Ch2ppt velasquez12

CHAPTER TWO: HUMAN NATURECHAPTER TWO: HUMAN NATURE

P H I L O S O P H YP H I L O S O P H YA TEXT WITH READINGSA TEXT WITH READINGS

1212thth EDITION EDITIONManual VelasquezManual Velasquez

Chapter 2: “Human Nature”Chapter 2: “Human Nature”

Outline of Topics in Chapter 2Outline of Topics in Chapter 2• Thinking Critically

• 2.1 Why Does Your View of Human Nature Matter?

• 2.2 What is Human Nature?

• 2.3 The Mind-Body Problem: How do Mind and Body Relate?

• 2.4 Is There an Enduring Self?

• 2.5 Are We Independent and Self-Sufficient individuals?


2.1 Why Does Your View of 2.1 Why Does Your View of Human Nature Matter? Human Nature Matter?

• Try to recall a situation in which you helped a complete stranger. – Write down the circumstances of your action.– Why did you give help him or her?

• Have you ever thought: “I didn’t really act to benefit this person, but out of self-interested motives”?– If yes, then you are a psychological egoist.


Psychological EgoismPsychological Egoism• The American philosopher, Mark Mercer,

has defended a version of psychological egoism. Mercer argues that …– “behind any action whatever that an agent

performs intentionally, ultimately there lies the agent's expectation of realizing one or more of her self-regarding ends, an expectation without which the agent would not have performed the action.”

• What does Mercer mean by “self-regarding end”? (51-2)


Evaluating Mercer’s ArgumentsEvaluating Mercer’s Arguments

• Review the text’s two analyzed versions of Mercer’s arguments (53).

• Briefly explain what makes these arguments deductively valid arguments.

• Are either of the arguments sound arguments?

• Can you provide any other arguments for psychological egoism?


Why It’s Important to Why It’s Important to Understand Human Nature Understand Human Nature

• How do one’s views of human nature influence one’s…– relationships with others?– relationship to the universe?– understanding of society?


2.2 Three Assumptions about 2.2 Three Assumptions about Human NatureHuman Nature

• Many people in the West believe in life after death. They tend to make some assumptions about human nature:1. That humans beings have a self that is

conscious and rational.

2. That the self is different from, but related to, the body.

3. That the self endures through time.


The Traditional View The Traditional View of Human Natureof Human Nature

• These three assumptions are part of an influential view of human nature which the text labels the Traditional Western view of human nature.

• After exploring this viewpoint, we’ll look at three challenges to it:A. The Darwinian Challenge

B. The Existentialist Challenge

C. The Feminist Challenge


The Rationalistic Version of the The Rationalistic Version of the Traditional ViewTraditional View

• A highly influential version of the Traditional theory of human nature views human nature rationalistically. – Both Plato and Aristotle defended versions of

this viewpoint, arising from the assumption that reason is the most distinctive capacity of human beings.

– Neither understood human beings as essentially egoistic or self-interested.


Plato’s RationalismPlato’s Rationalism

• Plato thought that human nature has three parts reason, which pursues knowledge of immaterial ideals (the Forms) the appetites and the spirited part, or aggressiveness.

• Plato believed these three parts of the soul were harmonized only when controlled by reason. – What image does Plato use to illustrate the

tripartite soul? (59)


Dynamics of the PsycheDynamics of the Psyche• Plato’s viewpoint lays down the philosophical

foundations for belief in an immaterial soul.– He attempts to prove the immateriality of the soul in

the Phaedo by pointing to reason’s ability to know abstract immaterial ideals, the Forms.

• What is Plato’s argument for the soul’s immateriality? (61-2)

• On the other hand, he develops a sophisticated understanding of inter-psychic conflict, when the soul is torn between reason, its bodily desires and its aggressive impulses .– Give an example of a conflict between reason and

desire, and between reason and aggressiveness.


Aristotle’s RationalismAristotle’s Rationalism

• Aristotle agreed with Plato that our ability to reason is the characteristic that sets the human self apart from all other creatures of nature.– Unlike Plato, however, Aristotle, held that the

truth about human nature required only knowledge of our own world.

– Neither does he share Plato’s emphasis on the soul’s immateriality.


