Phil lecture 26-feb

David Hume
In other words, all idea are copies of impressions. This is known as the
Copy Principle
The Copy Principle is a general principle that is it accounts for the
origin of all our ideas
Example: the idea of God as an intelligent, all powerful being comes
from reflecting upon our own minds and its powers.
The controversial phenomenon of the missing shade of blue- against
the Copy Principle.
The missing shade of blue tells us that we might have an idea (a
simple idea) of a particular shade of blue which we have never experienced
before (that is, of which we have no impression).
This example weakens the generality of the Copy Principle and makes
it look rather arbitrary
On the other hand, Hume admits that this example goes against the
Copy Principle that he has established
On the other hand, he tries to sweep it under the carpet by saying that
it is only one exception and we shouldnt consider it.
So, how are we to interpret the missing shade of blue example?
A possible charitable reading of the example: think of the mind as a
paint shop where impressions of colours are mixed, just like paints are mixed
in a paint shop.
Our mind has mixed different shades of blue and even though, the
newly received shade of blue is a mixed colour, that is, a complex idea, we
cannot really take it apart like we can take a car apart.
In other words, the newly mixed shade of blue is still a simple idea,
however, does not have one antecedent impression (an impression received
before), but is composed of a few impressions of shades of blue.
The next step: determine how our impressions and ideas are
connected with each other, discussed in section 3 of the Enquiry.
Section 3: Hume argues that the principle of associations the principle
which connects both our impressions and ideas.
Note: the principle of association is not a theoretical principle but a
natural operation of the mind (experienced in the internal sensation)
Why does Hume want to know how our ideas and impressions are
connected?
If we do not account for the connection between impressions and ideas
then we are stuck with eidetic atomism.
Eidetic atomism: all we have in our minds are discrete impression and
ideas which are not connected in anyway, except that they happen to be in
one at a given time.
For Hume the principle of association is a universal principle.
Three types of association: resemblance, contiguity (in time and
space), and causation.

 Causation- the most important principle of association and the only

one that takes us beyond the faculties of sensation and memory into the
faculty of judgement/understanding.
In other words, according to Hume, all my knowledge results from
causality.
Section 4: discussion of what knowledge is, where it originates and an
explanation of skepticism.
Relations of ideas, such as the idea of Geometry and Algebra, are the
ones that provide us with demonstrative, a priori knowledge.
Hume and a priori knowledge: to be handled with caution.
Hume and the subject of metaphysics
Hume doesnt really like a priori knowledge but at the same time, he
cant ignore the special nature of geometric/algebraic knowledge.
At, first only current sense-impressions (matters of fact), intuitions at
the relation between perception, and demonstrable ideas (such as
mathematical ideas) are described as knowledge.
The rest (outside of the three), such as matter of fact which are not
current sense-impressions, he calls probability.
But later on he changes his mind and includes under knowledge
probability as well.
Regardless of the definition of knowledge, all knowledge is based on
the principle of causation.
The question, then, is how we acquire the principle of causation?
Contrary to Descartes and Rationalism, Hume does not think that we
get the principle of causation a priori, that is, from reason. Why not?
Because we can always conceive of a change in the course of events
which will prove our rational principle of causation wrong.
We uncover the principle of causation through experience. How does
this happen?
We observe particular objects which are constantly conjoined with
one another (the stone always seems to break the window when thrown at it.)
But how come that we can make a general statement about causation
from the observation of particular objects/events.
In other words, how can we connect the past conjoined events with the
future conjoined events, so that we can justify our experience that the stone
will break the window, if thrown at it?
The connection is problematic: when we observe constantly conjoined
events, what we observe is distinct events, which are not really connected
with each other.
With this begins the so-called negative phase of his investigation of the
notion of causation.
It turns out that the effect is a distinct event from the cause and they
dont seem to be ever really connected, just conjoined (in space and time).
So, habit or custom (a very important concept in Humes philosophy)
tricks us into believing that causes and effects are necessarily connected.
Hence, we think its a law of nature that the stone will break the
window when thrown at it.

 Put simple, we just get used to observing the same events conjoined in
a cause-and-effect relation, and we make predictions for the future based on
this habit.
But as the billiard balls example shows, in reality causes and effects
are conjoined arbitrarily and there is no necessary connection between them.
This is precisely what makes Hume a skeptic towards knowledge

LECTURE: 5TH MARCH

So it turns out that our belief in the casual law (as a law of nature) is
based in the supposition that nature is uniform
This supposition is dogmatic and not based on anything scientific o
empirical (in other words, we cant really justify this claim) when someone is
dogmatic theyre stuck in a sense. Cant decide.
In section 7 of the Enquiry, Hume completes the discussion of the
problem with causation.
There he says that even though we can observe only constant
conjunction of events which are discrete, we still think of causality as a
necessary connection.
We cant help thinking of causality as a necessary principle (universal a
priori principal).
Where does this conviction that causality is a necessary principle come
from?
A product of the imagination which has made the transition from one
observation of events to another that happens many times.
This transition, based on habit, has established a feeling of necessary
connection in us.
This is Humes skeptical solution to the problem of causation.
It says: the necessary connection is nothing more but the
determination of our minds (to believe in the order of nature), acquired by
habit.
Why is this solution skeptical?
If we dont have a priori knowledge of causality, then our knowledge of
causality has to come from experience.
But experience, as we all know, is limited, and so all of our conclusions
are only tentative and falsifiable, that is, never absolutely certain and
necessary.

