COURSE

GUIDE

PHL342
EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

Course Team: Dr. Precios N. Obioha (Course Writer) -

Department of Philosophy Akwa-Ibom State
UniversityAkwa-Ibom State, Nigeria
Prof. Godfrey Ozumba (Course Editor) -
Department of Philosophy University of Calabar
Cross-River State, Nigeria

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

© 2022 by NOUN Press
National Open University of Nigeria
Headquarters
University Village
Plot 91, Cadastral Zone
Nnamdi Azikiwe Expressway
Jabi, Abuja

Lagos Office
14/16 Ahmadu Bello Way
Victoria Island, Lagos

e-mail: centralinfo@nou.edu.ng
URL: www.nou.edu.ng

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any

form or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Printed 2012, 2022

ISBN: 978-978-058-273-9

ii
 MAIN
COURSE

CONTENTS

Module 1 …………………………………………………….. 1

Unit 1 Cultural Context: Renaissance, Reformation and the

Rise of Modern Science……………………………………… 1
Unit 2 Nicolaus Copernicus………………………………. 10
Unit 3 Gordiano Bruno …………………………………… 14
Unit 4 Galileo Galilei……………………………………… 20

Module 2 ……………………………………………………… 27

Unit 1 Francis Bacon and Early Empiricism………………. 27

Unit 2 Thomas Hobbes and Early Empiricism…………….. 35
Unit 3 John Locke and the Rise of Modern Empiricism…… 42
Unit 4 George Berkeley …………………………………… 49
Unit 5 David Hume…………………………………… ….. 54

Module 3 ……………………………………………………… 60

Unit 1 Rene Descartes and the Foundation of Modern

Philosophy…………………………………………... 60
Unit 2 Benedict Spinoza……………………………………. 68
Unit 3 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz………………………..… 75
Unit 4 Blaise Pascal………………………………………… 80
Unit 5 Nicholas Malebranche………………………………. 86

Module 4 ………………………………………………………. 91

Unit 1 Immanuel Kant: Synthesizing Rationalism and

Empiricism…………………………………………. 91
Unit 2 Isaac Newton and the Age of Enlightenment………. 98
Unit 3 Robert Boyle: The Father of Chemistry…………….. 103

Module 5 ………………………………………………………. 109

Unit 1 Johann Gottlieb Fichte……………………….…….. 109

Unit 2 Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling…………… 116
Unit 3 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel……………………. 121
Unit 4 Thomas Hill Green………………………………… 129
PHL342 MODULE 1

MODULE 1

Unit 1 Cultural Context: Renaissance, Reformation and the

Rise of Modern Science
Unit 2 Nicolaus Copernicus
Unit 3 Gordiano Bruno
Unit 4 Galileo Galilei

UNIT 1 CULTURAL CONTEXT: RENAISSANCE,

REFORMATION AND THE RISE OFMODERN
SCIENCE

Unit Structure

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
1.3 The Renaissance
1.4 The Reformation
1.5 The Rise of Modern Science
1.6 Summary
1.7 References/Further Readings/Web Resources
1.8 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

1.1 Introduction

The modern period of Philosophy is marked by the declining authority of

thechurch and the increasing authority of reason and science. During this
period, philosophy ceased to be a handmaid of theology and started
enjoying the freedom of reason that characterizes the discipline. And
because of the new found freedom of reason, the period witnessed an
unprecedented development in scientific discoveries and inventions.
Hence, the modern period is often described as the period of the
unfolding world of science. Modern philosophy has its origin in
seventeenth century Western Europe (Darty and Uduigwomen, 2016: 2).
However, Bertrand Russell in his, The History of Western Philosophy
(1945), summarizes the rise of modern philosophy thus:

The period of history which is called "modern" has a mental outlook

whichdiffers from that of the medieval period in many ways. Of these,
two are the most important: the diminishing authority of the church, and
the increasing authority of science. With these two, others are connected.
The culture of modern times is more lay than clerical. States increasingly
replace the churchas the government authority that controls culture (p.
491).

1
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

From the above excerpts, it is clear that the rise of the modern period
markedthe decline of the authority of the church, thereby ushering in a
new culture, the liberal culture. This liberal culture brought with it a form
of individualism. Hence, modern philosophy has retained for the most
part "an individualistic and subjectivecharacter” (Russel 1945: 493). This
unit, therefore, discusses the cultural context ofthe modern period. In this
unit, you will learn the role of the renaissance, Reformation and the rise
of modern science to the modern period.

1.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 Outline the three major events that led to the emergence of the
modern period
 Explain the role of each of the cultural context to the rise of modern
philosophy.

1.3 The Renaissance

The modern period as opposed to the medieval outlook began in Italy with
the movement called the Renaissance (Russell, 1945: 495). The term
Renaissance literarily means "rebirth." The Renaissance, therefore, was a
time of rebirth and renewal; a time of release and discovery. It was a
rebirth of learning in the letters, humanism and philosophy (Essien, 2011:
184). During this period, men began, onceagain, to emphasize the natural
abilities of the human person to reason independently of faith. The
Renaissance marked the age of humanism-the focus on man.

The Renaissance began in Italy in the fourteen century and spread to other
parts of the world. The period started with the Italian artists and
intellectuals who felt that they had broken with the glory and civilization
of the past, of the erstwhileRoman Empire. Motivated by this mindset,
they sought for a rebirth of civilization.For them, the Dark Ages, that is
the medieval time, and all its concomitant theocentricism, did not bring
such progress. Hence, the Italian intellectuals soughta rebirth of ideas,
after the intellectual and cultural stagnation of the middle age (Essien,
2011: 185). They, therefore, turned to ancient Greece and Rome for
inspiration.

An outstanding conviction of the Renaissance movement was that the

ancient literatures had an invaluable source of knowledge which the
modern should turn, such as better answers to the questions of the nature
of man, of the question of how to achieve happiness and also of the

2
PHL342 MODULE 1

question of the relationship between man and God. Because of this idea,
a foundation was laid not only for a culture of scholarshipthat was centred
on ancient texts and their interpretations, but also encourages an approach
to textual interpretation aimed at harmonizing and reconciling different
philosophical views. Against the dominance enjoyed by the philosophy of
Aristotle,which was the major philosophy of most medieval thoughts, the
Renaissance periodwidened the philosophical horizon through reviewed
interests in Neo-Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism and so on (Darty and
Uduigwomen, 2016: 9).

However, it should be noted that the Renaissance thinkers "who studied

and analyzed classical philosophy did so for scientific and secular reasons,
with no direct interest in religion or theological questions" (Darty and
Uduigwomen, 2016: 9). Once again, like in the ancient period, the
Renaissance thinkers sought natural explanations to natural occurrences
as against the supernatural (religious) explanations offered by the
medieval period. The Renaissance thinkers in their projects, became
interested in the Revival of natural philosophy, methodology and theory
of knowledge.

