to our beliefs (u see fire d assume that its hot)
- we can’t just believe sumthing
- fiction is sumthing we don’t believe
- difference b/w fiction and belief depends on how aspects of nature affects us in certain way, not our will,
- if we get thru sense a more vivid and lovely conception the more prone we r to believe it
- things that we imagine are not as lively thus not as believable, they are fiction
- knowledge
o relations of ideas – math, combinations of ideas we already have
o matters of fact – everything else, that stems from experience, such as
§ impressions -> ideas, connections (liveliness of ideas) result from: resemblance [pictures], contiguity [distance diminishes liveliness of ideas], causalism [cause d effect is basis of our everyday exp, but its not very reliable]
- Cause d effect is ground for all matters of fact
- Discussed in terms of “power” to produce a particular effect
- Whence impression of power? It happens over many instances, repetition of the event is necessary for us to conclude that particular event involves a notion of power
- We can’t expl connection b/w willing and acting in terms of our bodily movement, what is connection b/w will and motion? We don’t get clear idea of notion of power, understanding is beyond our comprehension, cause we never have an impression of power. All we experience is willing something and then doing it, the actual power that produce connection b/w willing d doing is not something we exp
- Newtonian laws give explanation of connections b/w causes d effects, forces d motion
- If we don’t have an impression of power, connetion b/w cause d effect then why did we start thinking in such terms
- Is there and what is the nature of necessary connetion?
- Constant conjunction of two events results in our psyche making a leap from impression of constant conjunction to the idea of necessary connetion
- We never get impression of necc connection only impression of constant conjunction
- Origin of idea of necessary connection is subjective psychological trait in us
- Reasoning about cause d effect has to do with constant conjuction in the world and our psychological trait
- Probability of chances ex coin, dice
- Probability of causes ex recovery with help of medication
- There is no dif b/w those two things, everything is contingent, in both cases force of custom makes u expect certain things
- Less options lead to more vivid belief, ie. 50% chance vs 2%
- There is some connection b/w motifs and outcomes that allows us to make inferences
- Liberty is acting in accordance with determination of the will
- Matter
o No necessity w.r.t. material objects
o Cause-> effect
- Human action
o Motives, strategies -> actions, outcomes
o Does absence of liberty entail necessity?
- notion of necessity is same in cause->effect and motives, strategies ->actions, outcomes
- but there is no such thing as absolute necessity in both cases
- there is only contingency, probability allows us to live in the world
- idea of necessity is subjective feature of our minds, necessity is an IDEA

