246mm history - startseite · 2013. 7. 18. · 11 the return of the mind: phenomenological and...

21mm 189mm189mm246m

m

History and Philosophy of Psychology

Man Cheung Chung and Michael E. Hyland


Chung and Hyland

“The authors cover a wide sweep of current psychological thought, showing the contemporary diversity of the discipline [...] I look forward to using this book with my students – it’s a very engaging invitation to an area which has previously lacked attractive curtain-raisers.”

Peter Ashworth, Professor of Educational Research, Sheffield Hallam University

History and Philosophy of Psychology is a lively and accessible introduction to the historical development of psychology. Its distinct inclusion of ideas from both Eastern and Western philosophies offers students a uniquely broad view of human psychology.

• While covering all the major landmarks in the history of psychology, the text also provides students with little-known but fascinating insights into key questions, such as whether Freud really cured his patients; what was nude psychotherapy; and were the early psychologists racist? • The book encourages students to explore the philosophical and theoretical implications of the historical development of psychology.• It also explores key theoretical ideas and experiments in detail, with background to their development and valuable suggestions for further reading.

Man Cheung Chung is Professor of Psychology at Zayed University in the United Arab Emirates. He has a strong interest in philosophical psychology and has published widely in health and clinical psychology. His publications include Phenomenology and Psychological Science (with P.D. Ashworth, 2006) and Reconceiving Schizophrenia (with K.W.M. Fulford & G. Graham, 2007).

Michael E. Hyland is Professor of Health Psychology at Plymouth University. His interests span theoretical psychology, health psychology, and theory development in health psychology. His publications include Recent Trends in Theoretical Psychology (with W. Baker, R. Hezewijk, & S. Terwee, 1990) and Asthma Managementfor Practice Nurses (1998). He is also author of The Origins of Health and Disease (2011).

Cover image: Chaco Canyon doors, New Mexico. Photo © Peter Neumann / Getty Images

Cover design by www.cyandesign.co.uk

Chung_fpref.indd viiiChung_fpref.indd viii 11/12/2011 10:01:24 AM11/12/2011 10:01:24 AM


Chung_ffirs.indd iChung_ffirs.indd i 11/12/2011 10:01:28 AM11/12/2011 10:01:28 AM

To Catherine, Lia and Ethan. Thanks for your love and continuous support which keep me going. MCC

To Sandra, Kate, Thomas, Ed, Alice, Orin and Theo for being. MEH

Chung_ffirs.indd iiChung_ffirs.indd ii 11/12/2011 10:01:28 AM11/12/2011 10:01:28 AM


Man Cheung Chung and Michael E. Hyland

A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication

Chung_ffirs.indd iiiChung_ffirs.indd iii 11/12/2011 10:01:28 AM11/12/2011 10:01:28 AM

This edition first published 2012© 2012 Man Cheung Chung and Michael E. Hyland

Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell.

Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Offices350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UKThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of Man Cheung Chung and Michael E. Hyland to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Chung, Man Cheung, 1962–History and philosophy of psychology / Man Cheung Chung and Michael E. Hyland. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4051-7946-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Psychology–History. 2. Psychology–Philosophy. I. Hyland, Michael. II. Title. BF81.C48 2012 190–dc23

2011017899

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

This book is published in the following electronic formats: ePDFs 9781444345759; mobi 9781444345773; ePub 9781444345766

Set in 11/13pt Dante by SPi Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India

1 2012

Chung_ffirs.indd ivChung_ffirs.indd iv 11/12/2011 10:01:28 AM11/12/2011 10:01:28 AM

http://www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell

http://www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell

Contents

Preface vii

1 Introduction 1

2 God, Divine Forces and Who We Are 5

3 Psychology and Science: First Beginnings 34

4 Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Science 61

5 Further Early Beginnings of Psychology: Functionalism, Measurement and the Application of Psychology 88

6 The Würzburg School, the Gestalt Movement and the Idea of Emergent Properties 126

7 Behaviourism, and the Disappearance and Reappearance of Organism (Person) Variables 144

8 Behaviourism and Free Will 170

9 The Unconscious Mind: Freud and Jung and the ‘Talking Cure’ 186

10 Philosophical Critiques of Freudian Ideas 218

11 The Return of the Mind: Phenomenological and Existential Psychology and the Psychology of Ultimate Concerns 233

12 Existential and Phenomenological Philosophies 256

13 History of Clinical Psychology and Philosophy of Mental Health 270

14 How to Preserve Oneself: Part I 296

Chung_ftoc.indd vChung_ftoc.indd v 11/25/2011 8:55:46 PM11/25/2011 8:55:46 PM

vi Contents

15 How to Preserve Oneself: Part II 322

16 The Qualitative Perspective: Social Constructionism, Critical Psychology, Hermeneutical Psychology and the Psychology of Common Sense 337

Notes 350References 355Index 392

Chung_ftoc.indd viChung_ftoc.indd vi 11/25/2011 8:55:47 PM11/25/2011 8:55:47 PM

Preface

Some people, especially non-academics, have this notion that university professors spend all their time doing research and nothing else. This is not the case! For exam-ple, we teach, and often in more than one area. We have taught health psychology courses and even a course on history and philosophy of psychology at the University of Plymouth. The course was popular with students and it was great fun to teach. We both love it. Man particularly loves the philosophical part and Michael loves the history as well as the theory.

It’s worth noting that there are some differences between us. To begin with, Man is Chinese and Michael is English; Man lives in a tiny house and Michael lives in a mansion; Man kills plants simply by touching them and Michael grows his own fruits and vegeta-bles. But Man eats a lot faster and in larger quantities than Michael. That said, there are quite a lot of similarities between us. Our first names start with the letter ‘M’ and we are ‘fox’ researchers who do many different projects simultaneously. We both have a sense of humour and are generally nice, approachable guys. We are both theoretical and empirical at the same time. We both love writing, thinking and publishing and love seeing our work in print. So, when Man got the idea to write a book on the history and philosophy of psychology, he thought of Michael right away. We decided that Michael would take a lead on the history and Man would take a lead on the philosophy.

Man had published papers and edited books in the area of philosophy of psychology. Michael had published articles and a book on theoretical psychology, but not on the history of psychology. The history component of this book would have been very weak were it not for the fact that Man bullied Michael into reading original articles on the history of psychology, resulting in Michael finding lots of interesting bits of information and snippets that are typically missing from history of psychology texts. Over the course of writing the book, Man and Michael have sat down, drunk many cups of Chinese tea and discussed the way theory, philosophy and history merge. That was hard but very enjoyable work indeed. They still talk, even though Man now works at Zayed University in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.