The Renaissance was characterized by humanism, and it was these

humaniststhat called for a radical change in philosophy. Because of the
focus on human fulfilment, there was an attendant emphasis on the
optimistic assessment of human nature. Essien (2011: 186), maintains the
opinion that humanism and optimism in human nature were significant
during this time. Humanists valued grammar, philology, and rhetoric
more highly than the technical philosophical studies that hadpreoccupied
scholars during the Middle Ages. They despised the Latin that had beenthe
lingua franca of medieval universities, far removed in style from the
works of Cicero and Livy (Kenny 2006). Hence, new schools sprang up
in most Italian city- states in response to the demand of humanistic learning.
The Renaissance paved way for thinkers to challenge the orthodoxy of the
medieval ideas by raising serious questions and seeking answers
independent of faith, and this gave rise to such ideasbeing challenged
where they were found wanting and this encouraged the rise of new
philosophies or nature.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. During the modern period of philosophy, there was an increased
authority of the church and a decreased authority of science.
True/False?
2. Renaissance means ‘rebirth’. True/False?

3
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

1.4 The Reformation

The Reformation or Protestant Reformation, was another important wave

that played a significant role in the rise of modern philosophy. The
Protestant Reformation, spearheaded by a young Austinian monk, Martin
Luther (1483-1546), started in Germany. The reformation started as a
form of rebellion against the authority of the Pope and the Catholic
Church which was the seat of Christianity inEurope. This rebellion arose
as a result of the political and spiritual decline of the church's influence.
Political battles in the church brought about the Great Schism (division),
which lasted between 1378 to 1417. This led to the division of the church
into two opposing factions with each having its own Pope and college of
Cardinals. As noted by Lawhead (2002: 204), secular rulers seized the
opportunity to jump intothe battle, supporting whichever side that would
serve their interests, therebyresulting in massive corruption in the church.
Martin Luther became concerned about the condition of the church. Of
majorconcern to him was a controversial fund-raising technique of the
church which wasthe sale of "Papal indulgences" by a Dominican Friar,
Tetzel, to church goers. The central claim of the Papal indulgences was
that for a fee, a person could gain relief from both the guilt and penalties
of his/her sins in dead, thereby granting the person entrance to heaven.
Convinced that corruption and alien doctrine has set into the church,
Luther posted his famous "Ninety-Five Theses," a document attacking the
corruption and abuses that was ongoing in the church, to the door of
Wittenberg Castle church in 1517. When the story of the rebellion finally
reached Rome, Luther was excommunicated from the church. His
excommunication resulted in the Protestant Reformation and the
widespread religious, intellectual, cultural and political changes that it
brought in its wake (Lawhead, 2002: 205). The Reformation was
welcomed in most part of Europe, which led to the waning influence of
the church in France, Holland, Scotland and England.

During the medieval period, the church had maintained a strict censorship
ofbooks and ideas of scholars. Ideas that contradicted the doctrine of the
church and the philosophy of Aristotle which was the official philosophy
of the church, were considered heretic and such scholars punished even
to death. However, the Protestant Reformation, according to Fieser
(2015), loosened the grip of medieval church on European intellectual
thought. Because of this, the Reformation opened up the weaknesses of
the church herself, thereby creating a favourable atmosphere to the rise
of modern philosophy since it created an intellectual movement outside
the centralized control and authority of the church (Darty and
Uduigwomen, 2016: 12). The Reformation, therefore, elicited a general
reaction against all intellectual conventions.

4
PHL342 MODULE 1

1.5 The Rise of Modern Science

According to Stumpf and Fieser (2012), there are two distinct

components tothe rise of modern scientific revolution. First is the new
scientific discoveries and (2) new methods of conducting scientific
inquiry. As to new discoveries, to enhance the exactness of their
observations, scientists invented various scientific instruments. In 1590
the first compound microscope was created. In 1608 the telescope was
invented. The principle of the barometer was discovered by Evangelista
Torricelli (1608-1647). Otto von Guericke (1602-1686) invented the air
pump, which was so important in creating a vacuum for the experiment
that provedthat all bodies, regardless of their weight or size, fall at the
same rate when there is no air resistance. With the use of instruments and
imaginative hypotheses, fresh knowledge began to unfold. Galileo
Galilei (1564-1642) discovered the moonsaround Jupiter; and Anton
Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) discovered spermatozoa, protozoa, and
bacteria, and William Harvey (1578-1657) discovered the circulationof
the blood. William Gilbert (1540-1603) wrote a major work on the
magnet, and Robert Boyle (1627-1691), the father of chemistry,
formulated his famous law concerning the relation of temperature,
volume, and pressure of gases.

Among the more dramatic discoveries of the time were new conceptions
of astronomy; Medieval astronomers believed that human beings were
the focus of God's creative activity; and thus, God placed us quite literally
in the center of the universe. Renaissance astronomers shattered this
conception. The Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543)
formulated a new hypothesis in his Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres
(1543), which said that the sun is at the center of the universe and that the
earth rotates daily and revolves around the sun annually. Copernicus was
a faithful son of the church and had no thought of contradicting any
traditional biblical doctrines. His work expressed rather his irrepressible
desire to develop a theory of the heavens that would conform to the available
evidence. Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) made additional and corrective
observations, and his young associate Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
formulated three important laws of planetary motion in which he added
mathematical equations to support mere observation. It was Galileo,
though, who provided the greatest theoretical precision to the new
astronomy and, in the course of this endeavor, formulated his important
laws of acceleration and dynamics.

The second contribution of the scientific revolution involved the

developmentof new scientific methods. Medieval approaches to science
were grounded in Aristotle's system of deductive logic. Several
Renaissance and early modem scientists proposed alternative systems,
often quite different from each other. The scientific methods that we

5
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

follow today; though, are in many respects the direct descendants of these
early theories, particularly those of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), which stress
the importance of observation and inductive reasoning. Scientific
methodology made further progress as new fields of mathematics were
opened. Copernicus had employed a twofold method: first, the observation
of moving bodies, and, second, the mathematical calculation of the motion
of bodies in space.

Bertrand Russell (1945: 525), tells us that "almost everything that

distinguishes the modern world from earlier centuries is attributable to
science, which achieved its most spectacular triumphs in the seventeenth
century." As the thinkers of the Renaissance laid more emphasis on man,
matter and reason, the belief in Aristotle's speculations about motion of
bodies in the universe waned. These thinkers also countered faith with
reason, dogma with skepticism, and divineintervention with natural law.
The early modern thinkers made mathematics their pillar in the search of
truth. For them, mathematics was at the centre of knowing, and this was
a bend towards Plato and Pythagoras. Emphasis, therefore, moved from
reading classical texts to observation and formulation of hypothesis which
led to the introduction of the scientific method. Thus, this period
witnessed many scientific inventions like the invention of the telescope
by Tippershey and Galileo, invention of the printing press by Guttenberg
and so on.