2/14/2006
Lec6: Hume

- argument ag cause and effect does not effect connection b/w actions and motives and our moral behavior
- religion can be source of some kind of certainty
- What about Miracles? And Religion in general? How our skepticism works with it?
- Does existence of Humian skepticism undermine our knowledge and methods of acquiring it; problem of induction etc, how u live with such uncertainty?
- Hume has suggestions how to deal with it
- Certainty is something we can neva attain in this world
- Hume starts his discus of miracles with saying that evidence for xtian religion (& others) is less than evidence 4 t truth of our senses
- Zere was neva zat kind of certainty attributed 2 religion
- Its always contrary 2 reason to assert 2 a weaker claim, ze one we have less evidence for so that religion goes ag demands of reason, it should be weaker than ordinary xperience
- We should always belief in what we have more evidence for (our sense) rather than the opposite (religion)
- Hume says we don’t have certainty, but we have probabilities based on our senses,
- Strength of our belief should be directly proportional to the probability of ze evidence
- People have witnessed miracles!
- We believe more in testimony of witnesses if other people also tell the same story
- What is more probable, that witness is lying or that miracle happened?
- miracle is violation of laws of nature, what we came to expect based on our experience
- we have more certainty in things like laws of nature than one time occurrences
- miracles entail violation of laws of nature
- if we believe miracles that meant we trust more a one time occurrence than uniformity of physical laws, its contrary to reason!
- Miracles are attributed to events that shouldn’t be classified as such! Miracles have to be violations of laws of nature, of uniformity
- Miracles are true when chance of testimony is false is greater than chance that miracle has occurred
- In other words, what is more probable: testimony is false or laws of nature are violated
- The answer is clear
- We usually trust what makes sense most, not anomalies, but religion requires us to belief in anomalous, improbable things
- Fight b/w reason and senses, whence skepticism when reason pushes us to certainty and senses prove us wrong
- Our belief in miracles is founded on prior belief in religion & scriptures
- We can believe miracles ‘cause we attribute them to GOD, but inference about god is also not knowable and different from empirical world, how we connect God to the event of the miracle?
- Epicurus, pursuer pleasure for sake of enjoyment and not any kind of inherit virtue, he denied virtue, and rewards in heaven
- Hume tried to justify his skeptical inquiry
- Our belief in God is grounded on some kind of association of uniformity of nature, design argument
- Uniformity of world is due to a Designer! To justify this argument you need causation to say that god caused uniformity of nature
- Design argument is kind of causal argument
- Cause must be proportional to the effect, cause is only known by the effect so we can only infer as much power in the cause as we xperience in effect
- If we assume that god is cause of uniformity in nature and that god is cause of everything, we attribute more power to cause than we observe in effect
- We attribute attributes to deity, attributes which we have no xperience of
- Religion allows us to explain things we can’t explain in other ways, religion doesn’t allow us to predict things as science can
- To have legitimate claim of causal relations one instance is not enough, only when we see number of similar effects preceded by similar causes
- We don’t undermine fabric of society if we undermine religions belief, morality survives the criticism, idea that we should connect our moral behavior in this world to happiness in afterlife is crazy, moral actions are good in themselves, by breaking connection b/w morality and god, we can find real basis of justice and stuff, based on facts, real world
- Morality loose supernatural quality
- Another problem w/ design argument, we assume there is cause for footprint in the sand, when we see house we assume it was designed by somebody, we make inferences all the time, when we do that we do it on basis of past xp and number of reasons that have accumulated as result of past xp
- Check last 5 min of rec!!!

2/14/2006
Lec7: Hume end

- argument ag cause and effect does not effect connection b/w actions and motives and our moral behavior
- religion can be source of some kind of certainty
- What about Miracles? And Religion in general? How our skepticism works with it?
- Does existence of Humian skepticism undermine our knowledge and methods of acquiring it; problem of induction etc, how u live with such uncertainty?
- Hume has suggestions how to deal with it
- Certainty is something we can neva attain in this world
- Hume starts his discus of miracles with saying that evidence for xtian religion (& others) is less than evidence 4 t truth of our senses
- Zere was neva zat kind of certainty attributed 2 religion
- Its always contrary 2 reason to assert 2 a weaker claim, ze one we have less evidence for so that religion goes ag demands of reason, it should be weaker than ordinary xperience
- We should always belief in what we have more evidence for (our sense) rather than the opposite (religion)
- Hume says we don’t have certainty, but we have probabilities based on our senses,
- Strength of our belief should be directly proportional to the probability of ze evidence
- People have witnessed miracles!
- We believe more in testimony of witnesses if other people also tell the same story
- What is more probable, that witness is lying or that miracle happened?
- miracle is violation of laws of nature, what we came to expect based on our experience
- we have more certainty in things like laws of nature than one time occurrences
- miracles entail violation of laws of nature
- if we believe miracles that meant we trust more a one time occurrence than uniformity of physical laws, its contrary to reason!
- Miracles are attributed to events that shouldn’t be classified as such! Miracles have to be violations of laws of nature, of uniformity
- Miracles are true when chance of testimony is false is greater than chance that miracle has occurred
- In other words, what is more probable: testimony is false or laws of nature are violated
- The answer is clear
- We usually trust what makes sense most, not anomalies, but religion requires us to belief in anomalous, improbable things
- Fight b/w reason and senses, whence skepticism when reason pushes us to certainty and senses prove us wrong
- Our belief in miracles is founded on prior belief in religion & scriptures
- We can believe miracles ‘cause we attribute them to GOD, but inference about god is also not knowable and different from empirical world, how we connect God to the event of the miracle?
- Epicurus, pursuer pleasure for sake of enjoyment and not any kind of inherit virtue, he denied virtue, and rewards in heaven
- Hume tried to justify his skeptical inquiry
- Our belief in God is grounded on some kind of association of uniformity of nature, design argument
- Uniformity of world is due to a Designer! To justify this argument you need causation to say that god caused uniformity of nature
- Design argument is kind of causal argument
- Cause must be proportional to the effect, cause is only known by the effect so we can only infer as much power in the cause as we xperience in effect
- If we assume that god is cause of uniformity in nature and that god is cause of everything, we attribute more power to cause than we observe in effect
- We attribute attributes to deity, attributes which we have no xperience of
- Religion allows us to explain things we can’t explain in other ways, religion doesn’t allow us to predict things as science can
- To have legitimate claim of causal relations one instance is not enough, only when we see number of similar effects preceded by similar causes
- We don’t undermine fabric of society if we undermine religions belief, morality survives the criticism, idea that we should connect our moral behavior in this world to happiness in afterlife is crazy, moral actions are good in themselves, by breaking connection b/w morality and god, we can find real basis of justice and stuff, based on facts, real world
- Morality loose supernatural quality
- Another problem w/ design argument, we assume there is cause for footprint in the sand, when we see house we assume it was designed by somebody, we make inferences all the time, when we do that we do it on basis of past xp and number of reasons that have accumulated as result of past xp
- Check last 5 min of rec!!! (lol i didn't do it)

