But why should I? Because I said so!

Hello,

Why do we obey the government?

Are our obligations to the state founded on any sort of consent?

If we have no real choice is our consent meaningful?

How can we consent to something if we are ignorant to the topic?

If there is no god given ruler, why should we follow anyone other than ourselves?

Well philosophers have supposedly come up with the answers to these question by chiefly debating the types of consent which occur and the scenarios in which this consent presents its self. There are two types of consent, the first being EXPLICIT which is basically when you say: "I totally agree to that 100% - where do I sign?" the second being TACIT consent, an idea pioneered by John Locke, this type of consent is where you do not explicitly consent to anything but you are consenting in some way. For example if you use the roads or the NHS or anything else provided by the government then you are consenting to the laws of the government. Locke thinks that even just living in a country means you agree tacitly to every thing that country does, and the only way to dissent is to leave the country all together... this isn't fair is it? What if you couldn't afford to leave? It's essentially: my way or the highway! In my view this doesn't warrant an actual choice. This was Hume's objection, he didn't think that leaving a country was an acceptable form of dissent. Hume used this analogy:

"Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives from day to day by the small wages he acquires? We may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean, and perish, the moment he leaves"

- Hume, "Of the Original Contract"

So you have probably already realised that there are absolutely loads of objections to both types of consent, (I will get on to objections to explicit consent later on). Firstly it's very easy to slam Locke and his notion of tacit consent, we can just sate that consent needs to be meaningful to be of any value, so you need to be able to dissent if you wanted to. His consent is similar to a bully forcing people to write them christmas cards at school... the message of good will written inside wouldn't mean anything if you were just writing it to keep you pocket money.

Tussman has some objections regarding tacit consent, which focus on the fact that people are ignorant:

"If we do not explicitly consent we are mere political child-brides"

This quote means that if we are ignorant to what we are consenting to then we will simply not know what duties we are supposed to perform in society, as a small child will not know the duties she is supposed to perform as a wife.

So those are the main objections to tacit consent, and from these objections so far it seems that none of obligations are founded on consent... Any other ideas?

Well Rawls (pronounced rules), had a go and answering the question. John Rawls came up with a famous thought experiment that would create a 'fair' and 'just' society. This is it: imagine that you're setting up a society - but the catch is you don't know where you will slot in when you're done. Rawls calls this the "veil of ignorance".

He sates that IF society was orgainsed in this way THEN we would sign a contract explicitly consenting to the government, because society would be great and equal for every one (yay!). So with his "veil of ignorance" Rawls introduced the HYPOTHETICAL consent. So if we live in a liberal society then we have 'signed' a hypothetical contact. Just letting you know, there is a lot of objections to this one.

Firstly we would not all agree to equality as some people might gamble and choose to have an unequal society hoping they come out on top. This quality is evident in todays society, mainly by the presence of Stock Brokers. Rawls also assumes that a society is a product of negotiation between individuals who have interests before coming in to society (this means that the person behind the "veil of ignorance" knows what they want) but in fact we are born into a society, and our choices reflect our socially defined goals. So essentially Rawls ignores the glaring problem that the fact of the hierarchy of social class, i.e, a lawyer isn't going to swap their fancy wig, for a Sainsbury's hair net are they?

In the words of Dworkin: "Hypothetical consent isn't worth the paper it isn't written on"

This leaves us with the basis that our political consent is formed on explicit consent and this is essentially, voting. But this is not really a great answer to be honest as there are objections to voting as a form of consent too. If voting were the only form of political consent only 61% of over 18 year olds who are eligible to vote would be the only ones who consent as that was the voting turnout at the 2005 general election (that's rubbish). Not forgetting those who can't vote - I can't, but I don't go round breaking all the laws.

So basically this consent would only apply to some people, not that effective then is it? Another objection is how many people are only voting for one party just to keep another one out, so this is not true consent. Furthermore - what are we actually voting for? Just because you voted for Labour and they went on an invaded Iraq, does that mean they have the consent to do that if they didn't tell the voters? Are you still bound to support them? Probably not, judging by the fact that the protest against it was the biggest ever.