Immanuel Kant: 1724 1804

Immanuel Kant worked towards the end of the
Enlightenment.
What has happened up to the point when he wrote his
significant works?
In Europe, Enlightenment was in full swing.
Two main goals of the Enlightenment:
1) To reconcile theology and science (which has
significantly advanced), and
2) To bring every branch of human knowledge (including
theology) to the trial bench of reason.
Disappointment with the enlightenment => CounterEnlightenment (Hume).

 Counter-Enlightenment: skepticism, or doubt in the strength of

reason (remember Humes skepticism regarding knowledge, especially
rational knowledge)
At the same time, strong intellectual currents tugging in the
opposite directions, either toward science and against religion, or toward
religion and against science
So, when Kant comes on the intellectual stage, there is already a
tendency to doubt, or the question what the whole point of the
Enlightenment is, or what the whole point of knowledge is.
Kant sees the task of his philosophy as one of reconciling.
What does his philosophy reconcile?
Specking in general terms, he tries to reconcile theology and
science (Newtons accomplishments).
Speaking more specifically, he tries to reconcile rationalism
(Plato and Descartes) and empiricism (Hume) and overcome skepticism.
Ant tries to bring the Enlightenment to a closure, and restore the
hope in the abilities of human reason.
For this, he invents a new philosophical vocabulary, and a new
philosophy method.
Kants main contribution are in epistemology (theory of
knowledge) and ethics.
His ethics is based on, and follows directly from his
epistemology.
The epistemology text to be discussed is the Preamble of the
Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics.
This Prolegomena written in 1783, two years after Kant writes
his first significant work, The Critique of Pure Reason known as the First
Critique.
The Prolegomena: a lighter, more accessible version of the first
Critique]In the first Critique Kant lays out the foundation of his philosophy]
The Firs Critique is followed by 2 other Critiques , The Critique of
Practical Reason and the Critique of Judgement
The second Critique lays out Kants ethical theory, and the Third
Critique lays out ants aesthetical theory, among other things
With the First Critique begins the so-called critical period in
Kants philosophy (immediately preceded by the silent decade during
which Kant didnt not write or publish anything, except personal letters).
The critical period: characterized with Kants critical method and
what he himself calls, the Copernican revolution.
The critical method consists of a self-examination of reason
Kant believes that nobody before him was able to, or has done
it.
The Copernican revolution: the world and the mind cannot
exist without each other; both the world and the mind (the subject and
object) are dependent upon each other.
Thats why the world is only the knowable world (the world
capable of being known), not the world as it is in itself.
Both rationalists and empiricists have missed this point!

 Kant admits that this metaphysical attitude (to regard the

world as something in itself), has strong intuitive power. (Thats what
common sense asserts!)
However, from a philosophical point of view, it is not serious to
talk about knowledge of the world as it is in itself.
The world as it is itself (which includes Good), Kant calls
noumenal world.
The world, as we know it, is the phenomenal world.
The noumenal world is not accessible to us, we cannot know
anything about it.
This is why there is a problem with metaphysics and why Kant
needs to solve it.
So, Kant wants to solve the problem of metaphysics.
This leads him to systematizing philosophy (this is, to saying
what goes and what doesnt, in philosophy).
So, the question is not to say that there is or isnt any match
between the world as it is in itself and our representation of it, but to show
how we can rationalize it (how and whether we have a rational insight
into it at all).
The place of Humes philosophy: Kant says that Hume woke him
up from his academic slumber. What does that mean?
It is Humes empiricism and orientation to experience that Kant
appreciates and adopts in his philosophy.
Kants philosophy: a response to Humes philosophy.
Kant: Hume was right n claiming that all we have access to is
our experience (the phenomenal world), but he was wrong to argue that
there is no a priori from your knowledge.
Phil lecture March 10, 2015
So, our knowledge is limited (in an absolute was, and not
just by human nature) to our experience, but this doesnt mean that all
of our knowledge comes from experience. What the difference?
When Kant talks about experience, he means possible
experience and not personal experience, as Hume thought.
This allows Kant to claim, without contradiction that the
foundation of our knowledge, which is a foundation of our experience,
is a priori (in the sense of being priori, to experience and also, in the
sense, of enabling experience).
So, then, we are justified that not all of our knowledge
comes through experience.
Mathematical knowledge: an example that there is a priori
knowledge and that we necessarily need it in knowledge.
What is the nature of a priori knowledge in Kants system?
In order to understand that, we need to look at how Kant
divides the objects of thought.
So, Kant begins his inquiry the same way that Descartes
and Hume have begun, by examining what there is in the mind.