Best possible world and individual concept. When god picks you he creates the best possible world. In ur concept involved not only truth about you but your relation to everything in the universe in past/present/future. Logical connection b/w god creating best possible world and creating you.

Pre-Established Harmony? L's theory of causation. God created particular possible you, all the truths in your concept are contained in you. SO, everything contains its entire history already. Experience of time, its difference in expression of universe of each created individual at every moment of timeline that is contained in the each individual concept. My giving a lecture is my particular way of expressing the universe. Its more clearly expressed that I give lecture right now than that I spend all Sunday's night working on a paper, at this point in time that part of my timeline is not clearly expressed. But its equally true of me that I lecture you on Leibniz and also that something going on somewhere, it is equally contained in my individual concept.

Notion of expression is !!! We express more clearly those thing that happen right now and here than somewhere in other time.

Clock-Store. You walk in and all clocks strike 3pm. 3 ways u can explain that fact. Why they strike at same time?
Ok, obviously it must be the case that clocks cause each other to strike - causal powers theory of causation (Malebranche hates this view
Occasionalism - Ok, there is store keeper, they strike at same time not because they have causal powers, but because the store keeper makes 'em all strike at the same time. Clocks are occasions, and keeper willed the general law for them all to strike at same time
Pre-Established Harmony (middle view). Each clock contains causal power in a sense that each clock runs on its own but clocks don't affect each other (no outside powers in clocks). So why strike at same time? Well, it happens b/c that shop keeper set 'em in such a way that when they run on their own, they strike at same time.

Universe as a clock shop, and people are clocks that run on their own and all made by a clock-maker, he is so good that he can make things happen to all things at same time by setting clocks up at the very beginning, not intervening all the time. God set 'em up so that they fit pattern of best possible world.

When u express particular view about you, other individuals around also express truth about them, less or more clearly. So individuals don't directly operate on each other, but what we see that each guy expresses his own individual concept, so that they create a pattern of light, as causation in an ordinary sense. One light blinks after another, but they do not affect each other. Lights run a predetermined program that create patters - appearance of motion/causation.

Individuals have no real contact with each other. I have no direct experience of you, I have impressions that I assume are you. Existence of others is the best explanation of the pattern that we observe, experience.

L attack on thesis that we see all things in God (Malebranche), Ontologism, or Vision in God. Which is, we have infinite ideas that could come from our minds (how finite can contain the infinite) or that we perceive an object separate from us, ie God. For M its absurd to think that we can have infinite ideas, cause we r finite. Idea as immediate object of perception, M agrees that we can have ideas of infinite. L is sympathetic to M view. But he claims that its absurd to think that our ideas are someone else's. So we either perceive something infinite or how finite substance can include the infinite. L answer is that each substance in finite only in one particular way, I include in my concept all truths of god and nature, in myself I'm infinite. All finite things include truths about everything including infinite being. In ur concept can be contained infinite truths. L says, each individual is the image of god, but we can't see from all perspectives like god, but only from one perspective. God sees from every perspective but he sees every possible perspective in every possible world. We are more limited in our expression and perspective, but otherwise we r infinite. We see ideas in ourselves, not in god, we just don't see infinite clearly.