So we can say, after looking at all the types of consent that our political obligations are NOT founded on consent. Voting comes close I think, but falls short as not that many people do compared to the amount who don't. I think that Hume got it right when he says that we do stuff as we know it's in our own self-interest. It doesn't shine a good light on the human race, but at least we consent to turning it on, because otherwise we wouldn't read philosophy would we?

John!... Locke over-there!

Hello,

John Locke’s essay was called The Essay on Human Understanding, first published in 1960s in which he describes the mind at birth as a blank slate; the essay is about the foundation of human knowledge and understanding. It was hugely influential regarding empiricism in modern philosophy. Locke’s work influenced many enlightenment philosophers such as Hume and Berkeley. The Enlightenment or The Age of Enlightenment, is used to describe the time in Western Philosophy in the eighteenth century, when reason was put forward as the best, and the source of authority.

The essay is split up into four different books, most of the interesting ideas happen in book II. In the rest of this entry I will try to summarise each of the books.

Book II of the Essay tells us of Locke's theories, these include his distinction between ideas we just accept which he calls simple ideas, these could be things such as “red”, “sweet” or “round” compared to the complex ideas, which we have to work on such as numbers, causes and effects, abstract ideas, ideas of substances, identity, and diversity. Locke also shows the differences between the primary qualities of bodies – which properly exist or as he says truly exist, like shape, motion and the arrangement of particles, and the secondary qualities that are "powers to produce various sensations in us" such as "red" and "sweet."

These secondary qualities, Locke claims, are dependent on the primary qualities. So primary qualities exist, and these create the secondary qualities. For example if something’s primary qualities are: red, sweet and round. It’s secondary qualities will be it’s an apple which are "powers to produce various sensations in us".

Book I

Locke's big idea is that the mind of a newborn baby is a blank slate (or tabula rasa) this means he thinks that all ideas we have are from experience. Book I of the Essay is essentially an attack on the doctrine of innate ideas, this idea meant that we have ideas that we intrinsically know from birth. Locke said that some ideas are in the mind from an early age, but stated that these ideas still come from the senses when we were in the womb (differences between colors or tastes). This still goes against the doctrine of innate ideas as it still says that we still require empirical evidence. If we all have of a concept of ‘sweetness’, it is not because this is an innate idea, but because we were all exposed to sweet tastes at an early age.

Following from this line of thought, Locke also argued that people have no innate principles, this means that no one naturally knows from right or wrong. Locke did say that if we have innate principles they would have to rely upon our innate ideas, which he says does not exist. One of Locke's big arguments against innate ideas is the fact that there is no truth to which all people agree with. He argued against a number of propositions that rationalist offer as universally accepted truth, like the ‘principle of identity’, to which he said that young children are unaware of their own identity.

Book II

Whereas Book I was rejecting the doctrine of innate ideas first done by Descartes and the rationalists, Book II explains that every idea comes from experience either by sensation or reflection which Locke explains as:

"the perception of the operations of our own mind within us, as it is employed about the ideas it has got".

Book III

Everything that exists is a particular thing. Frisky, Snowball, and Tiger are pets in the external world, but there is no cat. Most of our terms are general rather than particular i.e. a cat could be Frisky, Snowball, and Tiger. In book III Locke asks in How do we get these general terms? Since words refer to ideas, general terms, naturally, refer to general ideas. General ideas are produced through a process of abstraction. We take our ideas of Frisky, Tiger, Felix, and Snowball, and we attend to what is similar in all of these, discarding what is different. From what is common to all of them (fur, soft, meow, arched shape, etc.), we form a new idea.

Book IV

"Of Knowledge and Opinion," gives us the theory of knowledge. Locke begins with a strict definition of knowledge, one which says most sciences (apart from mathematics and morality) are pointless. Knowledge, according to Locke, is having strong internal relations that work, without any reference to the outside world. He lists the four sorts of relations between ideas that would count as knowledge identity/diversity, relation, coexistence, actual existence, he then goes on to distinguish between three grades of knowledge. The remainder of the book is discussing opinion or belief, which is the best we can expect to gain for our intellectual endeavors.