Accordingly, the scientific wave influences philosophy in two ways.

First, it challenged the Aristotelian view that everything conforms to a
mechanical model. According to this model, every event including human
behaviour is determined andnot a product of free will. Second, it brought
about a new role of man in the universe.The mechanical view of events
was given impetus by the geocentric theory of Aristotle and the
astronomic model of Claudius Ptolemy.

However, with the opposing theories of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and

Newton, the Aristotelian model and the Ptolemic theory were laid to rest.
The new conception that science introduced greatly influenced modern
philosophy, for as Stumpf (1994: 226) observed, "The whole drift of the
new scientific method was towards new conception of man, of nature and
of the whole mechanism of human knowledge."

Self-Assessment Exercise
3. Renaissance began around the 18 th century. True/False?
4. What was the renaissance movement's reaction to ancient
literatures?
5. The reformation, also known as ------ started as a form of
agreement with the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church
which was the seat of Christianity inEurope. True/False?

6
PHL342 MODULE 1

1.6 Summary

The following are what you have learnt in this unit:

 The rise of the renaissance and its focus on humanism as a
precursor to modern philosophy.
 The Protestant Reformation led to the decline of church power
thereby creating an intellectual movement outside the centralized
control and authority of the church.
 The new scientific model brought with it, a new conception of
man, of natureand the whole mechanism of human knowledge.

In this chapter, you have learnt the cultural context of early modern
philosophy. The unit stated that the modern period arose as a result of
dissatisfactionin the theocentric model of the medieval period. Therefore, the
emergence of modern philosophy came as a result of the declining
authority of the church and a rebirth of knowledge based on human
reason.

1.7 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Darty, E. D. & Uduigwomen, A. F. (2016). "Cultural context:

renaissance, reformation, modern science and the rise of modern
philosophy." In A.F. Uduigwomen, M.E. Uka and E. C. Uduma.
(Eds.). A critical history of philosophy, vol. 2. Ultimate index
books. Pp 2-25.

Essien, E. S. (2011). Summa Philosophica: An Introduction To

Philosophy And Logic. Lulu Press.

Fieser, J. (2015). The History of Philosophy: A Short Survey.

www.utm.edu

Lawhead, W. F. (2002). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy, (2nd ed.). Thomson and Wadsworth.

Russell, B. (1945). The History of Western Philosophy.

Stumpf, E. S. (I994). Philosophy: History and Problems. McGraw

Hill Inc.

7
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

1.8 Possible Answer to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. True
2. True
3. False
4. The Renaissance movement had an outstanding conviction that the
ancientliteratures had an invaluable source of knowledge which
the modern should turn, such as better answers to the question of
the nature of man, of the question of how to achieve happiness,
and also of the question of the relationship between man and God.
5. Protestant reformation, False

8
PHL342 MODULE 1

UNIT 2 NICOLAUS COPERNICUS

Nicholas Copernicus

Unit Structure

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
2.3 A Brief Biography of Nicolaus Copernicus
2.4 Nicolaus Copernicus' Contribution to the Rise of Modern Science
2.5 Summary
2.6 References/Further Readings/Web Resources
2.7 Possible Answer to Self-Assessment Exercise

1.1. Introduction

In unit 1, you have learnt about the cultural context of modern philosophy
andhow each of these cultures influenced the rise of modern philosophy.
In this unit, you will be learning about the thought of Nicolaus Copernicus
and how his idea contributed in shaping the modern period.

9
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

2.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 articulate Copernicus contribution to the rise of modern science

 explain the Copernican Revolution in Astronomy.

2.3 A Brief Biography of Nicolaus Copernicus

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) was a Polish Catholic priest and

scientist of unimpeachable theological orthodoxy. During his youthful
days, he traveled in Italy, and became exposed to the atmosphere of the
Renaissance. In 1500, he took up a job as a mathematics lecturer in Rome.
However, he quit the position in 1503 and returned to his native land, where
he became a Canon of Fraeunberg. Copernicus took interest in Astronomy
as his pastime which later resulted in the publication of his major work,
De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (The Revolution of the Heavenly
Bodies), in 1543, where his ideas are recorded.

2.4 Nicolaus Copernicus' Contribution to the Rise of Modern

Science

Nicolaus Copernicus, all scientists, truly produced a revolution in

science. Prior to Copernicus man believed himself to be in the center of
the universe with allthat implied. While some had proposed otherwise, it
was Copernicus’ theory for a heliocentric universe that changed our
perceptions forever. This change took upwards of 150 years to be fully
realized with the work of Newton and much later for ultimate proof with
the first measurement of stellar parallax. If anyone’s work both put
science on edge and required such a long period of acceptance it was
Copernicus (Cusick, 2007). Before Copernicus, a great system of
scientific and religious thought” had been built up to explain an earth
centered view. Copernicus,therefore, was a product of his time and the
belief structures of that place. He had toovercome these beliefs to propose
his alternate view. By examining the ancient views on the universe, we
can see how far he traveled in thought to arrive at his theory.

Copernicus' contribution to modern science was his confrontation of the

popular orthodoxy in Astronomy. Adopting the newly found methods of
mathematics and observation, Copernicus brought a revolution to the
field of astronomy with his theory of heliocentricism. This theory
maintains that the sun is at the centre of the universe and that the earth,
like other planets revolves on its axiswhile also revolving around the sun
(Lawhead, 2002: 206). The sun-centred theory of Copernicus was a direct
attack on the earth-as-centre (geocentric) model adoptedby the church. It

10
PHL342 MODULE 1

should be noted here that this earth-at-the-centre model was conceived

and put forward by Claudius Ptolemy and firmly established by Aristotle.
Ptolemy believed that the earth was static, resting at the centre of
universe, with the sun, moon and stars rotating around it. Ptolemaic
system was in harmony with Aristotelian physics. These two systems,
therefore, provided a scientific worldview that was reconciled with the
perceived theology of the time. However, Copernicus replaced this idea
by placing the sun at the centre of the Heavenly bodies.

Copernicus essentially proposed more than discovered the following

facts, that:
▪ The Earth is a rotating planet (diurnal rotation);
▪ The Earth revolves around a fixed sun (annual revolution);
▪ Also, that there was a motion of declination (tilted axis);
▪ That the Planets also revolve around sun, Mercury and Venus
inside the earth’sorbit and the rest outside the earth’s orbit;
▪ And to nearly correctly calculate the distance of the planets from
the sun as ratiosof earth-sun distance (Cusick 2007).