Reason and PurposeReason and Purpose

• Aristotle argues that all living things have an end or purpose. – Fulfilling this purpose allows it to accomplish

its good, and leads to the flourishing of the being.

– The purpose of humans is to use their reason to think and to control desires and aggressions.

• How does Aristotle argue for the claim that the purpose of humans is to live a life of reason? (61)


The Judeo-Christian Version of The Judeo-Christian Version of the Traditional View the Traditional View

• Only when the soul is governed by reason will it attain knowledge of the forms.

The soul can do this only if it controls its bodily desires and trains its aggressive impulses so that both obey reason.


The Judeo-Christian Version of The Judeo-Christian Version of the Traditional View the Traditional View

• The Judeo-Christian religious view claims that humans are made in the image of God, who has endowed them with rational self-consciousness and an ability to love.– This belief was not shared by classical Greek

philosophers

• However, a large part of the Greek rationalistic view of human nature has been incorporated into the Judeo-Christian view.


Augustine’s SynthesisAugustine’s Synthesis• The Christian philosopher Augustine of Hippo

(354–430) incorporated several assumptions from Plato:– the human self is a rational self with reason. – humans have an immaterial and immortal soul.

• Augustine also agreed with the classical rationalistic view, that human nature is not basically self-interested– Unlike Plato, however, Augustine emphasized the

notion of a will, the ability to choose between good and evil.


Aquinas’ SynthesisAquinas’ Synthesis

• The Christian philosophy, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), agreed with Aristotle

• that humans and all other creatures have a purpose. – However, he said, the purpose of humans is

to achieve happiness by using their reason to know God.

– How does Aquinas argue for this? (64)


Challenges AriseChallenges Arise

• The Traditional Rationalistic View, a synthesis of classical Greek and Judeo-Christian beliefs and attitudes continues to animate people’s perspectives on human nature.– However, that view has been increasingly

challenged in the modern world.– One very serious challenge to it has been

posed by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.


The Darwinian Challenge: The Darwinian Challenge: Three Key IdeasThree Key Ideas

• Charles Darwin (1809-1882) proposed three important ideas:1. Natural Variation

2. Struggle for Existence

3. Natural Selection


Disturbing ImplicationsDisturbing Implications

• The notion that all species, including humans, arose in an evolutionary was a disturbing new thought for many people.– Explain how Darwin’s theory undermines two

key beliefs in Traditional Rationalism: • That the ability of reason is a completely different

kind of ability than any of the abilities other animals have.

• That humans are designed for a purpose.


Evidence for Darwin’s theoryEvidence for Darwin’s theory• Darwin offered four distinct bodies of evidence in

favor of evolution:1. The existence of similar species (like monkeys and

gorillas) with shared common characteristics.

2. The geographically distribution of species over the face of the earth.

3. The similarity of bone structures, embryonic developments, and useless rudimentary organs among contemporary living creatures.

4. 4. The fossil record was best explained by his theory that species living today had descended from different earlier species.


Responses to DarwinResponses to Darwin

• Some critics argue that the fossil record shows gaps, and thus does not offer clear evidence in favor of evolution.

• Describe Stephen Jay Gould’s response to this point. (71)

• Other critics have argued for a theistic version of evolution, and that evolution is consistent with “divine direction.”

• Still other critics contend that the human capacity to reason is unique in all of nature.



The Existentialist ChallengeThe Existentialist Challenge

• Existentialist views denies the Tradition View’s claims that there is a fixed human nature and that we have a purpose. – How does Sartre argue for the claim that

humans lack an essence, using the example of a paper-knife?

– Since we lack an essence, Sartre argues, “existence precedes essence.”

• What does Sartre mean by this? (77)

The Existentialist ChallengeThe Existentialist Challenge• Our consciousness of our freedom to

create ourselves, and its accompanying responsibilities cause what Sartre refers to as “anguish.” – The most anguishing thought of all is that we

alone are totally responsible for ourselves.– Bad faith is deceiving ourselves by pretending

we are not free and so not responsible.• How does the story of the woman on a date

illustrate bad faith? (75-6)


The Feminist ChallengeThe Feminist Challenge

• Feminists have argued that Rationalist Tradition leaves us with concepts of reason, appetites, emotions, mind, and body that are all biased in favor of men and against women.