So essentially Locke's Essay on Human Understanding would get an A* from any Philosophy teacher as he totally influenced the Western Philosophers who agree with the idea of empiricism.

I challenge you to a Dual(ism)!

Hello,

Dualism is a theory about the link between mind and matter. It starts by saying the events in the mind (ie when we think) are not physical, this means the mind exists outside of the body, giving the mind a soul like quality. Dualism theories apparently started as far back as Plato and Aristotle, which is a key reason why to many, this theory as wrong. They think this due to the incorrect understanding of the anatomy. Because of there lack of understanding Plato and Aristotle argued, that humans intelligence (to them the 'mind is the seat of all knowledge') could not be explained with the physical body.

The most well known example of dualism came from Descartes, he also like P&A stated that the mind is nonphysical. Descartes was the first to show the mind was connected with awareness of our own existence; because of this he was able to formulate the Cogito ergo sum this was a huge breakthrough, but he sort of spoiled when he then said the mind was different to the brain. Dualism is the biggest problem with Descartes and since his work was published it is often the starting point of philosophers picking holes in his work.

One argument against Dualism is called Causal Interaction, this states that how come if the mind is non-physical we can have memories from touching physical objects, for example: "you never forget how to ride a bike" or muscle memory; when a song you used to know on the piano comes back to you, even if you haven't played in a while. So for Dualism work in these situations it must therefore must still be capable to effect the physical world - despite not being apart of it. The main answer to this solution was provided by Arnold Geulincx was that Causal Interaction was simply that it's a miracle. To be honest I'm not that convinced.

I think that the reason Dualism was so popular when Aristotle and Plato were around was simply they did not have the knowledge of anatomy to have any better ideas. The picture below is an illustration by Descartes, in which he explains how the body reacts to pain...

The fire (no, it's not a cabbage) moves the skin, this action then opens a pore causing the 'animal spirit' of the fire flow through the tube in the diagram this tube then inflates, causing swelling in the leg muscle this results in the moving of the foot out of danger. Nothing to do with nerve endings or pain receptors.

A more modern argument for Dualism is the Zombie Argument, yes that's it's name. It was a thought experiment by (psychologist) David Chalmers, in which he says that zombies can act as humans, by for example saying 'ouch!' if they bang their knee even if they don't feel the pain. It's a long shot but I could be a zombie, you wouldn't know, because I act exactly like you. This experiment aimed to show how things can still be human with out a mind. Similar to the brian in the vat; accept the negligible possibility but then move on.

Dualism is the opposite of Monism where the mind is the brain, it's what most people think know as dualism is generally accepted as a big mistake, by Plato, Aristotle and Descartes, apart from that they were all right.

Sign on the dotted line...

Hello,

The Social Contact - what we sacrifice in order to be looked after by the sate. We give up some of our rights to maintain order as in the long-run it seems better than the alternative (we've all seen Mad Max).

The heart of the idea of the social contract may be stated simply: Each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will, and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole... Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The Social Contract (1762) is the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in which Rousseau ponders the ideal setup for our political communities, he wrote the book in order to solve all the problems which he listed in the Discourse on Inqualilty (1754). In his first book he attempted to answer question: What is the origin of equality among men, and is it authorized by natural law? He answered this by looking at the natuaral, physical, ethical, political problems. So the Social Contact is the sequel.

Rousseau thinks that for the government to work effectively it must be sanctioned by the people, this is when the King/Queen step in to act as the public voice. If their people don't like the political leader the monarch can say no, you can't lead on the publics behalf... In England Gordon Brown would ask the Queen for permission to take charge, it's very unlikely she would refuse - what's her alternative? 

Rousseau says that a perfect society would work best if it were to be run by the general will of it's population. He doesn't specify how this would be done... it would take a long time, especially in a big country. Although he does suggest regular meetings in which citizens can have a say in the general will - achievable in a small town, but much harder to accommodate the whole of London.

He goes on to say that without the viewpoint of the people the government isn't viable, he says the views of the public can not be shown via a representative as this is no the true voice of the people. So according to these ideas a School Council doesn't even make the grade, so how could a whole country achieve it?