 This act of construction is for Kant an act of spontaneity

of the mind.All of our knowledge can be grouped into 3 types of
judgements (knowledge statements): Analytic a priori, synthetic a
posteriori, and synthetic a priori.
Analytic a priori judgements are judgements of the
type: all bachelors are unmarried men or all triangles have 3 sides.
This judgement is analytical because the predicate
(unmarried men) is contained in the concept of the subject (bachelors).
Said more simply, analytical a priori judgements are
tautologies and they add nothing to our knowledge. They are confined
only to concepts.
The principle of contradiction guarantees the truth of
analytical a priori judgements.
Example: all triangle shave 3 sides
If we replace the predicate (have 3 sides) with another
one for example: have 2 sides, the concept that we define (triangle)
disappears, and the whole statements falls apart.
Synthetic a posteriori judgements are judgements of
the type: the chalk board is green.
Kant calls such statements synthetic because the mind
literally synthesizes (puts together) its elements and as a results, ends
up with a new connection, not contained within any elements of the
statement.
Technically expressed, in synthetic judgements the
predicate is not contained in the concept of the subject.
Such judgements are a posterior, which literally means
coming from experience, because we need experience to verify the
truth of the statement
In other words, unlike analytical judgments, synthetic
judgements are not confined to concepts.
In synthetic a posteriori judgments the principle of
contradiction does not guarantee the truth of the statement (whether
the chalk board is green is not guaranteed by the concept of chalk
board. These are green, black etc. chalk boards).
Synthetic a priori judgements are the ones that interest
Kant the most. They are of the type All bodies have a weight or 7+5
12.
These judgements are hybrid judgements.
On the other hand, they are a priori, which means that
they dont come from experience (they are prior to experience) on the
other hand, however, they are put together by the mind, that is, they
need to be applicable to experience.
Technically speaking. The predicate of such statements is
not contained in the concept of the subject. The predicate and the
subject are put together by the mind in a new and unexpected way,
not contained in either the subject or the predicate of the judgements.
So, synthetic a priori judgements are necessary and
universal judgements.

 However, they have a lot to do with experience in the

sense that they need to be applicable to experience in order for us to
know whether they are true or not.
Put otherwise, synthetic a priori knowledge doesnt come
entirely from concepts (as analytic a priori knowledge does), but comes
out of the construction of concepts. What does that mean?
Example: we contract the concept of the number 12 by
putting together the numbers 7 and 5 (or 10 and 2 or 11 and 1, etc.)
For this we need to have a priori concept of number
(identity), as well as an understanding of how this number acts in
experience.

The mind constructs concepts spontaneously out of

percepts: concepts without percepts are empty, percepts with
concepts are blind.
Synthetic a priori knowledge is the one that defines the
structure of experience.
Knowledge, in other words, has 2 sources: the structure
that comes from the mind (and which is a priori) and the content
which comes from experience.
To explain how synthetic a priori judgements are possible
means to explain how judgements or concepts relate to their objects
(The old metaphysical problem of how mind and the body are related).
Kant believed that there are exactly 12 (a priori) ways in
which the mind relates to the objects.
These 12 ways are 12 a priori concepts which he calls
categories (such as identity, unity, causality, magnitude, etc.)
Another set of a priori elements of knowledge and
conditions of experience are space and time.
Space and time are a priori intuitions and they provide the
absolute framework of experience.
So the 12 categories and space-time provide the overall
structure of experience.
What about metaphysics?
First, Kant asks, what is metaphysics?
Its rather difficult to define metaphysics, but what Kant
means is the discipline that deals with what there is in the world and
with knowledge that goes beyond experience (Platos world of from, or
Descartes knowledge of God).
So, Kant is interested in the question whether such
knowledge (metaphysical knowledge) is at all possible
Kants answer is no. Why?
Kant thinks that traditional metaphysics (the kind
described by Plato and Descartes) tries to explain the world in a way
which is completely devoid of experience. And this for Kant cannot be.
Phil lecture: March 12, 2015

 For Kant, if theres such a thing as metaphysics, it

should be metaphysics of experience.
Even mathematical knowledge is a result of
synthesis (think about how we learn to count).
So, the right kind of metaphysics deals with
synthetic a priori knowledge, an example: our knowledge of
causality.
Humes failure.
So, it turns out that metaphysics cannot be easily
refuted (AS Hume THOUGHT). BECAUSE WE NEED A PRIORI
KNOWLEDGE TO ORGANIZE OUR EXPERIENCE.
But we cant accept traditional metaphysics which
tells us that we can comprehend such things as causality only from
logic or knowledge prior to experience either (remember Descartes
principle of sufficient reason).
For Kant, then, any philosophical and scientific
knowledge, which hopes to make progress, or add anything new to
our existing knowledge, has to be synthetic a priori knowledge. So,
metaphysics of experience deals with conditions of experience, or
the condition of knowledge.

