Socrates's question

Do morals have anything to do with religion? Supernaturalists say they do. Their theory is, an action is good if God commands that it is good. Alternatively, an action is bad if God says that it is bad. So murdering is bad because one of the ten commandments says "thou shalt not kill". This kind of theory of morality is nice because it makes morals objective (have an truth value that is independent of what we think). We can resolve the differences between cultures by saying that there is only one right way of doing things, and that is what God commands. So cultures which practice polygamy (custom of having more than one wife) are wrong.

Generally, arguments which rely on the existence of God are considered bad arguments. This is because the existence of God is controversial in itself. Nevertheless, a stronger way to attack such an argument is to assume that there is a God, and show that the argument doesn't work anyway. Socrates, an ancient Greek philosopher, thus managed to show how Supernalism fails as a theory.

He asked: are actions good because God commands them, or does God command them because they are good? This question is very significant for Supernaturalism because it creates a dilemma. If it's the latter, then Supernaturalists must find another theory for what is good; if it's the former, then we can generate some pretty counter-intuitive examples as to why this cannot be. If murdering is wrong because God says it is, then God could say that torturing babies is good and then it would be! But this is absurd: we would never believe that torturing babies is good, no matter how much God said that it was. Some argue that God would not command such a thing. But what if he did?

So you don't have to be religious to be moral.


Further Reading:

• Gensler, H. J., 1998, Chapter 2, Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction, Routledge
• "Euthyphro" by Plato from The Collected Dialogues of Plato Including the Letters, Ed. Edith Hamilton & Huntington Cairns, Princeton University Press

Do numbers exist?

What would you say if I were to ask you, "do numbers exist"? You might say yes: we can count things so there is such a thing as number. On the other hand, you might say no. There are objects but there are no numbers; we make up numbers to make life easier.

This is a big ongoing debate in the philosophy of mathematics. What is maths? Nominalists say that its like a game of checkers. There are pieces (numbers) and there are rules (methods of calculation) but there is no meaning. This view is not widely accepted. If maths was just a made up game, then why does it have such useful applications in the real world? And why does each culture end up following the same rules?

A more plausible position is Aristotelianism. This view says that numbers exist as concepts. So we can't see them in the real world but they still exist because they exist in our minds. But what would happen if there were no people in the world, and no other intelligent life which could count? Would numbers still exist?

Aristotelianism is actually part of a bigger debate over the Universals. It tries to answer the following question: if all red things in the world were destroyed, would the colour red still exist? Aristotelianism says yes! The colour exists in our minds as a concept. But this faces the same problem as before. What happens if there are no minds to hold the concept? Does the concept die?

A popular position in the debate over the existence of numbers is platonism. This view holds that numbers and colours and all other properties (any adjectives you can think of) exist in a separate world - plato's heaven. So mathematics has an abstract existence. Unfortunately, this view is also problematic. If numbers do exist in this separate realm, then how do we know about it? Usually, if we know something, we had some sort of causal connection with it. For example, if I said that I knew there was a chair in the room, I would know because I saw it with my own eyes (or someone else who saw it told me about it). But in the case of abstract objects, we have no causal connection. Therefore, if numbers are abstract objects, we cannot know about them.

But we do know about them. We have an established discipline called mathematics. There is one more thing that is worth mentioning about platonism. It is called the Indispensibility Argument. It was formulated by Quine-Putnam and basically says that mathematics must exist because it is indispensible (it cannot be eliminated from) science. Field tried to show that Newton's gravitational theory could be proven without mathematics but it is doubtful whether he has succeeded in his endeavour. Even if he has, it is even more doubtful that he could achieve the same for quantum theory (our best theory of very small things). So it seems that mathematics must exist. But where?

Maddy has recently attempted to solve the problem. She suggests that mathematical entities have an abstract existence, but they do not reside in a separate realm. Rather, they are down here, with us. This solves the problem of our knowledge of mathematics. Maddy says that we know about mathematics because we have causal connections with the abstract objects. When we see three eggs for example, we can see the "threeness" as a set (group of objects). She attempted to prove this by showing that we have set-perceptive mechanisms. Also, once we understand the concept of number, we are able to deduce the rest through our use of logic.

So we have finally arrived at a view which allows for the existence of numbers as abstract objects and explains our knowledge of them. Please feel free to challenge this view...

I think, therefore I am?

"I think, therefore I am." Almost everyone has heard of this saying, but what does it mean?

It was coined by René Descartes, a famous mathematician, philosopher and scientist who lived in the 17th century. The phrase sums up one of the arguments he gave in his Meditations. If one truly opens one's mind to the possibility of what this argument is saying, it can lead to quite an altered state of mind, and a complete revision of this experience called 'reality'.  It is not unlike that feeling one has at the end of some movies where a piece of information is given which forces you to reevaluate every scene which came before.
 
Descartes is sitting comfortably by the fire. He decides to take on the challenge of discovering if there is anything that we humans can be absolutely certain of knowing. Can he be sure, for instance, that he is in fact sitting comfortable by the fire? He thinks that he could be having a dream.  So what can he be sure of?

Descartes begins his search by pretending that there is a demon who is continually inserting false beliefs into his head. So now, when he sees and feels the warmth of the fire, he can't be sure that the fire is there, as these sensations could have been thrown into his head by the demon. Descartes leaves his writing for a little in this skeptical frame of mind, being cautious not to be deceived by the demon. Everything that he sees, hears, touches, smells and tastes is no longer an indication of what is.

So when he returns to his writings, what does he find? He realises that the whole world might be an illusion created by the demon. Nothing around him, not even his own body, necessarily exists. But there is one thing that he can be sure of, and this is that he has thoughts. Therefore, his mind must exist! Otherwise, if the demon wanted to make him believe that he had no mind, he would have to insert that belief into his head, and he couldn't do this unless Descartes had one! Therefore, by logical necessity, if there is anything that he could be sure of, it is that if he thinks, he must exist. Hence the phrase: "I think, therefore I am."

However, this does not mean that we can be sure that other people exist - all we know is that "I", the thinker, exist.  It is very possible that every single other person which you perceive on a day-to-day basis does not, in fact, think, but only has the appearance of doing so.  What a frightening idea. You might like to try being suspicious of everything you see, hear or smell for the next few days, it really is a bizarre exercise. Of course, you don't have to believe in the demon, only the possibility that what you believe about this world may be a figment of your mind.


Further Reading:

• Descartes, R., Meditations on First Philosophy
• Bouwsma, O. K., 1949, "Descartes' Evil Genius", Philosophical Review 58, pp. 141 - 151

Welcome to Plato's Heaven!

Have you ever wondered whether morals exist? Or wondered whether you were the only one with a mind, and that others only appeared to think? Have you ever questioned the existence of a greater God? If you have, you have been delving into the mysterious world of philosophy!

 Philosophy could be described as the pursuit of truth in its purest form - if we can claim that there is such a thing.  This is arguably the birthright of every human being, and not just a few, white-bearded individuals, as it is commonly percieved.  My hope in creating this website is to make some of the ideas and insights of philosophy more accessible to all.

In philosophy, Plato's Heaven is a world of abstract objects. Every property is said to exist in this place. The colour "red", for example, is a property of apples, so there it exists.  So this name was chosen to create the space for beautiful and timeless abstract ideas.



Everyone is invited to contribute their interpretations of these concepts at the end of each post, so that another fresh perspective can be added to the relevant discourse.  Happy perusing!