The following are from the Social Contract, and are what Rousseau tries to answer;

1) The Sovereign, having no force other than the legislative power, act by only means of the laws; and the laws being solely the authentic acts of the general will. 

2)Every law the people has not ratified in person is null and void - is in fact, not law.

3) The legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone.

The social contract was pivotal in the reformations of in Europe but especially in France. One theme in the social contract was the idea that the monarch did not have the divine right to rule, Rousseau says that it's the people in the form if the Sovereign which have that right, hence the revolution in France. King Louis XVI said he had the divine right to rule - which the French had enough with (along with other things). 

The aim of the social contract is to find out if we can have a viable political presence. Rousseau says yes we can, as long as the people remove themselves from a state of nature, ie not just doing what we want all the time but entering a social contract with our fellow man. The Contact would create new laws, which would mean giving up rights in order for us to be the same and free. This may have annoyed people, but Rousseau says you can exit the contact by leaving the society you are living in. According to Rousseau; liking the Sex Pistols is not true rebellion. Being truly rebellious would be living  in a cave, as a consequence retuning to our state of nature.

Rousseau sates that any society must have two parts. The first being a Sovereign acting on behalf of the people and the second being the government, these two are very separate. They must be due to the fact the Monarch can't deal with every matter, therefore is not united and will be destroyed (similar if people pick a choose what laws to follow will result in  a collapse of the law). The government must be separate so it can continue when the monarchy collapses.

Rousseau says that the larger the territory, then the more power the government has over it's population. He says this as the government is only as powerful as it's people (more people = more power). Rousseau would say that a large country with a monarch has the most power as it there is lots of people with little civil servants between the people and the monarch. Where as in a large bureaucratic government there is more power to be delegated amongst it's self so it has less power. 

Due to this theory Rousseau sates that countries with small sates are where freedom flourishes best (such as Geneva, where Rousseau came from, so no bias there then). Rousseau argues it's the most effective as there is less steps between people and the rulersand due to a smaller population makes it easier to find the general will of the people. (The postman handing out a survey about free school meals for children along with the bills, for example)

I Kant do that! It's immoral

Hello, 

Immanuel Kant is an 18th century German philosopher and is seen as one of the most influential philosopher of modern Europe. One of his main interest was Ethics. Ethics is a branch of Philosophy which is not so much concerned with knowledge etc, but of human behavior. It's the branch which is most likely to spill out into politics and culture. 

Ethics is a place just out side London where people wear white socks

- Kelvin MacKenzie 

Why do we do things? I don't mean eat or sleep etc, but 'good deeds'. Is it to make ourselves feel good? To make others like us? To get our Duke of Edinburgh award? If so; according to Immanuel Kant those acts would be immoral. 

Kant's theory of Ethics are considered to be deontological, which means we do things out of a sense of duty (deon), another is that the 'goodness' of the act is only decided on the motives of the person and never the consequences. Kant thinks this because nothing in the world is intrinsically good or good with out qualification - meaning something has caused the 'good'. For example pleasure is good, but if that that pleasure is gained from watching a clip on 'You've Been Framed' the pleasure you feel from watching someone suffer (no matter how funny it may be) is bad as it seems to make the situation ethically worse - the pleasure is with qualification. 

Now it is very hard to think of something that is just intrinsically good, and this is were Kant and the deontological argument try to give an answer which is:

Nothing in the world - indeed nothing even beyond the world - can possibly be conceived which could be called good with out qualification except a good will

Kant argues that the best way to see how ethical the act you are performing is your motive. If the motive of your action is not out of a 'sense of duty' - it's not moral. I think, according to Kant most people have done more immoral deeds with good intentions than just purely out of  sense of duty. So a completely moral deed would be not because you feel sorry for some one (I'll bake her a cake because she is sad = immoral) or the possibility of a reward. 