Kants moral philosophy

Kants moral philosophy/ethics belongs to the socalled deontological more theories, often taken in opposition to the
consequentialist morale theories (such as Utilitarianism)
Deontological moral theories and ethics of duty
Kants ethics is also known as monistic deontology
because it is based on one finite principle of duty, the Categorical
Imperative.
Deontological ethical theories are concerned with
individual rights and duties, with what ought to be done unlike
consequential theories which are concerned with outcomes
Deontologists moral theories are also objective
moral theories. What does that mean?
Deontological theories are concerned with the truth
in morality, with how things really are.
That is why, in Knits ethics, the oral principle is
objective, necessary and universal, and acts as a command and
not just as a guideline.
One of the most important ethical principle that
originates with Kants philosophy is the principle of anatomy (or
self-governance)
Deontological ethics is not concerned with
happiness, but with finding the best and most adequate more
principle tag will guide our moral behaviour at all time
Kant first formulates is moral theory and the
Categorical Imperative in the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of

Morals in 1785 (from which well discuss chapter 2), and later in the
Second Critique.
A few preliminary remarks:
Kants ethics stems directly from his theory of
knowledge.
How?
First, in order for us to know we ought to (how to
act morally), we need to know what there is in the world, and what
we know about this world.
Already established in the Critique of Pure Reason,
the world consists of phenomena and we have access only to
phenomena
The same applies to the moral world: the moral
world is pure/ideal, a kingdom of ends and we, as moral agents
are always driven towards this pure world
So, moral laws/principles, are pure principles (a
priori), which means that they are absolute and act as imperatives
for us.
Unfortunately, we are finite human beings who are
stuck in between 2 worlds, the ideal and the natural world.
AS a result, we can never get to the pure moral
world, but we can at least try to get closer and closer to it.
Second, Kantian moral principles are purely
rational, which means that we have to know what pure reason is
and what it deals with before we know anything about morality.
From this follows directly that once we figure out
what the laws o reason are and how reason acts on then, then we
will figure out what we, as more agents am rational beings, ought
to do (in every situation)
In other words, if reason had full control over the
passions (which unfortunately, it doesnt), we will always choose to
do what is rational which is also what is moral?
So. The function and purpose of reason is to
manifest a will that is good in itself.
When is say I ought to do something (because I am
a moral agents, this means that is recognize that my action is
absolutely necessary because it is dictated by an objective principle
which is valid for all rational agents
In other worlds, the moral principle that I have
adopted as my duty, is universal
When we do something good, we do it for the sake
of the duty (itself), and not to feel good about ourselves, or to look
good in the eyes of others, etc.
Our passions or subjective interests belong to the
world of Nature and not to the kingdom of ends
Example: if there are 2 people that need to rescue
at the same time, one of them, my mother, and the other, a
stranger, I should choose to rescue the stranger and not my mother.

 Chapter 2 of the Groundwork

1) Good Will: is the only thing that can be
consider good without qualification (unconditional good).
o All other virtues of character (courage,
preserving, etc.) and gifts of fortune (power, riches, etc.) are
not good n themselves because they can be used for evil if
used by an evil will.
o Good will cannot be used in an evil
way.
Having a good will is more important than attaining
happiness! It is our end as humans (contrast with Aristotle)
We attain a good will through the proper use of
reason according to duty.
Acting according to duty without any inclination or
self-interest alone is of moral worth.
Example: one has a duty to maintain ones life
against all hope and this is morally worth (against suicide).
2. Maxims and imperatives: maxims are
subjective moral principles; imperatives are objective moral
principles. What is the difference?
Objective moral principles tell us that we need to
necessarily act according to them, if reason is to have full control
over passion.
Example: do not kill (it is morally wrong to kill)
Humans not always act on objective moral
principles because they are imperfect and let passion take over
reason
Because we are imperfect, these objective moral
principles seem to be like constraints on our freedom.
That is, instead of thinking of them as necessary
expressions of our free will, we think of them as imposed
(necessitating) upon us.
Thats we often dont like duties (they dont seem
like fun to us and we try to escape them).
But this is precisely why these objective moral
principles take the form of imperatives or commands for us,
humans.
3. So how are moral imperatives possible?
(How do we know about these imperatives?)
o Not from experience since
experience never yields universal principles (Remember
what Hume said!)
o Is morality an illusion then?
Should we be skeptical of it?
No, our reasons knows duty a priori.
This is why Kant calls his ethics the Metaphysic of
Morals : they are morals based on pure rational knowledge
separated from everything empirical
In fact, Kant teaches that his ethical system should
not be derived from anything accept pure reason :

o Should not be mixed with

anthropology, theology, physics, etc.
Any mixed ethics lead to evil consequences.
The core of his system: when we act in our will in
accordance with duty which is understood by reason, we are acting
morally.
4. What are the types of moral imperatives?
Kant distinguishes three types of moral
imperatives: hypothetical, assertoric (pragmatic), and categorical.
We will deal only with the categorical imperative!
The categorical imperative (CI) is the highest form
of moral imperative (note that we talk about only one categorical
imperative which takes many forms). It is an unconditioned
imperative. What does that mean?
To say that moral principle is a categorical
imperative means to say that a perfectly rational agent will
necessarily follow it, without any other conditions.
What other conditions could there be?
For example, I should do this because it is the
prudent thing to do. Or, I should do this because this is the useful
thing to do. Or, I should do this because it will make me happy.
The CI doesnt require any conditions (any other
ends) other than itself.
If I am to follow the categorical imperative, I am to
simply say, I should do this . (No other justification from
experience is necessary.)
4. Different formulas of the categorical imperative.
Kant gives four formulas of the categorical
imperative.
First formula: the formula of the universal law.
It says, Act only on the maxim through which you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law.
This is the first and most general/abstract
expression of the categorical imperative. All the other formulas are
derived from this one,
This first formula has another expression which
Kant called the formula of the law of the nature.
The formula says, Act as if the maxim of your
action were to become through your will a universal law of
nature.
Lecture March 17, 2015
Second formula, the formula of the end in
itself: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in the person of any other,
never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an
end.