What can God know? Thomas Aquinas' view or Traditional View
1.
Things that are actual, have definite truth or falsity of being actual (if they actually happen its true that they actually happen)
2.
Things that are possible, known as truly possible, anything that is actual is possible.

Contingent counterfactual of freedom. Ex. if I watch TV tomorrow I will watch firefly. If I do watch TV and I do watch firefly, then its definitely true that both parts are true but whole sentence is compound, second part depends on first. If free will is ability to do otherwise than u actually do, then it's not clear that right now not having made decision there is any definite truth value to the claim of first part of sentence, it's possible I won't do it. Its contingent, its not necessary true, and implies free choice. Suppose I do something different, don't watch TV at all. It's a possibility b/c of free will I can do many number of choices, then first part of conditional and second are false. So it's a counterfactual proposition, ends up being false.

So is this statement a claim of possibility or of something actually true. Possible or actual? Mercy. One might say, there is no necessity in the link b/w two parts, I might watch something else. So even if I do watch TV, it doesn't follow I'll watch firefly. So, there is no definite truth value in connection b/w parts. No necessary connection in the link. Sentence is neither true nor false.

Molina suggested, suppose there is something true of false. Traditional view said that we have meaningful sentence that could be true or false but isn't actually true or false. So, suppose, this sentence is true or it's false. Not an absurdity. They won't divine knowledge to be as board as possible.

Traditionalist would say, there is a problem, you'd deny free will if you claim it is def true or false. My decision to go to store will logically imply me buying milk. If this is actually true, then we don't have free will. Molina had to reconcile two things. He denied all God's knowledge division into two categories. God's knowledge of vision (that are actual) and his self-knowledge (things are possible)

Possible natural knowledge (god knows his own power and thus all possibilities)
Middle Knowledge (wassup with that? Molina is not very clear about it)
Actual Knowledge of vision (nothing can exists unless god allows it to exist)

He sometimes refers to it as super comprehension. God knows your free will so well; he knows what you will do. Is it determinism? So what you would do is prior to your choice. Molina doesn't want to be a determinist. The way in which god knows our ability to choose freely is important, when he creates the world, he knows all possibilities the world can take, so God deliberates on all this possible orders of nature and he chooses one of them and creates the world that particular way and in this way it makes this sentence def true or false. God creates all universe from begin to end in one instant of creation.

Traditionalist will still say its determinism.

Molinism - Jesuits vs Dominicans - traditionalists. Another opponent of molinism are Jansenists. Strong view of divine predestination. They are determinists. Free will that is compatible to everything happening by divine determination. Dispute b/w Jansenists and Jesuits.

Leibniz develops his new view, he is a compatibalists (Jansenists) but he takes some things from molinists. For his this is the best possible world. There are a lot of possible worlds, order of nature, god can choose among them. God can only choose the world with simplest laws and richness of the effect, an intersection point b/w those two. L thinks that god has individual concept of every person. This concept contains what you did, doing and will ever do. When god creates u he actualizes this concept. Its true of me that I talk while in Russia somebody shot a bird. U r related to everything in the world in some way, so ur individual concept includes the entire world. When god chooses the world to create he picks one and creates you, in doing so he creates entire universe. If things were different then god would create someone else who is very similar to you. L kinda accepts middle knowledge, but on L view there are infinitely many possible Brandons and each is different, but very similar. In creating universe he creates only one Brandon. L is a compatibalist.

Mavpertuis is a physicist agreed with Leibniz about final causes in the world. He discovered the least action principle. Simplicity of laws is part of God's aim, purpose.

L's position on miracles (???). Everything in universe happens necessarily b/c god created it as best possible world. Since every individual concept contains truth about all others, L denied that there is any strong diff b/w miracles and ordinary operations of laws. Basic idea is that all truths in individual concept follow necessarily but not all are equally central to the individual. Some truths are more fundamental, like parents or feeling of hunger, there are degrees of centrality to the truths that are within one's nature. Very central things to me impose sharp limits on what I can do. Miracles relate to being in best possible world, it doesn't follow strictly from central core of individual concept but more from general high order laws of which we are ignorant. Creation and incarnation are two strict miracles that happened. They follow only form god himself, not from nature of this world.

Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716)

Rationals – search for foundation of science. L is lawyer, math hobby, invention of calculus, dispute with Newton. Now we use Leibniz notation. Criticized Cartesians laws of motion.

569 . L writes headings first.

On the divine perfection and that God does everything in most desirable way

God is absolutely perfect being. Consequences of it? Several entirely diff perfections in nature and they all belong to him in highest degree. What is perfection? Forms and natures that are not capable of highest (maximum) degree are not perfection such as greatest number involves a contradiction [ there is no max number ] (ex. Power's max degree is that covers all possibilities). Max degree of power/knowledge involves no contradiction!

Spinoza had sharp distinction b/w looking at world anthropomorphically (how we desire) and how it is really is, L disagrees with this distinction. L said, that 'the more enlightenment we are about god's works the more we'll find them in conformity with our desire'. God’s creation is such that perfectly wise man will find it perfect in every way. The more we understand creation the wiser we are the more our desire is precisely what we find in creation, creation becomes everything we can possibly want.

Against Those Who Claim There is no Goodness in God's Work or that the Rules of Goodness are Arbitrary.

1st one is Spinoza as his target. Works of God are good for the sole reason that God has made them. External denomination – [chair] label I put on things b/c I relate to them in a certain way, it does not identify anything in the thing itself. L says, some people say this: ”what makes world good is that God considers it good”, so goodness is external denomination, nothing in thing itself that makes it good. L denies this position, on the contrary, he says, things are good in themselves. Without seeing goodness in creations we have no way to conclude that god is good. By considering his works we discover their creator, works must carry his mark in themselves. If we recognize something good in creation itself and so deduce that their creator is also good. Otherwise we cannot conclude that god is good. Spinoza's develops idea that goodness is only extrinsic denomination. What makes a pie good is that god has decided, labeled pie as a good thing. L argues that perfections are in things themselves, they indicate excellence of objects themselves.

Voluntarism – goodness of things is result of divine will, it ends up making God a tyrant, arbitrariness, takes away our own judgment of goodness of things, evil and good is arbitrary. All act of will presuppose reason for willing and this reason is naturally prior to will.

Descartes' position on Eternal Truth – principle of non-contradiction or math truths. D thinks that these truths are true by the will of god. God is efficient cause, all truths are effects of divine will. This is example of voluntarism regarding eternal truths. No1 else agrees with this position. If everything depends on god's free choice to such degree, then we have to admit possibility that God could have created world where something could be black and not-black and 2+2=5. this position renders our reason useless, we couldn't know the world by pure reason. Rationalist couldn’t agree with it.

Naturalism - Spinoza argues that all truth follows from divine nature, which is logically prior to anything else in the divine. Intellect gives the will something to will about. S is a naturalist regarding eternal truth. Nature, intellect and divine will in that order. So eternal truths are result of divine nature and so prior to divine intellect and will, every truth follows from divine nature. S is naturalist. Malebranche has a different position: objective reason that makes us all rational is God's own self image. M is also a sort of naturalist about eternal truth, he said that God has to act as reason tells him to act because he by nature loves order which is part of reason, so god’s reason is more powerful than god. He always acts accordingly to his reason. For S all contingent truths are also necessary also, but hard to understand.

Leibniz is an intellectualist about eternal truths. Not only god’s will is productive, what makes things true, divine intellect is also a productive power, but acts in a diff way producing diff sort of thing. Will produces contingent truths that could be otherwise, not necessarily true. Intellect produces necessary eternal truths, the opposite of them involves a contradiction. God does not produce truths out of free choice it is result of god's understanding of himself, these truth are result of God being rational. L has active view of intellect.

Why are those truths true? Is because nature of universe is that way, or maybe in some other universe some other truth are foundational.

Descartes makes necessary truths high level contingent truths. Spinoza collapse contingent truths into necessary truths, but just don't have the same knowledge as of necessary truths. L ultimate theory of relation b/w contingent and necessary truths is that last can be reached by finite analysis while contingent require infinite analysis and only god can do it. Malebranche position is that there are necessary and there are contingent truths and they are completely different sorts of things.