Bertrand Russell (1945), points out that apart from the revolutionary
impact on how we imagine the cosmos, the new astronomy came with two
great advantages. First, the recognition that what had been believed since
ancient times might be false.Second, that the test of scientific truth is
patient collection of facts, combining with bold guessing as to laws
binding the facts together (p. 528). Nevertheless, Copernicus' astronomy
generated a serious controversy in the Church. Because of this, the
Church rejected the new science and stood with the earth-centred model
because the earth is man's home and cannot be rotating as it may provide
contrasting position. For instance, following the new model, a stone
thrown up will end up falling elsewhere, since the rotation of the earth
must have taken it to a different place. According to Darty and
Uduigwomen, the conflict generated by the new astronomy was simply a
"conflict between faith and science" (2016: 17). Hence, fearing what
would be his fate, Copernicus withheld publication of his book until few
days before his death in 1543.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Copernicus proposed a geocentric universe. True/False?
2. Copernicus' contributes to modern science by confronting the
popular orthodoxy in Astronomy. True/False?
3. Copernicus' theory maintains that the sun is at the centre of the
universe. True/False?
4. What do you understand by heliocentric model or theory?

11
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

2.5 Summary

The following are what you have learnt in this unit:

 Before Copernicus, it was accepted that the earth is at the centre
of the universe, the sun, stars and other planetary bodies revolve
around it.
 Copernicus revolutionized astronomy by maintaining instead that
it is the sunthat is at the centre while the earth and other planetary
bodies revolve aroundit.
 The sun-at-the-centre model is called heliocentricism, whereas
the earth-at- the-centre model is called geocentricism.
 The change from geocentric model to heliocentric model is
termed theCopernican Revolution in Astronomy.

In this unit, you have learnt that Nicolaus Copernicus started a revolution
in astronomy by offering a new way of understanding the motion of the
cosmos and the entire heavenly bodies. This position was not favourable
to the Church as it challenged the divine authority that governs the
cosmos.

2.6 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Darty, E. D. & Uduigwomen, A. F. (2016). "Cultural context:

renaissance, reformation, modern science and the rise of modern
philosophy." In A.F. Uduigwomen, M.E. Uka and E. C. Uduma.
(Eds.). A critical history of philosophy, vol. 2. Ultimate index
books. Pp 2-25.

Lawhead, W. F. (2002). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy, (2nd ed.). Thomson and Wadsworth.

Russell, B. (1945). The History of Western Philosophy. Simon and

Schuster

12
PHL342 MODULE 1

2.7 Possible Answer to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. False
2. True
3. True
4. The heliocentric theory is simply the view that the sun is at the
centre of the universe and the earth, like other planets, revolves on its
axis while also revolving around the sun.

13
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

UNIT 3 GORDIANO BRUNO

Unit Structure

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
3.3 A Brief Biography of Gordiano Bruno
3.4 Gordiano Bruno's Contribution to the Rise of Modern Science
3.5 Metaphysics of Gordiano Bruno
3.6 Summary
3.7 References/Further Readings/Web Resources
3.8 Possible Answer to Self-Assessment Exercise

3.1 Introduction

In the last unit, you learnt about how Copernicus revolutionized the
science of Astronomy. His position became a reference point to other
scholars after him. In this unit, therefore, you shall be learning about
another philosopher and his contribution to the development of early
science.

3.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 explain the thought of Bruno

 outline Bruno's contribution to the rise of early science
 discuss his metaphysics.

14
PHL342 MODULE 1

3.3 A Brief Biography of Gordiano Bruno

Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), was an Italian philosopher, astronomer,

occultist and mathematician. He was born near Naples and became
converted to theDominican order in 1565. In 1572, Bruno was ordained
a priest. However, because of his teachings that were against the
orthodoxy, he was suspected of heresy and later expelled from the order in
1576. Bruno fled Italy to Geneva, but he encountered hostility there too
because his position was against that of the Calvinists, the popular system in
Geneva. In 1583, Bruno moved to England and visited Oxford, where he
gave some lectures on his ideas.

He is known for his system of mnemonics based on organized knowledge,

hisideas on extrasolar planets and extraterrestrial life, and his support of
NicolausCopernicus's heliocentric model of the solar system. Like other
early thinkers seeking a more reasonable view of the universe, Bruno
adopted a model of the world comprising some aspects that have been
incorporated into the modern scientific model and others, such as his
animistic cosmology and disdain for mathematics, which are inconsistent
with the modern scientific model. Expressing his ideas freely, Bruno
accepted an invitation from the Doge of Venice and later found himself in
the prison of the local Inquisition in 1592. One year after, he was
transferred on to the Roman Inquisition, and after a trial that lasted a period
of seven years, he was burned as heretic in the Campo de Fiori in 1600
(Kenny, 2006: 21). His major works are Onthe Shadows of Ideas (1582),
Art of Remembering (1583), Cause, Principle and One (1584-1585),
Supper on Ash Wednesday (1584), On the Infinite Universe and Words
(1591), Heroic Frenzies (1585), Expulsion of the Triumphant Beasts (n.d)
(Copenhaver, 1998: 319), among others.

3.4 Gordiano Bruno and the Rise of Modern Science

There are two basic features of Bruno's ideas that have caught the attention
of scientists and philosophers. The first was his adoption of the
Copernican model of heliocentricism and his postulation of multiple
universes (Kenny, 2006: 21). In agreement with Copernicus, Bruno
maintained that it is the sun that is at the centre of the universe while the
earth move round the sun and not the sun that moved round the earth.
According to him, the earth is not the centre of the universe, and the sun
too is not. Bruno first developed the thesis that the sun too is just a star among
others. The space, for him, is boundless, therefore, in boundless space,
there are many solarsystems. Hence, no sun or star can be called the centre
of the universe, because all positions are relative (Kenny, 2006: 21).

15
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

Bruno believed that the Earth revolves and that the apparent diurnal
rotation of the heavens is an illusion caused by the rotation of the Earth
around its axis. He also saw no reason to believe that the stellar region
was finite, or that all stars were equidistant from a single center of the
universe. In 1584 Bruno published two important philosophical
dialogues, in which he argued against the planetary spheres. Bruno's
infinite universe was filled with a substance—a "pure air," aether,
or spiritus—that offered no resistance to the heavenly bodies which, in
Bruno's view, rather than being fixed, moved under their own impetus.
Most dramatically, he completely abandoned the idea of a hierarchical
universe. The Earth was just onemore heavenly body, as was the Sun. God
had no particular relation to one part of the infinite universe more than
any other. God, according to Bruno, was as present on Earth as in the
Heavens, an immanent God rather than a remote heavenly deity.

Bruno also affirmed that the universe was homogeneous, made up

everywhere of the four elements (water, earth, fire, and air), rather than
having the stars be composed of a separate quintessence. Essentially, the
same physical laws would operate everywhere. Space and time were both
conceived as infinite. Under this model, the Sun was simply one more
star, and the stars all suns, each with its own planets. Bruno saw a solar
system of a sun/star with planets as the fundamental unitof the universe.
According to Bruno, an infinite God necessarily created an infinite
universe that is formed of an infinite number of solar systems separated
by vast regions full of aether, because empty space could not exist (New
world encyclopedia, n.d).