 Third formula, the formula of anatomy: So act

that your will can regard itself at the same time as making
universal law through its maxim.
So, the moral law has to be understood as a
product of our own human will, as rational and moral subjects.
That is why our will is autonomous (as opposed to
heteronomous).
The fourth formula, the formula of the kingdom of
ends: So act as if you were through your maxim a lawmaking member of a kingdom of ends.
What is kingdom of ends?
It is a state constituted by all rational agents. It is
an intelligible world (remember Platos world of forms).
Opposite the kingdom of ends: kingdom of nature
in which we all live.
Kingdom of nature is characterized by causality,
and not freedom.
In the kingdom of ends we, all rational agents, are
law-makers (not in the kingdom of nature), and we all have
dignity (that is, we have unconditioned worth) and freedom to act
morally.
Kants analogy between the kingdom of ends and
kingdom of nature: despite the fact that nature is organized
according to the principles of causality, we regard nature as
purposeful.
In other words, it seems that nature needs to
somehow co-operate with the categorical imperative (even though
we cannot rely on it), if we are able to realize ourselves as moral
agents.
What is heteronomy?
Kant says that every philosophy which rejects the
principle of autonomy has to fall back on the principle of
heteronomy.
According to the principle of heteronomy, what
governs human action is not the free will itself, but some objects,
such as happiness, prudence, etc.
What applies to happiness applies to religion.
Its not that God must be rejected as moral
(benevolent), but we cant base morality on religion, because if God
is all-powerful, then we base morality on an arbitrary (but
irresistible) will.
Even though morality should lead to religion, it
cannot be derived from religion.
So, morality has to be based on the free,
autonomous will.

Kants examples:
Suicide:
o Is it contrary to my duty to take my
life if I am I despair due to my many misfortunes?

o First, I should ask: what is all thought

this way and acted accordingly such that it became a
universal law of nature?
o From this I would see that this law
could become universal fro it would contradict our nature to
improve life.
Therefore one ought not to commit suicide.

False Promises
o Is it alright for me to borrow money,
promising to pay it back but knowing full well that I cannot do
so?
o What if this becomes a universal law,
that all are able to make false promises in such
circumstances
Promises would become
useless
Therefore one ought not to make false promises.

Not helping those less fortunate

o Is it alright for me to refrain from
helping those less fortunate when I am in a position to do so?
o No, if everyone did this I would
eventually lose the opportunity to receive help if I were to
need it.

Therefore one ought to help those less

fortunate.

Strengths of Kants morals philosophy

o Rigorous
o Consistent and coherent with his
theory of knowledge

Based on universal principles ->

justifies universal right and freedoms

Weaknesses of Kants moral philosophy:

o Too rigorous and strict
o Inflexible when it comes to resolving

moral problems in the real world.

Friedrich Nietzsche: 1844- 1900

Nietzsches philosophy: considered existentialist
(focuses on the fact of existence of things, not on essence of
things); his ideas- preclusive of Sartres ideas about freedom and
the human condition.
Nietzsches styles unique. In a lot of his books, he
uses aphorisms.( aphorisms - short paragraph could be poetic or
not that contain wisdom)

 Nietzsches philosophy: a radical response of

rejection of Kants systematic philosophy.
He is also some of the few philosophers to literally
lose his mind.
Nietzsche is classically trained (philologist) which
gave him a good understanding f the Ancient literature and
philosophy.
First book was on the Greek tragedy.
Throughout his philosophical career, he favoured
Homers morality, where heroism, courage, and the demonstration
of power are the most important moral assets.
Nietzsches ideas were quite radical: God is dead!
One of the most important concepts in Nietzsches
philosophy is the concept of, will to power, and life.
A few preliminary remarks:
Cannot separate life from philosophy -> interested
in the individual, not the philosophical system.
He always thought that when reading, one is
always interpreting because the reader is bringing something in,
not just passively reading.
Nietzsche: a prespectivist: every concept
contains many fundamentally different nations, so one cant get
away from interpretation.
The concept of life a central concept in his
philosophy.
When accused that he desnt define it at all and
always fro contradiction, he responds that its his philosophy, his
perspective (go get your own!)
Lecture March 19, 2015
Nietzsches alleged nihilism:
1) Darwins theory of evolution
2) the death of God (the philosophical
God/Absolute)
Nietzsche was influenced by Darwins theory of
evolution, and he thought that by pronouncing the death of God,
humans can finally start taking responsibility for their own actions.
In other words, Nietzsche, by his own words, is not
a nihilist at all!
Nietzsches idea to fight nihilism: evaluate all
existing values and introduce a new set of natural values.
The central question in Beyond Good and Evil: how
can we evaluate the existing values and introduce new ones?
Defines, culture as a set of values that have been
communally accepted as, true.
To evaluate the existing culture/values, we need to
set up a measure.
E.g.: in culture A: murder is bad, charity is good; in
culture B: murder is good, charity is bad.