God acts necessarily in perfect ways

Is this the best possible world?

L says yes! And its obvious. God (perfect) so he acts in best possible way so does he make the world perfect? Aquinas says, yeah… but in a very limited sense. (teacher writes bad essay as example of errors to teach his students) Traditional view, yes god is perfect and always acts in best possible way and yes world is best possible but we don’t have a clear idea of what god is doing so it allows world itself be extremely imperfect. Another view (L has it in mind), Malebranche is his target. (Arnauld greatest critic of Malebranche).

God is able to make world more perfect than this one, where rain falls where needed. But to do it he will have to multiply laws of physics, no longer simple. In short, this world is very imperfect, M says, what matters is that god has to act in best possible way, simple and orderly way, b/c this world can be understood in simple laws of physics. L insists that this world is best possible world! Some aspects if considered on their own are not perfect, but taken as a whole, is the best. Simplest and richest way. This world unifies in the simplest way the richest diversity of effects. Two goals of god, to act in simplest way and to produce richest effect, this world is at intersection of those two goals. Proportion b/w god's action and what he does in acting. World with lot of minds and each mind can see it from different perspective, thus its kinda creating many worlds.

Nicolas Malebranche 1638-1715

Health problems. Priest in oratory of divine love, scholastics he didn’t like. Bookstore – treatise on man by Descartes, human body as extension, mechanistic terms. If Cartesian dualism is true, then mind is not mechanistic, we really are our minds, superior to our bodies. Ability to rise above physical limitations. Focus on mind, overcoming the body. M spread Cartesian ideas in Europe.

Ontologism or ‘vision in god’

We see all things in god, he is direct object of our mental activity, thru him we can think about anything at all. It was criticized widely.

Infinite, we can think bout things as infinite. We r finite yet we can recognize something as infinite. How? Well, we don’t really have any idea of infinite. World traveler argument. Perfectly round planet, man falls from clouds and starts walking on earth. He goes and goes, finally sits down. His journal: <0,1,2,3>, you can go forever. and so on as indefinite is Who knows how much more there is to go? Or ‘and so on’ as genuinely infinite as in math. We can make this distinction, which is in itself important. B/w indefinite vs infinite ‘and so on’. Then we do have some idea of infinite. Also, if we had no real idea of infinite, then Pythagorean theorem is false strictly speaking (infinitely precise number).

Q, this idea of infinite as we finite being have how is it related to us when we think about it. Is it in some way part of us, when we have intellectual perception of math. A puzzle! ‘how a finite being can contain something infinite?’. If we can’t contain something infinite, then that infinite we are perceiving is some object. So either we can contain an infinite (m denies) or what we think about when we think about infinite is actually existing something infinite, as perferct infinite being. When we think, we always think of something. When we think of nothing, we think of something really general, has no particular limits, its infinite, god. This thing has to be something, actually existing and distinct from us.

What if we think of finite and negating it, infinite is what is not finite. Ok, but w/o beggin the q, tell us how we rec things as finite? By recognizing that what we think about is not infinite. U can’t start with finite and then build infinite. Why? Infinite is not contructed out of finite, however if u have idea of something infinite, it gives u a way to recognize something as finite.

We might say, well we can take a bounch of finite things (circles) and smear them together in our minds, infinite grounds of possibilities. BUT, distinction b/w ‘and so on’s”. not indefinitely many possible circles but infinitely many possible circles.

God is precondition to any thought at all. This background contains all possibilities, when we think of any particular thing we recognize a particular way of infinite perfect being, rec potential of squares. Whenever we think of something we think of god, insofar as he cotains w/in himself a certain set of possibilities.