Man Cheung ChungMichael E. Hyland

Chung_fpref.indd viiChung_fpref.indd vii 11/12/2011 10:01:24 AM11/12/2011 10:01:24 AM

Chung_fpref.indd viiiChung_fpref.indd viii 11/12/2011 10:01:24 AM11/12/2011 10:01:24 AM

History and Philosophy of Psychology, First Edition. Man Cheung Chung and Michael E. Hyland.© 2012 Man Cheung Chung and Michael E. Hyland. Published 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

1

Introduction

Some Quick Reasons for Studying History and Philosophy of Psychology

This book covers the history of psychology, the people and their theories, and shows how the ideas in the development of this discipline are linked to ideas in philosophy, both East and West. This book is intended for laypeople interested in the topic, and undergraduate and postgraduate students in psychology. Students might wonder why they should study this topic. Very briefly, there are four reasons.

Firstly, it is useful to know about history because history can provide information about the present. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to make the same mistakes that have gone before. After all, it is easy to keep reinventing the wheel but reinventing the wheel is not the best way of spending one’s life! Many of the issues that faced the early psychologists still face psychologists today. Controversies have persisted throughout the history of psychology.

Secondly, psychologists are not the only people who are interested in humans, and some of the questions that psychologists address, such as how to be happy or human, have been studied since the dawn of time. It would be arrogance to suppose that psychologists have the only insight into human nature. In order to truly understand humans, it is necessary to use insight from many sources, one of which is philosophy. Another source of understanding is that of common sense or an intuitive understanding of people.

Thirdly, history and philosophy broaden the mind. Like travel, it is helpful to see how other people live and deal with problems, and history and philosophy allow the mind to travel in realms beyond the standard psychology textbook. The history of psychology provides a background to the ideas of modern psychology. It shows how those modern ideas have developed.

Chung_c01.indd 1Chung_c01.indd 1 11/25/2011 8:31:32 PM11/25/2011 8:31:32 PM

2 History and Philosophy of Psychology

The final reason is that these topics are intrinsically interesting. There are real people in the history of psychology with real stories to tell. Many of the thoughts and theories of these early psychologists are stimulating and thought provoking, as are their philosophical ideas. We have written the book with an emphasis on finding the interesting parts in the history and philosophy. We hope that students enjoy reading our book as much as we have enjoyed writing it.

Some Features of the Book

In writing for those interested in the history of psychology, we have not attempted to provide a definitive text that includes all aspects of history and philosophy that are relevant to psychology. Instead, our aim is to select those landmarks in history which are needed to give a background for understanding the rest of psychology, and to select ideas in philosophy which exemplify how philosophical exploration can be carried out. We aim to provide sufficient depth of material, more than in some other texts, to cover the selected material. So, for example, we cover the work of Freud and Jung in some detail so the reader can compare between their theories, but we place less attention on other psychoanalysts. Similarly, we provide some detail about the theories of Rogers and Kelly so readers can compare two very different phenomeno logical psychologists, but the same depth of analysis is not shown to all phenomenological psychologists. Our selection is based on the principle of showing the scope of variation within these different approaches to psychology, but not submerging the reader in so much information that the book becomes a chore to read. Our aim has been to educate but at the same time to interest the reader with some of the quirky parts of the story of the history of psychology. In comparison with other histories of psychology, ours is more selec-tive with regard to biography, but provides more detail about selected experiments and theories. At the same time our aim is to give examples to show the reader how to engage in the intriguing activity of philosophy.

Having read this book, the student of the history of psychology should have an understanding of the sequence of the people, events, theories and ideas that make up the history of psychology. We also want those reading this book to learn about philosophical implications from the historical development of psychology. The main motivation for this is to encourage our readers to develop their critical skills and to gain some insight into how to do philosophy. This should encourage them to avoid simply memorizing historical facts but to learn, from reading the philosophical implications, how relevant philosophical problems can be identified, relevant philosophical questions can be raised and assumptions of modern psychology can be critically evaluated from a philosophical framework. In other words, this book is not just intended to give answers but to open questions.

Our text has the unusual feature of including philosophy from both Western and Eastern perspectives. Although academic psychology was developed within a Western intellectual tradition, philosophical ideas originating in the East are just as relevant.


Introduction 3

About the Structure of the Book

One of the most important questions known to men and women is the nature of the role humans have on planet earth. Chapter 2 examines the question of ‘who we are in relation to God and divine forces’ from a philosophical point of view and before the development of modern psychology. Both Eastern and Western philosophical traditions are discussed in this chapter with the aim of showing that Western and Eastern philosophers from antiquity, like contemporary psycholo-gists, also investigated who we are as humans by understanding our relationship with nature or God or some spiritual or divine forces.

Chapter 3 describes the beginning of modern psychology up to the point of the founding of the first psychology laboratory by Wundt in Germany, and the ideas which developed from that laboratory in America by Titchener. Chapter 4 covers the philosophical implications of that beginning. In particular, it looks at the philosophical issues between the body and mind interaction as implied in that period of psychology. It also looks at the distinction between immediate and mediate experiences (Wundt and Titchener) and examines psychology, as a science discipline, from the philosophy of science perspective.

Chapters 5 and 6 continue with the history of psychology. Chapter 5 covers the early psychologies that were developed in America, England and France, including functionalism, psychometrics, and different types of applied psychology, as well as the philosophy of functional description. Chapter 6 sees a return to Germany and ideas that were developments which were different from those suggested by Wundt, namely the Wurzburg school and Gestalt Movement, and the idea of emergent properties.

Chapter 7 covers the story of behaviourism and Chapter 8 covers the philosophical implications of behaviourism. One implication from behaviourism is that the notion of free will is an illusion. We examine this notion by discussing philosophical literature concerning incompatibilism, free agents, compatibilism, free will and morality.

Chapter 9 covers the psychoanalytic movement with an emphasis on the theories of Freud and Jung. Focusing on Freud, Chapter 10 provides a philosophical critique of Freudian theory, drawing from philosophy of science literature and insights from Wittgenstein and existential psychotherapists.