Bruno argued that the earth and the whole solar system do not enjoy any
special privilege because just as there is life on earth, there is also a
possibility of intelligent life at other times and places within the universe.
Bruno contended that the things we observe in the world are the effects
of a world-soul which animates nature and makes it a single organism.
He saw the physical world as infinite; however, the world's infinity, for
him, is not the same as God's infinity because the world has infinite parts,
but God is a whole. Bruno's mysticism and his theory of multiple worlds
challenged the orthodoxy of God's incarnation and Christianity as a
religion based on divine revelation.

Bruno's cosmology is marked by infinitude, homogeneity, and isotropy,

withplanetary systems distributed evenly throughout. Matter follows an
active animisticprinciple: it is intelligent and discontinuous in structure,
made up of discrete atoms. The cosmos and its components act
independently with characteristics of living creatures.

16
PHL342 MODULE 1

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Bruno disagrees with Copernicus that it is the sun that is at the
centre of the universe. True/False?
2. What was Bruno's belief about the things we observe in the
world?
3. In 1684 Bruno published two important philosophical dialogues.
True/False?

3.5 Metaphysics of Gordiano Bruno

Bruno began his study on Metaphysics with the rearrangement of

philosophical terminology and concepts. In his works, De la causa, he
reflected on the traditional philosophy of cause and effect, matter and
form, substance and accident, and also one and many. The Aristotelian
metaphysics prioritizes finality over causality as the dominating force.
Again, Christian thought, that had been identified with God who governs
the world. Bruno, however, correlated universal finality with the internal
living power and controlling reason in all things. He arguedthat if God is
usually understood as beyond the world and now identified as the internal
principle, then there is no need to try to draw a distinction between
internaland external causation. Bruno uncovers the conceptual problems
of Aristotelian causality, which includes matter and form as two of the
principles: if they are only descriptors of things, they are not real, but if
they are supposed to be real, they needto be matching to the extent that
there is no matter without form, no form without matter, and both are co-
extensive (Internet encyclopedia of philosophy). For him, what is
logically necessary to be kept distinct, such as forms and matter or the
whole and its parts, is metaphysically one and also as infinite as all
potentialities. Bruno closes his dialogue on Cause, Principle, and the One
with an encomium of the One.Being, act, potency, maximum, minimum,
matter and body, form and soul – all are one. However, Bruno’s use of the
one shows the Platonian theme in his metaphysics.

3.6 Summary

The following are what you have learnt in this unit:

 Giordano Bruno advanced the heliocentric model.
 He postulated plurality of worlds.
 The sun, for him is also a star
 The physical world is infinite because the world has infinite parts.

In this unit, you have learnt that Bruno accepted the sun-centred position
of Copernicus and even moved further to postulate the many worlds
thesis. Bruno, through careful investigation, arrived at the position that
the earth is just a planet among other planets.
17
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

3.7 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Copenhaver, B. P. (1998). "Doubt and innovation." Popkin, R. H. (Ed.).

The Columbia History of Western Philosophy. Columbia
university press.

Kenny, A. (2006). The Rise of Modern Philosophy. Clarendon Press.

3.8 Possible Answer to Self-Assessment Exercises

Answer

1. False
2. Bruno believed that the things we observe in the world are the
effects of aworld-soul which animates nature and makes it a single
organism.
3. False

18
PHL342 MODULE 1

UNIT 4 GALILEO GALILEI

Galileo Galilei

Unit Structure

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
4.3 A Brief Biography of Galileo Galilei
4.4 Galileo Galilei's Contribution to the Rise of Modern Science
4.5. Summary
4.6. References/Further Readings/Web Resources
4.7. Possible Answer to Self-Assessment Exercises

4.1. Introduction

In units 2 and 3, we learnt about the developments of scientific ideas in

Copernicus and Bruno. However, their postulations were not based on
experiment but basically on observation. With Galileo, an experimental
background was provided to these thoughts. Galileo, therefore, began a
second phase of early modern science where theories were backed by
experiment. In this unit, you shall be learning about the exploits of Galileo
to the new scientific age.

4.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 explain the Galileo's project

 outline his contribution to early science.

19
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

4.3 A Brief Biography of Galileo Galilei

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), was an Italian philosopher mad scientist. He

was a younger contemporary of Bruno. Born in Pisa, Galileo studied
mathematics at theUniversity of Pisa. In 1589, he was appointed a professor
of mathematics in the same University, and later a professor in the
University of Padua. In 1633, Galileo faced the Roman Inquisition. He
was later found guilty by the Inquisition and condemned to life
imprisonment because of scientific position, especially in astronomy of
whichhe offered an experimental shield to heliocentricism. Galileo died
while under housearrest in 1642. However, Pope John Paul II offered a
public apology on behalf of theCatholic Church for the injustice that the
Church had meted on Galileo, 350 years later after his death. His major
works are, A messenger from the stars (1610), Dialogue on the two chief
world systems (1632), and Discourses and mathematicaldemonstrations
concerning two new sciences (1638) among others.

4.4 Galileo Galilei's Contribution to the Rise of Modern

Science

Bertrand Russell refers to Galileo as the greatest of the founders of

modern science, with the exception of Newton. He marked a second
phase of scientific development in the history of renaissance science. The
second phase was marked not by speculative science that preceded it, but
by experimental science. Accordingly, Galileo was not only an important
astronomer, but also a founder of dynamics. He first discovered the
importance of acceleration in dynamics. ‘Acceleration’ means change of
velocity, whether in magnitude or direction; thus, a body moving
uniformly in a circle has at all times an acceleration towards the centre of
the circle.In the language that had been customary before this time, we
might say that he treated uniform motion in a straight line as alone
‘natural’, whether on earth or in the heavens. It had been thought ‘natural’
for heavenly bodies to move in circles, and for terrestrial bodies to move
in straight lines; but moving terrestrial bodies, it was thought, would
gradually cease to move if they were let alone. Galileo held, as against
this view, that everybody, if left alone, will continue to move in a straight
line with uniform velocity; any change, either in the rapidity or the
direction of motion, requires to be explained as due to the action of some
‘force’. This principle was enunciated by Newton as the ‘first law of
motion’. It is also called the law of inertia. I shall return to its purport
later, but first something must be said as to the detail of Galileo’s
discoveries (Russell, 1946).

Galileo was the first to establish the law of falling bodies. This law, given
theconcept of ‘acceleration’, is of the utmost simplicity. It says that, when
a body is falling freely, its acceleration is constant, except in so far as the

20
PHL342 MODULE 1

resistance of the airmay interfere; further, the acceleration is the same for
all bodies, heavy or light, great or small. The complete proof of this law
was not possible until the air pump had been invented, which was about
1654. After this, it was possible to observe bodies falling in what was
practically a vacuum, and it was found that feathers fell as fast as lead.
What Galileo proved was that there is no measurable difference between
large and small lumps of the same substance. Until his time, it had been
supposed that a large lump of lead would fall much quicker than a small
one, but Galileo proved by experiment that this is not the case. Measurement,
in his day, was not such an accurate business as it has since become;
nevertheless, he arrived at the true law of falling bodies. If a body is
falling freely in a vacuum, its velocity increases at a constant rate
(Russell, 1946).