• Explain

• yet the rationalist and Judeo-Christian view is framed in terms of these sexist concepts.


Sexist AssumptionsSexist Assumptions

• Feminists argue that the tradition makes several sexist assumptions:– Reason and rationality are “male,” whereas

desire and feeling are “female.” – Only men are fully human because only men

are fully rational, while women are not fully rational but are driven by their emotions and desires.

– Because reason must rule, men should rule over women.


Can we Think Differently?Can we Think Differently?

• The existence of bias demands that we learn to think differently about human nature, but how?– Genevieve Lloyd argues that we can’t simply

throw out the rationalistic viewpoint. • For example, simply asserting that women have as

much reason as men seems to assume that reason—the “male” trait—is really as superior as the rationalistic view says it is.


2.3 The Mind-Body Problem: 2.3 The Mind-Body Problem: How do Mind and Body Relate? How do Mind and Body Relate?

• Whatever your view of human nature, it seems obvious that being human involves having a mind and a body.

• For philosophers, though, these facts are less than obvious. They wonder: – How should we best conceive the mind and

body?– How should we understand their relationship?


DualismDualism

• One philosophical theory of the mind-body relation is called dualism, the view that human beings are immaterial minds within material bodies– We’ve already encountered versions of this theory in

the philosophies of Plato and Saint Augustine.– Perhaps the most famous version of this perspective

was developed by Rene Descartes (1596–1650).– Descartes argued that the mind and body are two

distinct things or substances that interact with one another.


Questions for Questions for Cartesian DualismCartesian Dualism

• What argument does Descartes use to establish that the mind is not a physical thing? (84)– Is this argument convincing? Why or why not?

• The Problem of Interaction: One problem that Descartes’ dualism (called Cartesian dualism) raises is how do the mind and body interact? – Give an example of what seems to be mind to body

causation and vice versa.– How does Descartes talk about the interaction of

these two distinct things? (85)


Dualist Responses to the Dualist Responses to the Problem of InteractionProblem of Interaction

• From within the standpoint of dualism, the philosopher Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) addressed the question of interaction by arguing that mind and body run in parallel order, like two clocks that are synchronized so that they seem to be connected yet operate independently.– The dualist Nicolas Malebranche (1683–1715) refused to

believe that by some incredible coincidence the mind and body were perfectly synchronized. What happens instead, he said, is that God steps in to synchronize the body and the mind.

•


MaterialismMaterialism

• Finding Leibniz and Malebranche’s solutions to problems generated by dualism to be non-starters, many philosophers have argued for its rejection, and proposed materialism as an alternative.– Materialists argue that since only physical bodies and

systems exist, then the activities we attribute to the mind are really activities of our material body, and we should be able to explain the operations of the mind in terms of the working of the body.

•


ReductionismReductionism

• Materialists, like Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), have tended to embrace some form of reductionism.– This is the viewpoint that the structure and/or function

one kind thing – the mind -- can be exhaustively explained by he structure and function of another kind of thing – the body.

– If so, then there is no need to postulate the existence of “immaterial substances.” Instead, we must acknowledge that only material things exist.

– Describe Hobbes’ version of reductionism.


ControversyControversy

• Hobbes’s version of materialism failed to convince many of his contemporaries. – His reductive explanations of mental activities in

terms of physical processes were not persuasive. – Many wondered whether reductionism was even

possible: How can an even very complicated physical system, produce mental phenomena that seem to have no physical characteristics?

– A variety of materialist theories have been proposed to answer this question.


Varieties of materialismVarieties of materialism

• Identity theory holds that conscious states are identical with the body's brain states.

• Behaviorism says that conscious mental states are bodily behaviors or dispositions.

• Functionalism contends that mental states are functions between perceptual inputs and behavioral outputs. – This influential theory has led some philosophers to the view that

the human brain is a kind of computer.

• Eliminative materialism claims says that mental conscious states (desires, beliefs, intentions) don’t exist, and that future science will let us eliminate all terms referring to such states


The Computer View of the The Computer View of the Human MindHuman Mind

• Each of the aforementioned theories has been challenged and debated in various ways.– For example, the functionalist notion that the mind

may be part of a computing device led to the creation of the Turing Test, and eventually to many research programs in Artificial Intelligence (AI)

– How does John Searle’s “Chinese Rom Argument” challenge the notion that a computer could have a mind?