Chapter 11 covers the humanistic/phenomenological/existential tradition in psychology in which ideas of Rogers and Kelly are described in detail with additional descriptions of Maslow, Frankl and May. Chapter 12 covers the philosophical basis for that tradition focussing on the ideologies of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Brentano, Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre.

Chapter 13 is devoted to the history and philosophy of clinical psychology. We have emphasized this area because of its particular interest to students. Focusing on schizophrenia, some philosophical issues concerning mental illness will be explored. These issues pertain to the subjective experiences and meanings of schizophrenics, and the notions of self and agency among the sufferers.



Chapters 14 and 15 address the question of how to preserve oneself, or to maintain our happiness. These chapters cover both perspectives from Western and Eastern philosophers who have demonstrated different ways through which we can preserve ourselves individually and collectively.

The final chapter, Chapter 16 examines the qualitative approach in psychology, including the more recent movements of social constructionism and critical psychology, and returns to a fundamental question as to the extent to which an intuitive or hermeneutical understanding of people provides useful information.

The structure of the book reflects the view that both the history of psychology and a philosophical exploration of that history go best hand in hand. Students may find it helpful to realize that the book was written as an exchange of ideas between two people, with one of the authors taking the role of a historian and the other a philosopher. Consequently, the book does not divide naturally into a ‘history part’ and a ‘philosophy part’. Rather, it is often the case that a historical chapter provokes a philosophical chapter in which the philosophical implications or issues of the historical facts presented will be explored. We hope that this exchange from more than one perspective will encourage the student to think actively about the problems and issues discussed rather than accept the information as fact. When used as a course text, we hope that the book will also stimulate exchange in ideas between students.


History and Philosophy of Psychology, First Edition. Man Cheung Chung and Michael E. Hyland.© 2012 Man Cheung Chung and Michael E. Hyland. Published 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

2

God, Divine Forces and Who We Are

Many contemporary psychologists insist that psychology is a scientific discipline. To understand who we are is to measure experimentally and systematically different ways in which we think and behave. Consequently, they struggle to see how we can understand ourselves from the viewpoint of God or divine forces. Such a viewpoint is simply irrelevant for them. However, many influential Western and Eastern philosophers from antiquity were doing precisely the opposite. They found it difficult not to understand who we are in the light of God or divine forces. That is, they turned ‘outward’ rather than ‘inward’ in that they focused on our relationship with the external (God) rather than with our own internal experiences. From time to time, they found themselves being tempted to turn ‘inward’ but quickly resisted the temptation by re-focusing on the external. This is the thesis that we wish to demonstrate in this chapter.

Understanding the Universe

Before we bring God into our discussions, let’s turn to the universe. Our fascination about what our universe is made of has been around for a very long time. One could argue that the reason for this fascination stems from our awareness that we are part of the universe. This fascination is intensified by how little we know about the universe of which we are inevitably part. This is analogous to saying that when we know that we are part of a long history of generations that we know very little about, our curiosity or fascination about it increases. This is why some people want to know who their grandparents, great grandparents and great great grandparents were. The real motivation for understanding the long history of our generation, one could argue, is to understand more about ourselves. We may ask: were my grandparents or great grandparents involved in education, like me?



If not, why am I the only one in a chain of ancestors involved in education? Were my grandparents or great grandparents involved in gang or criminal activities? Is there any link between their criminal history and mine? Were they rich and why are we now so poor?

Similarly, the more we know that we are part of the universe that we know very little about, the more we become curious or fascinated by it. We want to further our understanding of it. In so doing, we ultimately want to understand who we are. What’s my relationship with this universe? Are there invisible forces (divine in nature perhaps) existing within the universe? If so, how am I supposed to relate to them? Or, am I simply another universal or natural process which is similar to that of insects, animals or plants, and which live for a period of time, die, decompose and nothing more?

Ancient philosophers in the East and West spent a great deal of time trying to understand the universe. For example, Eastern philosophers talked about the Tao or the Way which is essentially an unnameable phenomenon in our universe (Fung, 1952–53, 1970, 1976; Koller and Koller, 1991, 1998; McGreal, 1995; Moore, 1967). It cannot be captured by words. However, in order to talk about it, we need to come up with a sort of name which represents this phenomenon, hence, the word Tao (Chang, 1963; Chang, 1975; Cleary, 1991; Creel, 1970; Leaman, 1999). When we say ‘this is a table’, we are pointing to some nameable attributes. The Tao doesn’t possess these nameable attributes, but is simply a designation (Allinson, 1991; Billington, 1997; Carr and Mahalingam, 2001; Chan, 1963; Chan and Fu, 1978; Graham, 1989; Hansen, 1992). However, although the Tao is unnameable, it is the beginning of all things. This unnameable Tao is that by which all nameables and indeed Heaven and Earth, come into being. Thus, the Tao is not a thing among other things. If it is, it could not simultaneously be that through which all things come into being. Another way of describing this idea is to say that the Tao is Non-being, from which Being comes into being (Lao Tzu, 570–490 BC, see Chan, 1963; Lau, 1963).

Ancient Eastern philosophers also talked about the doctrine of Yin Yang. Yin means the absence of sunshine and light, while Yang means sunshine or light. Yin also refers to the female principle while Yang refers to the male principle. Yin also refers to a negative, passive, weak and destructive force, while Yang refers to a positive, active, powerful and constructive force. The fundamental idea of Yin Yang is that when Yin and Yang combine and interact with each other, they generate a universal phenomenon. In other words, Yin Yang is the process through which universal phenomena came into being. The Yin Yang doctrine is closely associated with the doctrine of the Five Agents (wu-hsing) or Five Powers (wu-te), which are metal, wood, water, fire and earth. These are dynamic and interactive forces which make up the structure of the Universe and design the pattern of all life. Thus, reality can be seen in terms of the co-operation of these forces of Yin Yang and Five Agents (Allinson, 1991; Billington, 1997).

Another Universal phenomenon that Eastern philosophers spoke about is the notion of Li, or Principle or Laws which is embedded within everything. There cannot be a thing X, without there being the Li for X. Different things in the


God, Divine Forces and Who We Are 7

Box 2.1 Taoist School: Lao Tzu

At the time when Confucius was travelling from state to state, there were many hermits around. They were thought to want to remain obscure, escape from the world and maintain their own personal purity. These people believed that the world was so bad that nothing could be done in order to improve it. They tended to stay away from other people and dwell in the world of nature. The Taoists were hermits. However, unlike other ordinary hermits, they did not simply escape from the world in an effort to maintain their own personal purity. They also went into seclusion in order to arrive at a system of thought that would give meaning and justification to their actions.