Still some ideas are more perfect than others, minds than bodies. Ideas in god have a certain order, and acc to it we measure ourselves morally. Universal reason as summing up of order of all ideas, all possibilities. Order is so fundamental, not even god can act against it. Reason there is ordre in god, that god has perfect self-knowledge, and in it he perfectly represents himself to himself. God loves his self-representation, so everything he does is part of his love of self-reason. So god can’t act contrary to order. We see this order, we have direct access to divine mind. This universal reason is 2nd person of the trinity “divine word”. God divine word is god’s intellectual conception of himself, traditional identification. But divine word is a ‘person’, thus reason is not a passive collection of ideas, it is a divine agent. It not only shows us ideas, reason shows ideas to us, thinking is done by divine word (god) not ourselves. It also gives us feelings, states of mind, like intellectual and moral conscience, gifts of universal reason.

Theory of idolatry

For Hume all ideas trace back to some sort of sensory impressions. M says that ideas are more fundamentally than impressions, all rationalists think that way. Hume is different. Impressions are more important. Ideas in terms of impressions. Yet Hume was very influenced by M thought, especially Hume’s theory of causation.

M holds that order is so fundamental that even god can’t act against it. God is good in general. God has to make everything that acts according to order. Being moral is acting according to order. But we don’t! b/c at some point we had a fall from reason. We have impulse, love of good in general (god), when we go wrong is when impulse to loving good in general occurs thru loving particular things (pizza). Problem is that we love a particular thing and we stop, instead of looking further for God.

Theory of causation – occasionalism

Bodies have power to act, causal powers, WRONG! Only god can be a true cause, only he can be as such that whatever he will, happens necessarily. Occasional causation, not true causation, bodies are not true causes, but occasional. God does everything acc to General Laws, or causal link b/w cause and effect. God is willing the general law so necessarily everything has to act according to it. Causation in regular world is regularity of events according to General Law. Things happen according to laws.

4 possibilities of where we get idea of cause: 1. external objects 2. will over bodies 3. will over mind 4. God. Hume argues against first 3, that this cannot be the source of our idea of necessary causation. Hume takes arguments from M.

Obj1, Billiard ball argument: All we see is one thing happens and then another thing happens.

Obj2, Anatomy arguments: when I will my hand to move, I don’t have any control over what is happening in my body, I don’t have direct access to way my muscles move or nerve signal travels, I trust that everything will occur according to laws, I only will and acc to general law my hand moves.

Obj3, Creation from nothing argument. Will over Mind: I will to think of something and it pops up in our mind. U think you create things from nothing. Its absurd to think you can create things from nothing.

Hume is skeptic, empiricist, very close to atheist. Similar to Malebranche's Idolatry, he has similar account to how paganism arises. P761, when ppl attribute bodies special power to make them happy or sad, hurricane or lightning is caused by some being.

Obj4, Hume breaks out from Malebranche. Hume argues, if we get idea of causation from god, then anything could happen, even most absurd things and there won't be any regularity. Malebranche disagreed, his occasionalism is in part based on his ontologism, that we have access to divine reason, which is divine order.

God, Free Will and Evil

Two basic positions, Jansenism – Determinism vs. Molinism – attempt to have both claims that god is omnipotent and all knowing and that we have general free will. M wanted middle position: so J are right in some sense; what free will is not something positive, like causal power, that would be a divine quality, but our free will is actually of free won’t. everything positive in our free will is directly from god, we contribute a limitation, we stop at something that we shouldn’t. God allows evil! (Leibniz) M argues that its impossible to have a completely perfect world, logical contradiction. For every world god could make he could make better one. Our world is under construction, incomplete, in it god chosen to act in simplest and most fruitful ways (general laws) so b/c of that evil happens. God act necessarily perfectly according to order but he makes and imperfect world as he is morally required to do so b/c acting in simplest ways allows evil to exist in imperfect world on particular level. Things go wrong on particulars, when everything is done on general laws. B/c god acts perfectly there is evil in this world. Leibniz would say that acting perfectly will create perfect things. He will argue that we live in best possible world. For M its an oxymoron, logical contradiction. 1-8 Discourse.

"That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists"
"Freedom is acting in accordance with one's own nature" B. Spinoza

Why all this? To find true, basic, firm, fundamental happiness.

He starts with axioms and definitions (geometrical/synthetic method)

"By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself"; "By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence"; "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence."