Galileo also studied projectiles, a subject of importance to his employer,

the duke of Tuscany. It had been thought that a projectile fired
horizontally will move horizontally for a while, and then suddenly begin
to fall vertically. Galileo showed that, apart from the resistance of the air,
the horizontal velocity would remain constant, in accordance with the law
of inertia, but a vertical velocity would be added, which would grow
according to the law of falling bodies. To find out how the projectile will
move during some short time, say a second, after it has been in flight for
some time, we proceed as follows: First, if it were not falling, it would
cover a certain horizontal distance, equal to that which it covered in the
first second of its flight. Second, if it were not moving horizontally, but
merely falling, it would fall vertically with a velocity proportional to the
time since the flight began. In fact, its change of place is what it would
be if it first moved horizontally for a second with the initial velocity, and
then fell vertically for a second with a velocity proportional to the time
during which it has been in flight. A simple calculation shows that its
consequent course is a parabola, and this is confirmed by observation
except in so far as the resistance of the air interferes (Russell, 1946).

The above gives a simple instance of a principle which proved immensely

fruitful in dynamics, the principle that, when several forces act
simultaneously, the effect is as if each acted in turn. This is part of a more
general principle called the parallelogram law. Suppose, for example, that
you are on the deck of a moving ship,and you walk across the deck. While
you are walking the ship has moved on, so that,in relation to the water, you
have moved both forward and across the direction of theship’s motion. If
you want to know where you will have got to in relation to the water, you
may suppose that first you stood still while the ship moved, and then, for
an equal time, the ship stood still while you walked across it. The same
principle applies to forces. This makes it possible to work out the total
effect of a number of forces, and makes it feasible to analyse physical
phenomena, discovering the separate laws of the several forces to which
moving bodies are subject. It was Galileowho introduced this immensely
fruitful method (Russell, 1946).

21
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

The law of inertia explained a puzzle which, before Galileo, the

Copernican system had been unable to explain. As observed above, if you
drop a stone from thetop of a tower, it will fall at the foot of the tower, not
somewhat to the west of it; yet,if the earth is rotating, it ought to have
slipped away a certain distance during the fallof the stone. The reason this
does not happen is that the stone retains the velocity ofrotation which,
before being dropped, it shared with everything else on the earth’s
surface. In fact, if the tower were high enough, there would be the opposite
effect tothat expected by the opponents of Copernicus. The top of the
tower, being further from the centre of the earth than the bottom, is moving
faster, and therefore the stoneshould fall slightly to the east of the foot of
the tower. This effect, however, would be too slight to be measurable.

In the exact words of Cushman, "Galileo gave to all future thought a

wisely formulated method of dealing with the new materials of the nature
world" (1911: 36). From his observatory result, Galileo commenced his
project by criticizing the still dominant physics of Aristotle. The
Aristotelian physics maintained the position that nothing moves unless
there is an external motion that it acts upon. As against Aristotle's physics,
Galileo formulated a new theory of motion through his newly discovered
laws of projectiles, falling bodies and the pendulum. The reformulated
theory maintains that a body in motion will continue to move unless there
is an equalcontrary force such as friction.

Galileo gave an open acceptance to the Copernican revolution in 1610

when he invented a telescope (Cushman, 1911: 36). Using this newly
invented instrument,he observed four moons of Jupiter, which he named
"Medicean Stars" in honour of Grand Duke of Cosimo II of Tuscany
(Kenny, 2006: 23). Further observations alsoled him to observed that the
planet Venus moved in phases similar to that of the moon. Accordingly,
he concluded that the only plausible explanation to these phenomena is
only possible if Venus was orbiting the sun and not the earth. This
position provided a strong argument that favoured the Copernican
hypothesis (Kenny, 2006: 23). Again, following the discovery of the
moons that revolved around Jupiter, one of the strongest arguments
against heliocentricism was put to rest, the argument that the moon
would only be able to orbit the earth if the earthitself was static.

Galileo stressed the importance of direct observation and avoided

secondhand information based simply on tradition and opposing
conjectures contained in books.This led to his discovery of the satellites
around the planet Jupiter. He writes, "To demonstrate to my opponents
the truth of my conclusions, I have been forced to prove them by a variety
of experiments" (cited in Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 189). In a letter to
Kepler, he reflects on the stubborn attitudes of old-school astronomers of
his time: "My dear Kepler; what would you say of the learned here, who,
filled withthe stubbornness of a venomous snake, have steadfastly refused
22
PHL342 MODULE 1

to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of all this?
Shall we laugh or shall we cry?" In addition to his emphasis on
observation, Galileo sought to give astronomy the precision of geometry.
By using the model of geometry for his reasoning about astronomy; he
assumed that he could demonstrate the accuracy of his conclusions ifhe
could, as one does in geometry, produce basic axioms from which to
deduce his conclusions. Moreover, he assumed that empirical facts
correspond to geometric axioms, or that the axioms that the mind
formulates correspond to the actual characteristics of observable moving
bodies. To think in terms of geometry is to know how things actually
behave. Specifically; Galileo formulated, for the first time, a geometric
representation of the motion of bodies and their acceleration (Stumpf and
Fieser, 2012: 189).

Galileo was condemned by the Inquisition, first privately in 1616, and

then publicly in 1633, on which latter occasion he recanted, and promised
never again tomaintain that the earth rotates or revolves. The Inquisition
was successful in puttingan end to science in Italy, which did not revive
there for centuries. But it failed to prevent men of science from adopting
the heliocentric theory, and did considerable damage to the Church.
Fortunately, there were Protestant countries, where the clergy, however
anxious to do harm to science, were unable to gain control of the State.
Galileo died defending his ideas. Nevertheless, his ideas became very
important to the revolution of modern science, especially the field of
astronomy and modern physics.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. In what way did Galileo put to rest the argument that the moon
would only beable to orbit the earth if the earth was static?
2. --------- refers to Galileo as the greatest of the founders of modern
science, with the exception of Newton?
3. Newton was the first to establish the law of falling bodies.
True/False

4.5 Summary

In this unit, the following are what you have learnt:

 The invention of the telescope by Galileo provided a practical
proof to thetheory of heliocentricism.
 Through the use of the telescope, Jupiter and Venus were
discovered and the motion of stars and moons were clearly
explained.
 Galileo's polarization of the heliocentric theory and the discovery
of otherplanets, their motions, stars and moons, were based on
experimentation.