Sometime during the 6th century, Lao-tzu lived in the state of Ch’u in the Southern part of present-day Honan Province. His family name was Li and his private name was Erh. He was a responsible for imperial archives. Apparently, Confucius went to see him, seeking information on rituals. Lao Tzu focused on the notion of the unnameable. This notion of the unnameable was first investigated by a group of philosophers from the School of Names.

Universe are possessed with their own Li. The Li exists for things prior to the existence of the things themselves. For example, before we create things such as ships and cars, the Li of ships and cars already exists. Thus, when we create ships and cars, we are simply discovering the Li of ships and cars, and constructing these concrete things accordingly. In other words, the more we investigate the concrete things that we have created, the more we know this abstract Li. The more we know Li, the more we know our universe. A persistent pursuit of the nature of the universe would cause us to one day arrive at sudden Enlightenment, a complete understanding of our own nature and the universe around us. Seemingly, there are an infinite number of Li existing in the infinite number of things. However, they are united and brought together by a Universal phenomenon called the Supreme Ultimate or T’ai Chi. The latter is undividable superior, all embracing and high-est of all (i.e. there is nothing beyond it). (Chu Hsi, 1130–1200, see Bruce, 1944; Chan, 1986; Collinson, Plant, Wilkinson, 2000; Collinson and Wilkinson, 1994; Gardner, 1986).

Turning to Western ancient philosophers (Frede, 1987; Kenny, 2000, 2006), dur-ing the Presocratic period (i.e. before Socrates), some philosophers who were called phusikoi (from which the word ‘physics’ is derived) were concerned with studying nature, how things come together as one (unity), differ (plurality), change or stay unchanged, exist (being) or do not exist (non-being). They believed that there must be a somethingness, the original and the first principle of the universe,



Box 2.2 The School of Names (Ming-chia)

Most major Chinese philosophical schools were not concerned with the aspect of logic in their philosophy. Nevertheless, a small group of scholars interested in it formed one of the smallest schools in Chinese philosophy, the School of Names. However, they made no significant impact on the development of Chinese philosophy. These scholars were called the Logicians. These were ‘pure intellectual’ people and ‘debaters’ who wanted to pursue intellectualism for its own sake. They debated abstract philo-sophical concepts of existence, relativity, space, time, quality, actuality and causation. They tended to make paradoxical statements, argue with one another about ideas, affirm what other people denied and deny what other people affirmed. Why this intellectual movement did not really flourish in China was possibly due to the fact that the science of logic had not been a main interest for many Chinese philosophers. Another reason could be that political instability at the time did not make the environment appropriate for this kind of intellectual pursuit. Rather, philosophers at the time were interested in understanding humans, solving human problems and advocating social and political reform.

One of the main leaders of the School of Names was Kung-sun Lung (b.380 BC) (Graham, 1955; Mei, 1953) who focused on the idea that names are absolute and unchangeable. For example, we are told that one day, Kung-sun Lung was trying to cross a frontier with his horse. The frontier guards told him that horses were not allowed to cross. He replied by saying that his horse was white and that a white horse was not a horse. His underly-ing justification was this: the word ‘horse’ denotes a shape but the word ‘white’ denotes a colour. Thus, a white horse was not a horse. Apparently, he did subsequently cross the frontier. This story demonstrates how he held names to be absolute and unchangeable.

One of the main tasks that the philosophers of the School of Names set themselves was to distinguish that which lies within shapes and features from that which lies beyond shapes and features. What lies within shapes and features is the actual world. Any object (big and small, long and short, square and round) in the world has shapes and features and lies within the actual world. When we look at these objects in the actual world, we can express them by using names. In other words, that which lies within shapes and features in the actual world is nameable. What lies beyond shapes and features would be universal phenomena, for example, the universal notion of whiteness. One cannot see universal whiteness, while one can see a white object. However, we can use names to indicate all universals which lie beyond shapes and features in the world. What is unnameable, however, most certainly lies beyond shapes and features.



which ultimately creates and explains the world, makes things in the world differ from each other, and yet unites everything, makes the world stable and binds a diversity of things into one unified cosmos (Kosmos) and indeed an ordered and beautifully arranged universe.

A concept called arche was used at that time to describe this powerful somethingness. Water is arche in that it is self-moving and life-sustaining. The earth floats on a bed of water. When water dries up, things stop existing (Thales of Miletus, 6th century BC, see Cohen, Curd and Reeve, 2005). Some argued that apeiron is arche. Apeiron is something which is the origin of all things; infinite, everlasting, imperishable and able to explain the whole universe. In apeiron, hot and cold are separated. Nevertheless, they interact to bring about the whole cosmic process. Life resulted from the action of the sun (heat) on the cold and moist things of the earth. An alternative view was that air is arche which is infinite, constantly moving and can be felt from the wind. Through a process of rarefaction, air becomes fire. Through a process of condensation, air turns to wind and subsequently to cloud, water, earth and stone. These are the processes through which things change. The earth is flat and floats on air. It is also surrounded by heavenly bodies, all of which are centres of fire. However, most of these bodies are so far away from the earth that the earth cannot feel the heat (Anaximenes of Miletus, 550 BC, see Barnes, 1982; Furley and Allen, 1970; Kirk, Raven and Schofield, 1983).

Box 2.3 Rival Schools of Thought

During the ancient period, there were lots of rival schools of thought, one of which was Yin-Yang school. Although this school was well-known to a lot of people to date, there were so many other schools at that time. In fact, the term ‘hundred schools’ was used by the Chinese to refer to this vast number of diverse thoughts including the Confucianist School, the Mohist School, the School of Names, the Legalist School and the Taoist School, the School of Diplomatists, the School of Eclectics, the School of Agrarians and the School of Story Tellers. One explanation for the origin of these schools relates to the early Chou dynasty (1111 BC–249 BC), where there was no separation between government officers and teachers. Government officers from different departments were simultaneously teaching according to the purpose of the department. In other words, at that time, there was no private teaching. However, during the later centuries (around the 7th cen-tury BC) of the Chou dynasty, the Chou ruling house began to lose power and consequently many government officials lost their positions and decided to teach their special branches of knowledge privately. Essentially, they switched from being official teachers to being private teachers. Due to this separation between teachers and officers, the different schools emerged.