So this is how Kantian ethics would work in real life... You are at a zebra crossing, an old lady is struggling with her bags, you feel sorry for her. What would Kant do? Nothing it's not a moral act. Nor would it be if you only did it to make people think highly of you as that would be a reward (a psychological one). But if you felt a strong moral duty to help then that would be a moral act. To me it seems difficult to separate pity and compassion from acts such as helping old ladies - if I felt only a sense of duty help, regardless of age or bags etc - then I would be helping every one as a sense of duty to make the zebra crossing more effective. 

As we know in Kantian ethics motive is the most important thing, so it is possible for an action to have bad consequences whilst still being moral. For example if because of a sense of duty you attempted to save some one drowning but in the process you drowned them it would still be moral as you acted out of 'a sense of duty'.

Kantian ethics have been criticized as they don't take into consideration our circumstances. For example, you felt a sense of duty to 1) telling the truth. 2) protect your friends. So far, so good, but what would happen if an axe murder came up to you and wanted to know where you friends were so they could murder them? According to Kant you have a conflict of morals . Do you tell the truth? Or do you lie in order to save your friends life? (It's pretty obvious what you should do to me). So is lying always wrong? What if you feel a sense of duty to lie? According to Kant telling lies is worst thing to do - even if it could avoid murder.

Some say Kantian ethics don't take the consequences seriously enough - what if a well intentioned person with a good motive caused several deaths? In Kantian ethics they would be blameless. It's a bit like a baby smearing it's lunch on their face, whilst trying to be more grown up, it's good motive, but creates even more work than being fed by some one else, (if I did, it would just be weird). 

This blog is immoral. I'm not writing it out of a sense of duty, I'm writing it to show off.

You say you're happy?...

Hello,

UTILITARIANISM! It sounds like a word which should be written in capital letters,  which, to be honest isn't the most accurate definition. It's the flagship theory of  Jeremy Bentham (he's the one who's stuffed in University College London).

One branch of Utilitarianism is  'Act Utilitarianism'.  Essentially what's best for the individual is best for the society. The actual philosophical term is: the moral worth (goodness) of something is only based on its utility which it creates overall. Utility meaning happiness or pleasure. 

If we were living in a hard core utilitarianist society all aspects of our lives would be examined and the item or activity which gives the greatest utility is allowed, this creates one of the biggest problem: quality or quantity. For example which is better? A football match giving a little joy to thousands of people or an Opera giving huge amounts of joy to only a few people? They level out as the same 'utility points' the question is which 'score' will we be looking at?

The other key branches of Utilitarianism are, total and average. Total Utilitarianism means things are done if everyone likes them and Average Utilitarianism is if the majority likes it - this seems okay but it could lead to the death penalty as long as it was the majority. 

So the major problem so far is how can we define pleasure? The solution is strongly linked to economics, being: Money, Money, Money! (how much pleasure ABBA brings is debatable). We have all heard the phrase; "cheap and cheerful" - but look what happened to Woolworths, the more expensive something is the happier it makes you ipods, TV's, cars etc.

This is why Utilitarianism uses 'freemarkets', these markets are way to find out what's popular and consequently the most pleasurable to consumers as they are free from economic or 

government interference - it's just what people like to spend money on.  As a result shops look at these markets to help them decide what they want to sell.

Another problem with the theory is how it relies on the society being just a collection of individuals (parish magazines and school councils don't really fit in.) I might want water skies, you may be indifferent - I would be happy, but you wouldn't care either way if the government gave some or not - not exactly the boom in happiness the government would want. 

I think that a branch of utilitarianism called preference utilitarianism is effective. It can be demonstrated like this: for sake of  argument you are on a basket-ball team. Your team is suffering as you have a bit of rubbish player. Some how you make the final you are all really pleased. Coach plays it safe and doesn't let the rubbish player on court. This player's utility points are way lower - but the rest of the team's utilty points are through the roof! (you win, of course). So making one person upset is better for the team. Moral worth of something is only based on its utility which it creates overall.  

So in conclusion the utilitarianism theory is linked with economics. Money equals happiness but we all know the saying: "Money can't buy you love"

Is it just me who exists?