 Nietzsche: ,good and, bad is the wrong language

to use to evaluate the values of a culture.
We need an ,external metric, namely life or should
be life
Cultures are measured by whether they affirm life
or not.
Major difficulty: No definition or at least no noncontradictory definition of life.
Nietzsches response: very concept contains many
fundamentally different things in it, so interpretation of the
meaning at any moment of use, is necessary.
An important thing to understand: Nietzsche
evaluates values/ cultures from the point of view of life, not from
the point of view given philosophical system.
All living things (without an exception) aim at
expressing their will to power - a pouring-out of their energy.
This energy is very expansive (so it expands) and
normally it can entails the infliction of pain, deception and other
negative effects on others.
But this is what life is, a pouring out of energy.
So the will to power is neither negative nor positive,
it just is.
Theres no universal moral principle which is
applicable to all human beings alike.
Instead, there are types of moralities in an order
rank and according to their genealogy.
In Beyond Good and Evil he talks about master morality and slave - morality.
Master - morality: active morality: affirms the self;
affirms life:
Slave - morality: reactive morality; it is created in
opposition to something else (negates the other); negates life.
Life is also understood as ones existence
The 2 types of morality: based on different
presuppositions.
The presupposition for the slave - morality:
Christian morality (pity, compassion, love, etc.)
Christianity is hostile to nature and instinct (sex is
bad).
The presupposition for mater-morality: the
affirmation of life.
Life affirms nature and instincts.
Life is also temporal, experiential world, the world
here and now (theres no life beyond here and now).
What counts as a legitimate moral action depends
upon the kind of person one is (weak and full of life).
A persons theoretical beliefs are best explained in
terms of ones moral beliefs; and ones moral beliefs are best
explained in terms of natural facts about the type of person one is.

 So for Nietzsche, every significant philosophical

system is the personal confession of its author, a kind of
involuntary and unconscious memoir which bears witness of the
innermost drives of their nature.
When we analyze the human nature, what comes
first is the will, and only then come the ego and the consciousness
The will, however, itself doesnt move or cause
anything.
In other words, if we want to understand what
motivates people to act in a certain (moral) way, we need to
understand certain facts about them (about their personalities).
We tend to identify our will with our consciousness.
Nietzsche: this is false, because consciousness
alone does not motivate us to act in a certain way (we at on beliefs,
desires, etc., that is, on certain facts).
So, if the will is not to be identifies with
consciousness, then the will doesnt have any causal power.
So, we are not self - caused creatures, which means
the freedom of the will thesis that philosophers (remember Kant)
often propose, is false and delusional.
So, the morality that philosophy has championed,
with its dichotomy of good and evil, is nothing but anti-nature
(against human nature).
This doesnt mean that there is nothing valuable in
life.
What is valuable for Nietzsche is everything of the
highest types of life (human excellence): everything that
constitutes an obstacle to this flourishing, is harmful.
This interpretation of value suggests that there are
higher types of life, the lives of higher men.
Who are the higher/noble men?
Nietzsche gives 3 examples of higher men:
Beethoven, Goethe, and himself.
Higher men have resilience, zest for life, and are
not easily discouraged.
Lecture March 24, 2015

What Nietzsche proposes is a rather unconventional

virtue ethics.
The noble man (the master) has a set of virtues
that require severe self-love. Why?
Because the master is the creator of morality,
whose morality equals self-glorification.
Master-morality requires as a necessity to have
enemies (both in order to be a good friends, and to give outlet of
the emotions of arrogance, jealousy, etc.)
Slave-morality, on the other hand, is characterized
by diligence, humility, friendliness, etc., since these are the most
useful characteristics for supporting the burden of existence.
Slave-morality is the morality of usefulness.

 The desire for freedom and the instinct of

happiness, belong to the slave-morality, while artifice and
enthusiasm in the reverence and devotion (to oneself!) belong to
the master-morality.
Master-morality then is based on passion, which
leads us straight to the will to power and excellence.
Master-morality is the morality of self-creation.
Nietzsche thinks that the world has not understood
the value of master-morality yet.
(This is often described as his anti-realism. It is
not that he doesnt believe in reality, but he thinks that society
needs awakening to the true morality.)
Nietzsches fatalism: he believes that
events/people are fated.
The important question: how do we bring in the
master-morality if certain people are fated to be salves?
Nietzsches solution: we should allow those being
capable of affirming themselves/being masters, to do so.
New justification of the world: if one is capable of
affirming oneself in all its dimensions, one should use this as his/her
guidelines
Why is he not a determinist?
He wants to mark the distinction between should
and would: the master wants, he/she doesnt prescribe.