Instead of understanding the universe in terms of arche, some Presocratic philosophers viewed the universe in numbers, as one glorious harmony or mathematic structure. Through the expression of numbers, ratios and proportions, people come to understand different aspects of the universe such as musical harmony and architectural proportion. Take pitch as an example. Pitch, from a stringed instrument, can be expressed in numbers as a proportion of total string length (Pythagoras, 550–500 BC). However, the idea that the universe is one glorious harmony was not welcomed by some philosophers at that time. Conflicting forces existing in the universe imply strife, opposition, incoherence and instability and indeed the lack of harmony (Burkert, 1972, Guthrie, 2003).

Why are things unstable, one might ask? The reason is that they are changing constantly. In other words, there is no being but only becoming. Does it mean that there is no such concept as order or stability? No, it doesn’t but how is it possible that stability exists in the midst of change? Consider a river: we cannot

Box 2.4 The Yin-Yang School

We know very little about the early Yin Yang scholars. It has been thought that the Yin Yang school originated from occult practices. During the early part of the Chou dynasty when feudalism was strong, in all aristocratic houses, there were hereditary experts of occult arts who would give advice on any important decisions that needed to be made or any events that took place in the house. However, when feudalism began to lose its significance, these experts also lost their hereditary positions. Consequently, they went to different places throughout the country, continuing to practise their occult arts among common people. They were then called Feng-shui, which literally means ‘wind and water’, or practitioners of occult arts. The fundamental idea of Feng-shui is that we are products of the universe. Consequently, our houses and burial places have to be arranged in such a way that harmonizes with natural forces, such as wind and water.

Although occultism is based on superstition, it is also thought to be the basis for science. Both occultism and science try to understand how the universe works. Science begins when occultism abandons supernatural forces and tries to understand the universe in terms of natural forces.

Tsou Yen, a native of the State of Ch’i in present day Shantung province, who probably lived between 305 and 240 BC, was considered to be a major thinker in the Yin Yang school. However, we know very little about him and his work. Also, before the estimated dates of Tsou Yen, one can find ideas of Yin Yang and the Five Agents in, for example, the works of Lao Tzu, Mo Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and Hsün Tzu.



step on the same river twice because water is flowing and changing all the time. Nevertheless, we would say that it is the same river, so the being of the river is maintained (stability), despite the fact that it is constantly becoming and changing. Take another example, a leaf can change its colour (red is coming into being and green is passing away), while it still remains, in a sense, the same leaf. However, some ancient philosophers simply found this interchange between change and unchange (stability) absurd. They believed that there is nothing which never changes and is forever stable. This is logos, a force which exists in the universe. This force controls the processes determining the nature of the world. Even our soul is part of this logos (Heraclitus of Ephesus, 500 BC, see Hussey, 1982; Khan, 1979; Kirk, 1962).

Box 2.5 Pythagoras and His Secret Society

Pythagoras was the key philosopher to advocate the idea that the universe can be understood in terms of numbers. Not surprisingly, one of his significant contributions is in the areas of mathematics and geometry, hence, Pythagoras’ Theorem [i.e. the sum of (the areas of ) two small squares equals (the area of ) the large one.]

Pythagoras was an Eastern Greek who later migrated from his native Samos to Croton in southern Italy. He established a secret society in which his doctrines were kept. Pythagoras was thought to possess magical power and be able to perform miracles. He was also a well-known mathematician. Due to its secrecy, we know very little about the society, except that it was partly a religious cult of which Pythagoras was leader and prophet. People in the society were encouraged to engage in free and genuine intellectual discussion. The whole society was managed based on strict rules. For example, 1) do not eat beans, 2) do not pick up what was fallen, 3) do not touch a white cock, 4) do not break bread, 5) do not step over a crossbar, 6) do not stir fire with iron, 7) do not eat from a whole loaf, 8) do not pluck a garland, 9) do not sit on a quart measure, 10) do not eat hearts, 11) do not walk on highways, 12) do not let swallows share the roof of one’s house, 13) when people take their pot off the fire, they have to mix the ashes so that the mark of the pot cannot be seen, 14) do not look into a mirror when there is a light beside it, 15) when people get out of bed, they must roll the bedclothes together and smooth out the impress of the body.

In society, people believed in the sanctity of life and the transmigration of the soul. The soul is immortal, lives in everything in the world and can be incarnated and reincarnated in different living creatures. Whether or not the soul lives in a good or bad creature depends on the spiritual purity of the life of that soul living in the previous incarnation.



Instead of calling this unchangeable thing logos, some philosophers preferred calling it the One Reality. One Reality is unchanging, eternal, continuous, immovable and a homogeneous mass. The implication from this view is that our perception that something is changing (e.g. something is coming into being and passing away), is only an illusion of our senses. Not only that, our perception that there are many things or multiple appearances of the world (plurality) is also an illusion of our senses, because if there were only One Reality in the universe, everything in the universe would bear the characteristics of it. For all things to bear the characteristics of the One Reality means a rejection of plurality (Melissus of Samos, 440 BC; Parmenides of Elea, 480 BC; Zeno of Elea, 470 BC, see Barnes, 1982; Burrell, 1989; Cohen, Curd, Reeve, 2005; Finley, 1981; Furley and Allen, 1970; Kirk, Raven and Schofield, 1983). One should not rely on senses but on abstract and deductive reasoning (Parmenides of Elea, 480 BC, see Coxon, 1986; Mourelatos, 1970).

This idea was later taken up by the atomists who explained the world in terms of space and tiny entities existing within. Each of these entities in fact had the qualities of the One Reality, i.e. indivisibility, homogeneity and unalterability.

Box 2.6 Zeno’s Paradox

Zeno of Elea (470 BC) argued for the idea that Reality is being one (i.e. no plurality) and immovable using a series of paradoxes. These paradoxes basically aimed to show that plurality and movement are impossible. They are illusions in our senses. For example, if we can generate a plurality of things by division, we must be able to eventually come down to things which are units in an absolute sense. But, this is impossible since these units have size (If they don’t, they will not be divisible). Anything having size must be capable of being divided into infinite parts; therefore, it can never be a unit in an absolute sense. They must therefore be seen as an infinite collection of parts having size. That is, they can be seen as infinitely big.