Hello,

"I think therefore I am" - it's a classic. If you are a philosopher you say "I am thinking, therefore I exist". If your Descartes it's simply "Je pense donc je suis". However you say it, it's the Cogito ergo sum, and has got to be one of the most well known philosophical sayings. It's exact origins are unsure, although it is mainly associated with the french man René Descartes (below).

I noticed that while I was trying to think everything false, it was necessary that I, who was thinking this, was something. And observing that this truth, "I am thinking, therefore I exist" [cogito ergo sum] 

René Descartes used the cogito to help with his "method of doubt". To help him demonstrate his point he used the image of the evil demon (as mentioned in previous posts). This evil demon tricks us all so even self-evident truths of things such as geometry are no longer certain (depends how self-evident maths is to you). Descartes says the demon has stripped him of everything (I don't mean just his clothes) but his senses and all his real surroundings. Despite this René Descartes still had the cogito. He says if his life is delusions at least he is there to be deluded.

It will never bring it about that i am nothing so long as I think that I am something... I am, I exist.

There are problems of Cogito - it is in first person. My Cogito ergo sum is different to yours - I know I exist, but I don't know if you do and vice versa. So at this point it looks pretty hard for René  Descartes to prove anything with out doubt - or with out gaining the response: "But the demon could have done that!" Although René Descartes has a solution, which is God. God according to Descartes, is above all doubt - as God is clear and true like the Cogito. In my opinion I don't really think this argument is up to much but this is what Descartes says:

God is the source of all our ideas, and because God is benevolent he will not try to deceive us (not like the evil demon) We use or powers of observation, a gift given by God, these powers will lead us to see the truth not lies - thus the world we see is true and good. So we can just start again with rebuilding human knowledge - I feel cheated by this answer too.

But we have to remember that in the 17th century that religion was pretty powerful stuff, and not believing in God or not supporting the church is risky! Nevertheless Descartes has been hailed as the father of modern philosophy, but it may not be for the reasons he wanted. His life's aim was to dispel doubt once and for all, but in-fact he has raised more doubts than stopping them. Scepticism has been top of the philosophical agenda and René Descartes put it there.

So, are you identical twins?

Hello,

Have you heard of the Ship of Theseus? Well this is it...According to Greek legend (reported by Plutarch, a Roman citizen)

                                                                 

The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other arguing that it was not the same.

-Plutarch, Theseus

Plutarch then wonders if the ship would remain the same if the ship was entirely replaced, plank by plank, as a proposition, you can question what happens if the replaced parts are used to build a second ship? Which, if either, is the Ship of Theseus? The Ship of Theseus is an example of the problem of identity, the original crisis of Identity. But philosophers have been working on such crises and have created 'proposed resolutions'. I will focus on the difference of 'same'. It is a way of differentiating the same and one and the same. 

Essentially there are two definitions of 'same'. The first of which being qualitatively the same, meaning the same properties or qualities. 

The second being numerically the same, so they are actually one and the same.

For example: Tweedel-dee and Tweedel-dum are qualitatively the same as they look identical (and also both very annoying) but they are not numerically the same as they are different people.

So when is an an object numerically the same? (one and the same). The following is an example. You start with two identical black bikes, (qualitatively the same), they would not be numerically the same. But if you painted one of the bikes red... the red bike would no longer qualitatively the same as the black bike but it would be numerically the same to it's previous form. 

So basing your answer on the idea of qualitative and numerical 'same' you can answer the original question: Which is the Ship of Theseus? The ships are  the 'same'. They are qualitatively different as they are made out of different planks, but are numerically the same - just like the bike is the same, only a different colour.

Are we all just cavemen?

Hello,

Plato's a classic philosopher - and to be honest one of the most famous... If you don't know the name I guarantee you'll know the face. 

Plato and his cave.  It was thought up by Plato to basically explain truth and knowledge. It was also a ploy he devised to try and convince the government to pass over the reins of power to philosophers. 

This is the set up of Plato's Allegory of the Cave: 

Assume you have been imprisoned all your life in a dark cave. Your hands and feet are tied and your head can not move and as a result you can only look at the wall in front of you. Behind you is a huge fire, and between you and the fire there is space for your guards to carry objects back and fourth. The shadows cast on the wall by these objects are the only thing you and the others  have ever seen, all you have ever thought and talked about.  