The New DualismThe New Dualism

• The difficulties that have plagued materialist views of human nature have prompted some philosophers to reinvent dualism. – Unlike Descartes, the new dualists do not hold that

there are two kinds of substances—that is, entities or things—in the universe. Instead, they hold that there are two different kinds of properties in the universe.

• David Chalmers has argued that consciousness cannot conscious experience involves properties of an individual that are not entailed by the physical properties of that individual.

• How does Chalmers use the zombie thought experiment to argue for his new dualism? (97)


2.4 Is There an Enduring Self?2.4 Is There an Enduring Self?• Most of us share the belief that we remain the same

person—one and the same self—throughout our lives, even though we may change in many small and many large and dramatic ways.

• Few of us would claim that we are not the same self that we were ten years ago.– On the other hand, we also allow that people can lose their

selves -- in circumstances in which people suffer from serious brain disorders, such as Alzheimers – or undergo self-transformative changes.

– All of this raises questions: Is there an enduring self, and if there is, what is it?


The Changing SelfThe Changing Self

• On the other hand, we also widely acknowledge that we change … sometimes, a lot.

• We have stories of self-transformation and sometimes talk of people losing their selves – for example, someone with late stage Alzheimer’s.

• All of this raises questions: Is there an enduring self, and if there is, what is it?


The Enduring Self as BodyThe Enduring Self as Body

• It’s possible that what makes you the same self today that you were ten years ago is your body. – A point in favor of this is the fact of bodily continuity,

that most of my body continues the same as it was the previous day, and most of it continues the same into the next succeeding day.

– Moreover, think about how often we use a person’s body to establish that a certain person today is the same as a person who did something earlier.

• What are 3 arguments against this theory? (101)


The Enduring Self as SoulThe Enduring Self as Soul• According to the Traditional Western view, what

remains the same as the body changes is one’s immaterial soul.– For example, Descartes claims that it is the continuity

of the thinking mind or soul that makes a person endure as the same person over time.

• What can this account of the enduring self explain that the bodily theory leaves unexplained? (102)

• What thought experiment does John Locke use to raise an objection to the soul theory? (103)


Locke’s Thought ExperimentLocke’s Thought Experiment

• “Let anyone reflect upon himself… that he has in himself an immaterial spirit…and is that which he calls himself. Let him also suppose it to be the same soul that was in Nestor or Thersites at the siege of Troy… But [suppose] he now … [has] no consciousness of any of the actions of Nestor or Thersites. Does or can he conceive himself the same person with either of them? Can he be concerned in either of their actions? Attribute them to himself or think them his own?” (103)


Memory as the Memory as the Source of the Enduring Self Source of the Enduring Self

• According to John Locke, what makes a self the same self over time is memory.– For example, what makes me be the same self I was

ten years ago is that I remember being that person ten years ago.

• How do the stories of the woman with amnesia and the bank robber support Locke’s theory? (103-104)

• Explain Thomas Reid’s objection to the memory theory. (104)


Reid’s Thought ExperimentReid’s Thought Experiment

• “Suppose at age 20 I remember myself at 10, and at 30 I remember myself at 20 but not at 10. Then on Locke’s view at 20 I am the same person I was at 10, and at 30 I am the same person I was at 20. So at 30 I must be the same person I was at 10. Yet Locke’s view also says at 30 I am not the person I was at 10!” (104)


The No-Self ViewThe No-Self View

• Philosophers in the East and West have denied that there is any enduring self.– For example, Buddhists argue that the, like everything

else, the self is nothing more than a fleeting momentary composite of constantly changing elements: our form and matter, our sensations, our perceptions, our psychic dispositions, and our conscious thoughts.

• These are never the same from moment to moment and they are together only fleetingly. What we call the self, then, either considered as the body or considered as the mind, is utterly transient.