In terms of his arguments against motion, it goes like this. If we are in a stadium, about to embark on a run, we will never complete the lap. Why? Before we reach the far end, we must reach the half-way point. However, before we reach the half-way point, we must reach the halfway point to it and so on indefinitely. So, if space is infinitely divisible, any finite distance must be composed of an infinite number of points. So, it is impossible to reach the end of an infinite number of operations in a finite time. Another argument goes like this. Objects at rest occupy a space which is equal to their own dimensions. When an arrow is flying, it occupies at any moment a space which is equal to its dimensions. So, when an arrow is flying, it is in fact at rest.



There are opposing views to what has been proposed above in ancient philosophical debates. While one can accept the foregoing notion of One Reality, one can still believe that change is possible. In other words, pluralistic systems are possible. For example, while the fundamental substance of the universe can-not be changed, changes are happening through various mixtures of things within it. The universe is essentially made up of four elements: earth, water, air, fire. These elements are unchangeable, ungenerated and indestructible. They are the ultimate roots of all things. However, all things in the universe can come into being and be destroyed (i.e. things can change) by the mixture and separa-tion of these elements according to the opposing active forces of Love (attrac-tion) and Strife (repulsion). When Love is dominant, the basic elements will blend together in an orderly and harmonious way. When Strife is dominant, the basic elements will separate (Empedocles of Acragas, 495–435 BC, see Burrell, 1989; Finley, 1981).

To explore this debate on change further, Aristotle (384–322 BC/1984) argued that it should be viewed in terms of the actualization of the potential of the thing in question. Natural things have their own natural potentialities (e.g. a leaf has its own potentiality to change colour or fire has the potentiality to go upwards). When there is adequate or actuality of causality, things will move or change to coincide with their innate potentialities. In other words, the form of change that occurs is the actualization of the potentiality of that thing (Anscombe and Geach, 1961; Cohen, Curd and Reeve, 2005).

It’s noteworthy that the foregoing actualization process depends on the actuality of causality. Every changing, becoming, movement or transit from potentiality to action requires an actual moving cause, namely, God. The universe requires God, the first mover or the unmoved mover in that He is the supreme source of all change and all motion, that He is the final cause or the ultimate cause of whatever form the world has. He causes change without changing Himself. He possesses no potentialities but is fully actualized.

To put this in another way, objects in the world are not necessary of themselves. Their existence is determined by the necessary action of an external cause – A causes B; B causes C. This chain of causes is not infinite. Instead, there must be a first cause which is itself uncaused, hence, God. God is the necessary being which is necessary of itself. Contingent beings are not necessary of themselves but neces-sary through another (Avicenna, 980–1037). Our perception of causes and effects is based on the constant combinations which we perceive between certain events; however, the causal efficacy is due to God (Al Ghazali, 1058–1111, see Fakhry, 1970, 1997; Leaman, 1985; Nasr and Leaman, 1996).

This is one example of ancient philosophers turning to the external, namely God, from their discussion about the Universe. The Universe had a beginning and the world was created by God. The earth is the centre of the universe with the celestial bodies moving around it in a uniformly circular motion and they were ‘incorruptible’ (Aquinas, 1225–74). Looking closely at their thoughts about the Universe, they are implying that God caused all things in the Universe,



Box 2.7 A Biographical Sketch of Aristotle

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was not Athenian. He was born in Macedon in the North Eastern area of Greece. His father was a court physician to the King of Macedon. This medical background influenced Aristotle’s work in biology which, in turn, influenced his philosophical outlook. When he was 17, he enrolled as a student of Plato in the Academy. He also later became a teacher there, where he stayed for about 20 years. Aristotle was 37 when Plato died. Aristotle at first agreed with Plato’s philosophical views but later rejected them. After Plato died, Aristotle left the Academy and became a teacher to the heir to the Macedonian throne, Alexander the Great. In 335 BC, Aristotle went back to Athens and founded a new school, the Lyceum, and taught there. However, following the death of the all-conquering Alexander, a great deal of resentment arose at the Macedonian domination of Greece and the city-states. Since Aristotle was associated with Macedonians, he felt quite uncomfortable being in Athens. Later, he was accused of impiety and left Athens in 323 BC. However, he was not able to return to Stagira, his home town, because it had been destroyed. He then exiled to Chalcis, a remote city, where he died in 322 BC at the age of 62. Apparently, he had two marriages and had a son named Nicomachus.

presumably including humans. This opens up the possibility for understanding humans in the light of Him rather than one’s own internal experiences. In what follows, we are going to show some philosophical thoughts, from both Eastern and Western philosophers, which demonstrate precisely that. Without present-ing the ideas from individual ancient philosophers, one could summarize them as follows:

Human Beings Have a Soul

Ancient philosophers believed that human beings are not simply composed of complex physical or psychological processes. They are also made up of a soul created by God. The soul is an important principle in living things and the final cause of the body, giving it purpose and making it what it is. It aims to preserve life and keep a living thing existing continually. The soul and the body are connected like a psychosomatic unity. All the faculties of the soul are connected with the complex body. All the ‘affections of the soul’, for example, anger, love, hate, joy and courage are expressed through the body.

There are different forms of the soul. The lowest form is the nutritive or vegeta-tive soul which can be found in plants and animals and exercises the activities of



growth and reproduction. Plants do not have sensation since they do not move but absorb their nourishment automatically. However, animals which are capable of moving have sensation (e.g. touching, tasting, smelling). As a result, they are able to recognize food when they find it. Thus, animals which can move possess the higher form of soul which is the sensitive soul. This soul exercises powers of sense-perception, desire and movement. With the sensitive soul, imagination and memory are also possible. However, human soul is the highest form of soul which incorporates the powers of the lower souls and of thought, the rational faculty. The latter is the power of rational thinking and scientific thought through which we discover truth about the world and use this truth for practical purposes (Aristotle, 384–322 BC/1984). The human soul interacts with our body in that God knows completely what our intentions are and has programmed our body in advance to make it a kind of automation to perform the acts willed by the soul (Leibniz, 1646–1716/1962, 1985, 1989, 1995).

Human Beings Have a Mind

Instead of talking about human soul, some philosophers talk about the human mind. When we hear shouting, followed by a child crying, we use our rational mind to obtain the idea that someone is angry with the child and shouting at him to the extent that he is crying. This auditory idea can also suggest other ideas (e.g. visual: we turn our heads to see the person shouting at the child and the child crying) which then creates our complex idea of parenting or disciplin-ing a child. We inevitably put together collections of ideas in our lives. This view is sometimes called phenomenalism (i.e. material objects that we perceive are simply collections of actual or possible sense-data). The shouting of an adult and the crying of a child that we perceive are simply collections of actual or pos-sible data through our senses such as hearing or seeing. In other words, reality consists in ideas.