23
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

In this unit, you have learnt that Galileo Galilei began a new phase of
renaissance science based on observation and experimentation as against
the speculative method adopted by others before him. As a result, he was
able to provide a practical demonstration of the new theory of
heliocentricism and also discovered other planets and their motions,
thereby putting to rest the geocentric argument thatthe moon would only
be able to orbit the earth if the earth itself was stationary.

4.6 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Cushman, H. E. (1911). A Beginner’s History of Philosophy: Modern

Philosophy, vol.

II. The Riverside Press.

Kenny, A. (2006). The Rise of Modern Philosophy. Clarendon Press.

Lawhead, W. F. (2002). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction toPhilosophy, (2nd ed.). Wadsworth and Thomson.

Stumpf, S. & Fieser, J. (2012). Socrates To Sartre And Beyond: A

History ofPhilosophy. (8th ed.). McGraw hill education.

24
PHL342 MODULE 1

4.7 Possible Answer to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. Galileo was able to put this argument to rest through his discovery
of themoons that revolved around Jupiter.
2. Bertrand Russell
3. False

End of Module Exercises

1. The new scientific discoveries and ------- are the two distinct
components tothe rise of modern scientific revolution
2. Discuss how the Reformation influenced the rise of modern
philosophy.
3. What is the focus of the Renaissance period? What is the
contribution of scientific revolution?
4. The sun-centred theory of Copernicus was an indirect attack on the
earth-as-centre (geocentric) model adopted by the church.
True/False?
5. Explain a brief biography of Nicolaus Copernicus
6. Explain what you understand by Copernican Revolution.
7. Explain Copernicus contribution to modern science
8. Outline the two basic features of Bruno's ideas that was of interest
to scientistsand philosophers.
9. Briefly discuss the metaphysics of Gordiano Bruno
10. Briefly discuss Gordiano Bruno and the rise of modern science
What was Bruno's belief about the things we observe in the world
11. Briefly explain what you understand by Aristotelian physics.
12. Briefly explain Galileo Galilei's contribution to the rise of modern
science
13. How did Galileo put to rest the argument that the moon would only
beable to orbit the earth if the earth was static?
14. In what way did Galileo put to rest the argument that the moon
would only beable to orbit the earth if the earth was static?

25
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

MODULE 2

Unit 1 Francis Bacon and Early Empiricism

Unit 2 Thomas Hobbes and Early Empiricism
Unit 3 John Locke and the Rise of Modern Empiricism
Unit 4 George Berkeley
Unit 5 David Hume

UNIT 1 FRANCIS BACON AND EARLY EMPIRICISM

Francis Bacon

Unit Structure

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
1.2 A Brief Biography of Francis Bacon
1.3 Bacon's Empiricism
1.4 Theory of Knowledge: The Four Idols
1.5 Bacon's Inductive Method
1.6 Summary
1.7 References/Further Readings/Web Resources
1.8 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise Exercises

1.1 Introduction

In module 1, you learnt about the transition from medieval synthesis to

the reawakening of reason in search of knowledge. You also learnt how
scientific innovations contributed to the decline of the medieval thoughts.
As science gained dominance, the modern philosophers saw the need to
26
PHL342 MODULE 2

provide a logical ground through which we come to know what we claim

to know. The aim of this, we couldassume, was to enable them establish
a proper method of science and philosophy. As science thrives in
observation and experimentation, the call for experience as thesource of
knowledge gained prominence. In this unit, you shall be learning the
empiricism of Francis Bacon, one of the earliest advocates of scientific
method.

1.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 explain the empirical idea in Bacon's thought

 outline the four idols according to Bacon, that hinder knowledge
 examine induction as a method in science and philosophy.

1.3 A Brief Biography of Francis Bacon

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), was born in London and received his

Universityeducation at Cambridge where he studied law. At an early age,
he joined the Englishdiplomatic service, but later returned to London to
practice law. When he was twenty-three, Bacon was elected into the
British parliament. He rose to the positionof a legal adviser to the Crown
aged forty-three. Bacon later became the Lord Chancellor. However, all
did not go well for him as he was accused and convicted of corruption
charges, this forced him to abandon public life. His major works are,
Instauratio Magna (The Great Instauration), Novum Organon and New
Atlantis.

1.4 Bacon's Empiricism

Bacon's goal as expressed in his work, Great Instauration, was to attain a

"total reconstruction of sciences, arts, and all human knowledge raised
upon the proper foundations" (Bacon, 1980). Bacon saw the medieval
thoughts as complicated and unable to be used to conquer nature. His
reason for holding such position against the medieval thoughts, according
to Lawhead, was because their thought had no ties to observable facts
(2002: 213). Hence, Bacon set out to secularize philosophy by making it
the same as science, and on the process, appealed to knowledge that are
observable. Any claim to knowledge that is based on observation or
experience is called empiricism. Bacon’s popular dictum is that
“knowledge is power” (Bacon, 1939). This as explained by Cushman
(1911:43), implies that knowledge is the only kind of permanent power,

27
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

and man can master the world when he gives up verbal discussions and
belief in magic. To gain the power of knowledge, then, has to do with
man gaining a positive insight into nature.

1.5 Theory of Knowledge: Reconstructing the Human Mind

In his theory of knowledge, Bacon maintains, as his principal objective,

the total reconstruction of the sciences, arts and all human knowledge and
he called thishis great instauration or restoration. But before he could
proceed with his creative task, he levels some fierce criticisms against the
institutions of learning of his time, and also against the reigning schools
of philosophy, denouncing them for their slavish attachment to the past.
He thus sounded the call for a break with the lingering influence of
Aristotle.

The Distempers of Learning

In his theory of knowledge, Bacon attacked past ways of thinking, calling
them "distempers of learning” to which he offered a cure. These
distempers of learning are: fantastical learning, contentious learning, and
delicate learning.

Fantastical learning is a practice in intellectualism which emphasizes the

use of high flown languages that are in themselves ambiguous. In
fantastical learning, people concern themselves with words, emphasizing
texts, languages, and style, and hunt more after words than matter, and
more after choiceness of phrase than afterthe weight of matter.

Contentious learning, according to him, is worse because it begins with

the fixed positions or points of view taken by earlier thinkers, and these
views are usedas the starting point in contentious argumentation.

Delicate learning, the last of Bacon’s distempers, is a condition wherein

earlier authors, who claim more knowledge than can be proved, are
accepted by readers as knowing as much as they claim. This accounts for
the acceptance of Aristotle, for example, as the authority of science.
These three diseases, according to Bacon, must be cured if we are to
relieve the mind of the errors they create.