Hume’s Denial Hume’s Denial of an Enduring Self of an Enduring Self

• The Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) also denied the enduring self. His argument is based on introspection – when we look within we find that…– “there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain

and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot, therefore, be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such idea.” (107)


2.5 Are We Independent and Self-2.5 Are We Independent and Self-Sufficient Individuals?Sufficient Individuals?

• Self-sufficiency and independence form some of the highest values in our culture. Thus parents teach their children:– independence of thought and action.– that conformity is bad, and that they should strive to

be true to themselves.– to value privacy, freedom and creativity.

• Can you think of an example of how your parents taught you to value these things?


The Atomistic SelfThe Atomistic Self

• The cultural emphasis on self-suffiency and independence forms a pattern of attitudes and assumptions that some philosophers call the atomistic view of the self.

• On this view, the self is, like the atom, self-contained and independent of other atoms.– While the things I go through, the people I meet, and

the things I witness can touch, move and even injure me, the real me, the core of my self, can always rise above, remaing independent of all that it meets.


Philosophers Defend Philosophers Defend the Atomistic Self the Atomistic Self

• Descartes defended atomism when he said the self exists, can be known independently of others, and that only it can judge the truth about what it is.

• The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) argued that the core of the real self is the ability to choose for oneself the moral laws and moral principles by which one will live one’s life:– “The laws to which man is subject are only those that he himself

makes. . . . [This is] the principle of autonomy of the will, that is, the principle of self-imposed law.” (111)


The Relational SelfThe Relational Self

• Some philosophers have asked: is there such a thing as the independent and self-sufficient individual we have been discussing? – For example, Charles Taylor claims that we depend

on others for our very self because we need others to define for us who our real self is.

• He claims that the alternative to looking within to understand oneself is to see that who I am depends on my relationships to others.

– Aristotle agrees with Taylor.


The Relational SelfThe Relational Self

• Aristotle argues that he who is “unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god. . . . social instinct is implanted in all men by nature.” (112)

• Hegel (1770-1831) also forcefully challenged the idea of the independent, self-sufficient individual and argued instead for the idea of a relational self.


RecognitionRecognition

• Hegel argued that my own identity—who I really am—depends on my relationships with others and that I cannot be who I am apart from my relationships with others:– “Every self wants to be united with and recognized by

another self [as a free being]. Yet at the same time, each self remains an independent individual and so an alien object to the other. The life of the self thus becomes a struggle for recognition.” (112)

• Each of us can know that we are free and independent persons only if we see that others recognize us as free and independent persons.


PowerPower

• Hegel claims that patterns of recognition form classes in society of masters and slaves, the powerful and powerless.

• Charles Taylor again argues:– “The thesis is that our identity is partly shaped by

recognition or its absence, [or] by the misrecognition of others, and so a person or a group of people can suffer real damage, real distortion, if the people or society around them mirror back to them a confining or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves.” (113)


Culture and Self-IdentityCulture and Self-Identity

• Recognition and misrecognition happens in the context of culture:– Assume that culture consists of the traditions and

language; the arts, ideas, and outlooks; the practices and beliefs of a group of people.

– Defenders of the notion of a relational self Hegel argue that a person’s culture is the mirror through which society shows the person who and what she is. It is, in fact, through her culture that a person gets the recognition that makes her a free person. Recognition comes through culture.


The Dialogical SelfThe Dialogical Self

– “We define our identity always in dialogue with, sometimes in struggle against, the things our significant others want to see in us. Even after we outgrow some of these others—our parents, for instance—and they disappear from our lives, the conversation with them continues within us as long as we live. Thus, the contribution of significant others, even when it is provided at the beginning of ourselves, continues indefinitely. “ Charles Taylor (114)

– Take a moment to consider all of the relationships that form your own self-identity.


Search for the Real SelfSearch for the Real Self

• The chapter presents us with a dilemma:– On the one hand, we seem to be independent

selves with basic qualities that we are born with, including, perhaps, the ability to choose freely the path our lives will take.

– On the other hand, our self identity seems to be formed in dialogue and struggle with others – which implies that we exist relationally, not independently.

– Which are we?


Ch2ppt velasquez12

Education

human naturechapter

human naturehuman nature

view of human nature

human nature p h i

feminist challenge chapter

arguments sound arguments

view of2

valid arguments