Book: Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue

God is dead.
The death of God is announced by a
madman/Zarathustra. Why?
Because anyone who is not within the dominant
Christian framework is bound to appear mad.
Why is the death of God and not the non-existence
of God announced?
Because the death is an event that has happened.
And it has happened recently.
We are all responsible for the death of God, we are
either unaware of it yet, or are in denial.
Zarathustra thinks he has come too early. Why?
Because he realizes that people arent ready to
accept the consequences of what they have done, namely, they
have lost their foundation.
The overman/uber-mensche.
Zarathustra is the Prophet of the overman.
The overman is not human-all-too-human but
more than human. Hes not human but not a demi god Nietzsche
doesnt have gods.
The overman is the noble man, the one espousing
master morality.
The overman is at war with himself.

 He demands a lot from other people because he

demands a lot from himself.
His imperative is: Become hard! which means
finding joy even in destroying. (harden your soul)
The overman makes no excuses for himself or
others.
The overman is healthy and beautiful.
He is not just full of life, he is life itself.
He is a body, a healthy, beautiful body.
HE is the meaning of the earth.
The overman is sublime, that is, he has created
himself as a work of art:
When power becomes gracious and descends into
the visible such descent I call beauty.
The overman has a tense soul, that is he has
struggled very hard to get to the top but at the same time, he
exerts perfect control over his tense soul
And that Nietzsche calls sublime.
Lecture March 26, 2015.

Jean-Paul Sartre 1905- 1980

What is existentialism?
The common feature of all types of existentialism
(Christian or atheist existentialism to which he belongs)): the
principle: existence precedes essence
Sartres examples: the paper-knife and God as the
creator: in both examples conception comes before production.
Man is the realization of a certain conception
which dwells in the divine understanding
Even if God is out of the picture, as Kant did,
philosophers still believe that there is such a thing as human nature
which precedes human existence.
Human being is a particular instance of a universal
conception of humanness
But where is the universal conception of
humanness?
Existentialism: mans existence comes always
before any essence/conception: man first of all exists, encounter
himself, surges up in the world and defines himself afterwards.
Put more formally, existentialism starts with
subjectivity.
The only philosophical principle/truth that
existentialism is based on is the Cartesian I think therefore I am.
However, Sartre put the emphasis on exists or is
and not on the think, as Descartes did.
Human subjectivity, human individuality is the
starting point, we cannot transcend on our won subjectivity.

 No one can go beyond her own unique existence

and the condition of this existence.
In other words, what connects us all is that we all
exist.
Man is nothing at first (pure existence). He
becomes something only later.
(Note the change in verbs here) Man simple is at
first. Then, he/she becomes something only in the sense that
he/she makes something of himself.
So, there is no pre-conceived, pre-thought essence
of man.
Man is indeed, a project which possesses a
subjective life, instead of being a kind of a moss, or fungus, or a
cauliflower.
For Sartre, before this projection of the selfnothing exist; not even is the heaven of intelligence.
In other words, man is thrown into existence and
he/she creates his/her own nature by willing.
Sartres willing, however, is different from what we
normally understand by that.
The wiling that Sartre talks about is before the
conscious willing. It is primitive and unmediated by consciousness.
What are the implications of thus way of thinking?
The first implication: man is in possession of
him/herself. But this brings him/her a tremendous responsibility.
There is no one else to blame for what one has become.
Then, when man makes him/herself, he/she doesnt
make him/herself alone. He/she makes all of humanity. How?
Sartre thinks that when man makes him/herself,
he/she also creates his/her on image, that is, he/she creates what
he/she should be. (He asserts that he/she has made of him/herself
the best that he/she could have.)
This should be imposes itself upon the world.
So, when man makes a choice, he/she actually
chooses for all men.
To say this in other words in fashioning( or
choosing) myself I fashion( or choose) man
So, man cannot escape from the sense of complete
and profound responsibility for all mankind.
This is the Human condition.
This is a big burden and it causes the profound
sense of anguish and anxiety that comes with the human
condition.
By choosing one or another mode of existence, I
am becoming lawmaker for all mankind!
Because I create the pattern of choice. I realize that
Im being watched by everyone and my acts are exemplary, like
the acts of Abraham.
Anguish: always present even if not always evident;
the condition for all my actions.

 I acknowledge that there are many possibilities in

front of me but I choose only one which I think is the best.
Anguish comes with my sense of forlornness.
When I realize that I am thrust into existence, I
realize that theres no one else but me, I was born alone and Im
going to die alone
Theres no God or a superior power to protect me
or guide me.
Because there are millions of possibilities in for of
me/everything is open, I feel lst and abandoned, I cannot find
anything to hand on to.
So, man is absolutely free but this freedom like
condemnation. Man is condemned to be fee.
Man feels despair because he/she realizes that all
the possibilities before him/her have to be somehow involved with
his/her will to consider then as probabilities of action.
Man is nothing else but his/her plan, he/she exists
only to the extent that he/she fulfills himself.
Man is the sum of his/her acts. (Sartres example:
his student who had a choice to stay with his mother or go to war.)
Man is alive as soon as he/she leaves his print upon
life, and that is possible only through his/her actions. (Dreams and
expectations are nothing if one doesnt act upon them.)
So, man is not an object but a subjectivity thats
aware of itself.
This subjectivity, however, is not an individual
subjectivity, on the contrary, it involves everyone else.
When man becomes aware of him/herself, he/she
immediately becomes aware of the others. What are the others?
Man realizes that other men are the condition of
his/her own existence (or the limit of his/her own existence). How
does it work?
I cannot become aware of my on existence without
the existence of the other.
My existence is composed of subjectivity and intersubjectivity.
Lecture March 31, 2015
Man is an organized situation in which he/shes
him/himself involved.
Man makes him/herself by constantly recreating
and creating his/her human condition.
So, the Human condition is my subjectivity and
my inter-subjectivity (my awareness of the existence of others).
People accuse existentialists of You take with one
hand what you give with the other which means that your values
are not serious since you choose them yourselves.
Sartres response: I am very sorry that it should be
so; but if I have excluded God the Father, there must be somebody
to invent values. We have to take things as they are.