All ideas are ‘imprinted on the senses’, are ‘perceived immediately by attending to the operations of the mind and are formed by the work of our memory and imagination. Now, one would argue that at this point, all one can see is a description of an internal working model of our mind. This is not an attempt to understand our minds through the external God. However, let’s pursue this notion of phenomenalism a bit further. Arguably, phenomenalism does not really tell me ‘how’ ideas come to my mind. Returning to the aforementioned example, namely, that when we hear someone shouting followed by a child crying, ‘we’ obtain an idea that someone is angry with the child and shouting at him to the extent that he is crying. This example, however, does not tell us ‘how’ we obtain the idea. We only know that the idea ‘comes’ to us so immediately that we feel that we are the ones who ‘create’ or ‘cause’ it. But the idea coming to us so immediately, following our sense perception, does not mean that we are the ones who created or caused it. Some philosophers would argue that our minds do not cause ideas. Instead, they



are ‘given’ to us. When we say that we know (i.e. have obtained the idea) that some-one is angry with the child and shouting at him to the extent that he is crying, we are in fact saying that we are able to ‘access’ this idea created for us or given to us. By whom? God. One example of the philosophical approach which advocates this way of thinking is idealism. Idealism (Berkeley, 1685–1753/1948, 1988a, 1988b, 1975) basically asks: What are the possible causes of ideas? Some philosophers believe that the only possible causes of ideas are spirits, God. Ideas are essentially passive and are ‘visibly inactive’. Although we are ‘active beings’ in obtaining perceived ideas through imagination, we do not cause them. Our ideas through our senses come to us or are produced for us regardless of (not dependent on) our will. An active substance or an active perceiving spirit, God is the only possible cause of our ideas and the changes in the success of ideas. In other words, ideas cannot exist without God which has them.

Such laws of nature are due to the goodness and wisdom of God, the ‘governing spirit’. This means that when we say we have an idea in our minds, we actually mean this idea is in God’s mind, since the ideas in our minds are caused by God. His existence and nature are evident in the ideas that He produces. The implication from the above is then that our mind is, in fact, an immaterial substance or soul, as opposed to some physical processes. Our mind reflects the mind of God. Thus, when we say we understand our ‘own’ mind by investigating our ‘internal’ processes (i.e. our way of thinking, rationalizing or memorising), we are in fact understanding the ‘external’ mind of God.

Human Beings Can Access Eternal Truths

There is one important implication from what has been said. That is, we can in fact access that which constitutes God’s mind. This also means that we can access the eternal, universal and necessary objective truths (e.g. mathematical and geometrical truths), objective standards for moral judgement distinguishing what is good or evil, and aesthetic judgement distinguishing what is and is not beautiful. These truths and standards are embedded within the eternal and immutable mind of God and are the absolute, on the basis of which all things are judged. They cannot be changed and are therefore objective and common to all people.

However, a puzzling problem emerges in that we are human beings with non-eternal human minds. Daily experiences indeed tell us that we get ‘wrong’ or ‘imperfect’ ideas regularly. For example, we apply mathematical rules incorrectly and arrive at wrong or imperfect ideas of a mathematical truth. We have ideas of cheating or stealing because of greed. We have ideas of hurting someone because of anger. Now, according to the principle of idealism, when we have an idea in our minds, we actually mean this idea is in God’s mind. Surely, it would be crazy to think that wrong ideas in our minds exist in God’s mind.



Philosophers who advocate the notion of idealism would argue that this problem basically stems from how we access eternal truths. We may say we use reason to establish true or false judgements or the truth. For example, we may say stealing from the rich is not a wrong action because they have so much money that they do not know what to do with it. We are, in this scenario, using reason to arrive at an idea which seems crazy to even think that it exists in God’s mind. This is indeed not the idea of eternal truth in God’s mind. This is simply an idea that we create for ourselves by relying on reason. This does not mean that we should not use reason. But reason alone cannot help us access the knowledge of eternal truths. Indeed, our finite human intellect or reasoning cannot discover eternal truths by understanding its natural tendencies and inclinations. One has to rely on the will and providence of a personal God, a Creator (Aquinas, 1225–1274/1956, 1963–1975, 1988).

When our human minds search for eternal truths, we seek something which is beyond our temporal and indeed mutable human minds. In order to access eternal truths, we need to turn to God and rely on his supernatural ‘divine illumination’ (Augustine, 354–430/1981, 1984) through which our reason or intellect can ‘see’ eternal truths. God does not in fact fill our minds with the absolute concepts which constitute eternal truths. Instead, these concepts are hidden in our minds as copies of the archetypes in God’s mind. Divine illumination helps us see intellectually which eternal and necessary truths are hidden in our soul. Imagine a society in which everyone knows the eternal truth. We would be able to live together in a society characterized by ultimate happiness (Aquinas, 1225–1274/1956, 1963–1975, 1988).

Box 2.8 A Biographical Sketch of Berkeley (1685–1753)

George Berkeley was born near Kilkenny in Ireland, and the Bishop of Cloyne. He earned a B.A. at Trinity College, Dublin, studied a variety of subjects and was familiar with the works of Locke, Malebrance and Newton. In 1707, Berkeley became a Fellow of Trinity College. In conjunction with his fellowship, he became a priest in 1710. In 1713, Berkeley moved to London where his philosophical works were extensively criticized and indeed ridiculed. In 1721, he returned to Ireland and was made Dean of Derry in 1724. However, he never settled down in Derry and was concerned at this time with obtaining government support to set up a College in Bermuda, largely for missionary purposes. On finding the delays from the government impossible, in 1728, he went to America and settled on Rhode Island. He never received government support for his project. In 1731, he returned to England and subsequently returned to Ireland to become Bishop of Cloyne in 1734. After his retirement in 1752, he went to Oxford and died there the year after.



The passage above basically says that we can reconcile our ability to use natu-ral cognitive faculties (using our senses and reason), and our ability to be in touch with divine revelation. Faith (fides) and scientific knowledge (scientia) are distinguished by method. Both are cognitive processes involved in obtaining truths. While faith requires the help of our will in order to believe truths with certainty, scientific knowledge requires no such help since the intellect either intuitively ‘sees’ truths immediately, or establishes truths from intuitively known premises.