 'The Cave' (375bc) has got to be one of the most well known analogies used by the Greek philosopher Plato. It is used to help us understand our perception of the world. It shows how we see the ideal state and the ideal ruler (philosophy being the idea ruler). 

Still not entirely sure what he means? Well this is the rest of the allegory...

Now suppose that you are  free to walk around the cave. You see the fire for the first time. You then see the objects which create the shadows, which you previously took to be real. Finally you are allowed to step outside the cave and for the first time you see the world in the fullness of reality. Illuminated by the brightest object in the skies, the sun.

Interpreting the cave: There are numerous interpretations of the cave, but the general interpretation is that the 'cave' represents the 'realm of becoming'. The 'realm of becoming' is the world we live in: ever changing and imperfect (different shadows etc). The chained prisoners are the human race, people with an imperfect view of the world, these shackled people we will never fully understand the world. 

This is in contrast to the released prisoner who has gained knowledge due to the fact they walk around the cave therefore enabling them to gain an accurate view of the cave (i.e - the actual objets causing the shadows). 

When they step out of the cave to the outside world they are now in the 'realm of being'. This world is one of truth - filled with perfect, eternal and unchanging objects. The shackled prisoners will never see this world  (unless of course... they become philosophers). So the majority of us humans are still in the cave, so much for evolution.

Plato is still not satisfied - he says that there is a problem with forms ('forms' here just means ideas). In Plato's view what is known is true and unchanging. But according to Plato nothing in the empirical world is true and unchanging (the empirical world is the cave). This is shown via a tall person is short next to a tree or a red apple looks looks black at dusk and so on. To Plato this means that nothing in the empirical world is an object of knowledge - therefore there must be another realm (outside the cave). This realm contains perfect 'forms' .

Still don't get it... click here to watch a video.

Have you seen the Matrix?

Hello,

Have you heard of Hilary Putnam? Well if you haven't I'm sure you have seen/heard of the Matrix. Or at least the concept of the idea of a our brains being in jars or some such. Well it's a actually a philosophical idea called Skepticism.   

The Brain in a vat is a common scenario in philosophy, it is used to help demonstrate the idea of Philosophical Skepticism. I mentioned Mr Putnam as he modernized the idea to how it's seen in todays popular culture (see the Matrix). The brain in the vat was a 17th century horror story devised by Mr Rene Descartes in his book Meditations on First Philosophy, 1641. Descartes aim was to reconstruct the structure of human knowledge by showing people the 'method of doubt'. Essentially don't believe every thing you read (sort of). 

The brain in the vat is essentially thus: an evil scientists has someway trapped the human race; removed our brains; then keeps our brains in vats connected up to sensors and neurons etc. This then simulates the world we once lived in. We keep on going about our lives non the wiser it is completely false (Mwhhh hu hu hu! - why an evil genius would do this I simply do not know).

The point of this Brain in a Vat scenario is to highlight how if we were in vats we could never know! All our thought would be synthesized meaning it is not possible to tell from the perspective of the brain if we were in a vat or a skull.  

The ONLY  thing  we know is that we can't 100% know that we aren't brains in a vats. So the best thing to do is accept that it COULD be possible (all-be-it very unlikely) that our brains are suspended in green bubbling fluid. You don't have to believe it - just accept it could be true. Then move on.

 'Is your brain in a vat?'

 'No, the Matrix was just a film'

 'You fool! The evil genius would make you say that!'

 '.....whatever'

Introduction

Hello, 

My name is Lotte Horrie. I am writing a blog about philosophy. This Blog. 

I am doing so as to better to prepare myself for when I start my philosophy A-level in September. It is mainly an aid for me to show off - and also a way to help me understand the difficult ideas. As we all know: writing stuff down is the best way to learn/remember.

So do join me as I try to amble my why though the 'oldest academic subject'. From the classics (Plato and the rest) through to the modern thinkers... roll on Berkeley!

s'laters

lotte