 To say that men are the only ones that invent rules
and values means neither more nor less than this: there are no
riles or values a priori.
Life is nothing until it is lived; but it is yours to
make sense of, and the value of it is nothing else but the sense you
choose.
Man is absolutely free; he/she exists only for
him/herself and not to fulfill any higher ideals.
This translates into an absolute freedom of choice.
When man doesnt choose, this is still choice.
Choice: is like a piece of art: there are no hard rules
but theres a certain coherence in the initial condition and the
results which coherence is given by the figure of the painter.
The piece of art depends also on the audience that
perceives it and thus, its an ongoing process of its own creation.
However, choice is limited by what in Being and
Nothingness Sartre calls facticities (a term he borrows from
Heidegger).
In Being and Nothingness, Sartre considered mans
place, body, past, position, his/her fundamental relationship to the
Other, as well as the Other himself, among the facticities of
freedom.
Thus, choice is always a choice in a situation. It
depends in the human condition without one excluding the other.
I can pass judgement on other people, because I
depend on them, but I have to always keep in mind that theyre
coming from the same position as me, that they belong to the same
human condition.
To say, that life has no meaning before my
existence doesnt mean that life is meaningless.
It only means, that I, here and now, am the only
one that gives meaning to life. Life has he meaning that I choose to
give.
Why is existentialism a humanism?
The essence of human universe is that man is
always projecting him/herself outside of him/herself, he/shes
always seeking to reach out to the Other and always chasing whats
transcendent.
Man is always self-surpassing, he is himself he
heart and centre of his transcendence.
There is no other universe except the human
universe, the universe of human subjectivity.

This is the real and not the abstract and formal

humanism of tradition philosophy: we remind man that there is no
legislator but himself; that he himself, thus abandoned, must
decide for himself, but always by seeking, beyond himself, an aim
which is one of liberation o of some particular realization, that man
can realise himself as truly human.

A few additional remarks regarding Sartres

atheism.
Sartres atheism is an integral part of his whole
philosophy and should be read as a starting point.
Sartre thinks that God doesnt exist because the
concept God entails self-contradiction.
Sartre defines God as a being-in-itself-for-itself.
He is an in-itself in so far as the concept of the
divine presupposes that He be an existing entity, complete in
himself and totally unrelated to anything else or anyone else.
On the other hand, he must likewise be for-itself in
so far as he must be completely free and not beholden to anything
else.
How does God relate to the human being?
At first, the human is an unreflective awareness
(pure, raw existence).
In this unreflective awareness, the ego/self is
nothing, its an object (Freud thought that too!)
Once we start reflecting on ourselves or others, the
ego/self but it appears as an object.
So, objectifying others as well as ourselves is
something we cant really avoid.
So, Sartre concludes, following Heidegger,
consciousness is really an emptiness. It is in-itself.
BUT since we, humans, have this strange capacity
to be self-aware, we are for-itself as well.
So, human consciousness never fully coincides
with the self/ego.
Reality is where the for-itself and in-itself meet.
So, reality we are all objects but self-aware objects.
This strange capacity of human consciousness
makes Sartre say that we are not what we are, we are what we are
not.
Ultimately, we want to be something and this
something to be our own conscious choice.
In other words, we want to be in-itself for-itself at
the same time.
What this means is that we want to be self-caused
beings.
But the only self-caused being is God.
So, Sartre, admits, we want to be God, that our
ultimate project.
However, as we saw, God is self- contradictory
So, Sartre concludes, man is a futile passion.
This is how Sartre explains his personal relationship
with God:
For several years more, I maintained public
relations with the Almighty. But, privately, I ceased to associate
with Him. Only once did I have the feeling that He existed. I had
been playing with matches and burned a small rug. I was in a

process of covering up my crime when suddenly God saw me. I felt

His gaze inside my head and on my hands. I whirled about in the
bathroom, horribly visible, a live target. Indignation saved me. I flew
into a rage against so crude an indiscretion, I blasphemed, I
muttered like my grandfather God damn it, God damn it, God damn
it. He never looked at me again.
This is how William Barrett explains Sartres
atheism:
Sartres atheism states candidly that man is an
alien in the universe, unjustifiable, absurd in the simple sense that
there is no Leibnizian (Kantian) reason sufficient to explain why he
or his universe exists.