The definitions of Part One are, in effect, simply clear concepts that ground the rest of his system. They are followed by a number of axioms that, he assumes, will be regarded as obvious and unproblematic by the philosophically informed ("Whatever is, is either in itself or in another"; "From a given determinate cause the effect follows necessarily"). From these, the first proposition necessarily follows, and every subsequent proposition can be demonstrated using only what precedes it.

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections (modes).

By definition 3 & 5

Proposition 2: Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. (In other words, if two substances differ in nature, then they have nothing in common).

Attributes are exclusive properties of substances

Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.

Axiom, to understand effect you have to understand it in terms of its cause, meaning, is that substance can’t be understood as an effect because in this case it would be understood in terms of something else and wouldn’t be a substance.

Proposition 4: Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes [i.e., the natures or essences] of the substances or by a difference in their affections [i.e., their accidental properties].

Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.

Proposition 6: One substance cannot be produced by another substance.

Proposition 7: It pertains to the nature of a substance to exist.

Substances are causa sui, their nature involves existence because they can't be caused by anything.

Proposition 8: Every substance is necessarily infinite.

If it were finite it would have to be limited by something of same nature. Finite substance involves a contradiction.

Proposition 9: The more reality or being each thing has, the more attributes belong to it.

Follows from Definition 4, "by attribute I mean that which the intellect perceives of substance as constituting its essence", so if God is a substance of infinite attributes, then he must exist.

Proposition 10: Each attribute of a substance must be conceived through itself.

Proposition 11: God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists.

The proof of this proposition consists simply in the classic "ontological proof for God's existence". Spinoza writes that "if you deny this, conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore, by axiom 7 [‘If a thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence’], his essence does not involve existence. But this, by proposition 7, is absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists, q.e.d."

Proof #3, "To be able to not exist is weakness; on the other hand, to be able to exist is power, as is self-evident. So if what now necessarily exists is nothing but finite entities, then finite entities are more potent than an absolutely infinite Entity - which is absurd".

Proposition 12: No attribute of a substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided.

Proposition 13: A substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible.

"If it were, its possible parts will either retain the nature of absolutely infinite substance, or not. In former case, there would thus be several substances of same nature, which is absurd. In the latter case, absolutely infinite substance will cease to exist, which is also absurd".

Proposition 14: Except God, no substance can be or be conceived.

So it, “It follows’ that the thing extended, extended sub and thing thinking, mental substance are either attribute of god or affection (modes) of attributes of god."

Spinoza was excommunicated for begin against anthropomorphic conception of God. In short, God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, uncaused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.

This proof that God -- an infinite, necessary and uncaused, indivisible being -- is the only substance of the universe proceeds in three simple steps.

First, establish that no two substances can share an attribute or essence (Ip5). Then, prove that there is a substance with infinite attributes (i.e., God) (Ip11). It follows, in conclusion, that the existence of that infinite substance precludes the existence of any other substance. For if there were to be a second substance, it would have to have some attribute or essence. But since God has all possible attributes, then the attribute to be possessed by this second substance would be one of the attributes already possessed by God. But it has already been established that no two substances can have the same attribute. Therefore, there can be, besides God, no such second substance.

Two Sides of Nature

There are, Spinoza insists, two sides of Nature. First, there is the active, productive aspect of the universe -- God and his attributes, from which all else follows. This is what Spinoza, employing the same terms he used in the Short Treatise, calls Natura naturans, "naturing Nature". Strictly speaking, this is identical with God. The other aspect of the universe is that which is produced and sustained by the active aspect, Natura naturata, "natured Nature".
By Natura naturata I understand whatever follows from the necessity of God's nature, or from any of God's attributes, i.e., all the modes of God's attributes insofar as they are considered as things that are in God, and can neither be nor be conceived without God. (Ip29s).

There is No Purpose & Everything is necessary the way it is

To see God or Nature as acting for the sake of ends -- to find purpose in Nature -- is to misconstrue Nature and "turn it upside down" by putting the effect (the end result) before the true cause. Thus, things do not exist for a purpose and there is no problem of evil as such, question occur only when we think of thing in reference to us, which his false and stupid.

Spinoza's God is the cause of all things because all things follow causally and necessarily from the divine nature. Or, as he puts it, from God's infinite power or nature "all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles" (Ip17s1). Everything is absolutely and necessarily determined.