What has been said so far amounts to the fact that ancient philosophers attempted to understand human beings, particularly cognitive functioning, in the light of God. We are able to get close to the external God, to communicate with Him and can access His eternal truths.

Human Beings Are Rational

Although our minds and our ideas are intimately connected with God, using reason is still important and indeed necessary. As Aristotle stated, rational think-ing plays an important part in our human soul. Using rationality does not mean that God has no place in our thinking. But first and foremost, we need to turn to God and rely on ‘divine illumination’. Only then can we see intellectually (using reasoning) God’s eternal truths. This depicts quite a complex relationship between us as humans, human’s usage of rationality and God. Such complexity stimulated and preoccupied the thinking of some ancient philosophers. To unpack such complexity ultimately helps us understand ourselves. How? Here is one example.

There is a philosophical thesis called monism (Spinoza, 1632–1677/1951, 1955, 1961, 1993) which holds that there is only one substance in the Universe. This substance is an infinite divine substance which is identical to God or nature and which requires nothing but itself to exist. It is in itself and is conceived through itself, meaning that the conception of this substance does not depend on the conception of other things. God or nature is a single unified system which contains within itself the explanation of all of itself. All things that happen, exist and survive are determined by the necessity of the divine nature. The term ‘all things’ includes us as human beings – as Spinoza stated, we are a mode of God. Consequently, we are all subject to such determinism and are surrounded by determining causes. This does not mean that we have a clear idea about what these determining causes are. We need to exercise our own ability to access these causes. Through rational thought and reasoning, we can obtain an ‘adequate idea’ or ‘clear and distinct idea’ or ‘true idea’ of what these determining causes of God or nature are. Consequently, we will know why we do what we do and why we think what we think. We will know the true causes of our actions, thoughts and emotions and will not conclude anything from abstractions. On



Box 2.9 A Biographical Sketch of Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas was born into a noble family at Roccasecca in Italy. When he was five, he studied at the Benedictine abbey of Monte Cassino. In 1239, he went to the University of Naples, where he studied the liberal arts of grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. He subsequently entered the Dominican Order. Since he was born into a noble family, his entry into this Order and his emphasis on poverty and evangelism, were not welcomed by his family. In fact, his family so opposed it that he had to escape to Paris. However, on the way to Paris, he was captured by his elder brother and locked up in the family castle at Monte San Giovanni. He was later held prisoner in Roccasecca for over a year. His family’s attempts to persuade him to renounce the Order or remove his Dominican robes failed. They eventually gave in and Aquinas returned to the Dominican Order, first at the University of Paris in 1248, then at Cologne under Albert the Great. During this time he became very familiar with the works of Aristotle.

In 1252, he returned to Paris and lectured in theology until 1259. He spent the next ten years of his life at various Dominican monasteries near Rome. In 1268, he returned to be a lecturer at the University of Paris. In 1272 he went to teach at the University of Naples, but had to stop work due to health problems. In 1273, he had a mystical vision which caused him to believe that his intellectual work was worthless. In 1274, he was travelling to Lyon for a meeting of the church council, but, due to his health problems, had to rest at Fossanova, not far from his birthplace. He died there later that year.

the contrary, we will be able to discriminate genuine knowledge from confused and uncertain judgements about ourselves. It becomes self-evident. This genuine knowledge means that we necessarily know that we know.

In short, what this amounts to is the idea that if we want to have a good under-standing of ourselves, we need to use rationality to help us obtain an adequate idea of God/nature and know our place in it. We need to obtain perfect knowl-edge, or clear and distinct ideas of the causes surrounding ourselves as part of God/nature. We should not rely on unclear, confusing and false ideas. What this means is that we need to eradicate the illusion that we can make free and undeter-mined choices. This way of thinking is due to our ignorance and our failure to identify the causes of our choices. This is one example of effort taken by ancient philosophers to try to understand ourselves through a rational understanding of God/nature. Rather than understanding our thoughts, actions and emotions by focusing on internal mechanisms, they focus on the external mechanisms, our place in relation to God/nature.



Human Beings Are Free Individuals

By means of understanding ourselves in the light of our place in God/nature, we now know that we have no freedom. There are always determining causes motivating us to behave in certain ways, determining our actions and shaping our behaviour accordingly. But then, one could argue that to be truly free or to truly liberate ourselves is to educate ourselves to be conscious of the hidden causes. Indeed, some ancient philosophers attempted to defend the notion of free will and they did so in the light of God/nature. For example, one might ask: how can people be free in the face of God’s foreknowledge (God knows that we will choose to do X rather than Y) which implies determinism and necessity (in the sense of not being free)? Despite such determinism, people are still free. This is because God is eternal and he views all events from the viewpoint of eternity. He has knowledge of what is eternally present to Him. The knowledge that He possesses is not a foreknowledge of things which are future to him. To view knowledge in terms of something which is eternally present means that he does not perceive events in terms of their necessity. God sees our human actions as free actions,

Box 2.10 Rational Philosophy and Faith

During the medieval period, one important feature is the dominance of Christian beliefs. This does not mean that thinkers at the time only rehearsed Christian dogma. Rather, in medieval philosophy, there was a conflict between reason of philosophy and faith of theology, or, in other words, between gaining natural knowledge by means of using our natural cognitive faculties of intellect, thought, logical arguments of premises and senses and gaining supernatural knowledge based on divine Christian premises from the Bible and beliefs of the Church Fathers.

The conflict between rational philosophy and faith occurred partly because some truths cannot be demonstrated using rational argument. They can only be accepted based on faith. Also, in Christian thought, reason is subject to the deliverance of faith. The reconciliation between them proved to be difficult. During the medieval period, the intellectual framework of university scholars (it is also called scholasticism) aimed to resolve the conflict and reconcile the demands of rational philosophical thought and theological faith.

However, to try to fit rational philosophy into theological truths is not easy and in the end, the former tended to undermine the latter. In other words, the separation of philosophy and theology was only becoming greater. At the end of the Middle Ages, scholasticism disappeared, as reason won over faith. In other words, by then, Christian faith was no longer the basis on which rational arguments were judged or examined.


246mm history - startseite · 2013. 7. 18. · 11 the return of the mind: phenomenological and...

Documents