The Four Idols

Bacon believed that the human mind has been corrupted by dogmas such
thatit affects our ability to acquire knowledge. He refers to these dogmas
as “idols.” Torestore the mind to its original position, therefore, the mind
must be purged from these “idols” that corrupts its natural powers.
According to Bacon there are four idols that hinder the mind from acquiring
knowledge. These are:

28
PHL342 MODULE 2

The Idols of the Tribe

These are the false beliefs systems that are inherent in human nature. It is
thehabit of expecting more order in natural phenomena than is actually to
be found (Russell, 1945: 544). Bacon traces the origin of this idol to the
the false assertion that the sense of man is the measure of things. Here
Bacon wanted to make the point that simply looking at things is no
guarantee that we will see them as they really are,because we all bring our
hopes and fears, prejudices, and impatience to things and thereby affect
our understanding of them (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012).

The Idols of the Cave

These are individual prejudices which arise within the mind of an
investigator. The idol of the cave is derived from Plato’s allegory.
Accordingly, the human mindis presumed to be caved in our prejudices
and biases so that our knowledge reflectsthe pattern of our experience
more than that of reality.

The Idols of the Theatre

The Idols of the Theatre are the grand systematic dogmas of long
philosophical treatises. These represent "worlds of their own creation after
an unreal and scenic fashion" (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 193). Bacon
includes here not only whole systems but all principles or axioms in
science that by tradition, credibility and negligence have come to be
received. Idols of the theatre, therefore, have to do with uncritical
reception of the various dogmatic systems of thoughts, notably Plato,
Aristotle, and the scholastics. According to Lawhead (2002:215), Bacon
believed that all the received systems are but so many stage-plays,
representing worlds of their own creation after an unreal and scenic
fashion.

The Idols of the Marketplace

These are frequently used language or expressions that affect the pursuit
of truth because of the influence such languages wield. Bacon calls this
idol thus sinceit stands for the words people use in the commerce of daily
life, words that are common coin in daily conversation. In spite of their
usefulness, words can weaken knowledge because they are not created
with care or precision but rather are framedso that the common person
will understand their use. Even philosophers, according to Bacon, are
diverted by these Idols, for they often give names to things that exist only
in their imaginations. In addition, they fashion names for mere
abstractions, such as "element" of fire, or the "qualities" of heaviness,
rareness, or denseness.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. What do you understand by Bacon’s idol of the cave?
2. Bacon’s popular dictum is what?

29
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

1.5 Bacon's Inductive Method

Bacon was the first of the long line of scientifically minded philosophers
who have emphasized the importance of induction as opposed to
deduction. Like most ofhis successors, he tried to find some better kind
of induction than what is called ‘induction by simple enumeration’.
Induction by simple enumeration may be illustrated by a parable (Russell,
1945: 498).

Bacon believed that once the mind has been purged from the “idols” to
acknowledge, we need to establish a method that will help us to discover
the workings of nature, thereby leading to true and certain knowledge.
Following from this, Bacon rejected the classical deductive logic of
Aristotle and the medieval thinkers. This is becausethe deductive logic
starts with given premises which are symbols of concepts.

However, if our original concepts are confused and not adequately

grounded in the facts, then the whole structure of reasoning will simply
fix and give stability to original errors (Lawhead, 2002: 215). Hence, “Our
only hope,” according to Bacon,“lies in a true induction” (Bacon, 1939).
The method of induction proceeds from the particular facts given in
observation and then rises cautiously to the level of generalizations
(Lawhead, 2002:215). As against the previous notions of induction which
simply consisted of collection of multiple observation and then jumping
into conclusions, Bacon argued that such method is not capable of
providing us with scientific knowledge because of its hasty and
inaccurate generalizations. Following his criticism of the previous
notions of induction, Bacon believed that:

Induction could be made something better than this. He wished, for

example,to discover the nature of heat, which he supposed (rightly) to
consist of rapidirregular motions of the small parts of bodies. His method
was to make lists of hot bodies, lists of cold bodies, and lists of bodies of
varying degrees of heat. He hoped that these lists would show some
characteristic always presentin hot bodies and absent in cold bodies, and
present in varying degrees in bodies of different degrees of heat. By this
method he expected to arrive at general laws, having, in the first instance,
the lowest degree of generality. From a number of such laws he hoped to
reach laws of the second degree of generality, and so on. A suggested law
should be tested by being applied in new circumstances; if it worked in
these circumstances it was to that extent confirmed. Some instances are
specially valuable because they enable us to decide between two theories,
each possible so far as previous observations areconcerned; such instances
are called "prerogative" instances (Russell, 1945: 543).

30
PHL342 MODULE 2

Bacon introduced the inductive method as the new method of acquiring

knowledge. His inductive method involved enumeration of instances of
the data of experience, observation and experiment. This version of
induction advocated for by Bacon gave rise to the development of the
scientific method. However, his inductivemethod has been criticized of
failing to provide sufficient emphasis on hypothesis. Again, Lawhead and
Stumpf criticized Bacon’s induction for his use of Aristotelian and
scholastic terminologies like “form,” and “essence” (Lawhead, 2002:
215;Stumpf, 1994: 224).

Self-Assessment Exercise
3. The three distempers of learning Bacon talks about are:--------,
contentious learning, and -----------.
4. ---- idols are individual prejudices which arise within the mind of an
investigator.
5. Bacon emphasized deduction over induction. True/False

1.6 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt the following:

 Bacon was an empiricist because he advocated for experience as
the source ofknowledge.
 There are idols that hinder the human mind from attaining
knowledge and until the mind is free from these idols, it becomes
difficult to have knowledge of reality.
 Bacon modified the theory of induction through advocacy for
induction method based on observation and experimentation.
 Bacon’s method of induction marked the beginning of
scientific method.Hence, he is often referred to as one of the
fathers of science,

1.7 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Lawhead, W. F. (2002). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy, (2nd ed.). Wadsworth and
Thomson.

Stumpf, E. S. (I994). Philosophy: History and Problems. McGraw Hill

Inc.

Russell, B. (1945). The History of Western Philosophy. Simon and

Schuster

31
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

2.8 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. Idols of the cave are individual prejudices which arise within the
mind of an investigator. The idol of the cave is derived from
Plato’s allegory. Accordingly, the human mind is presumed to be
caved in our prejudices and biases so that our knowledge reflects
the pattern of our experience more than that of reality.
2. Knowledge is power
3. fantastical learning and delicate learning
4. idols of the cave
5. false

32
PHL342 MODULE 2

UNIT 2 THOMAS HOBBES AND EARLY EMPIRICISM

Thomas Hobbes

Unit Structure

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
2.3 A Brief Biography of Thomas Hobbes
2.4 Hobbes Empiricism/Theory of Knowledge
2.5 Metaphysics
2.6 Ethics
2.7 Socio-Political Philosophy
2.8 Summary
2.9 References/Further Readings/Web Resources
2.10 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

2.1 Introduction

Thomas Hobbes is a philosopher whom it is difficult to classify (Russell,

1945: 546). He belongs to the empiricist tradition. However, unlike other
empiricists like Locke, Berkeley and Hume, Hobbes admired the methods
of mathematics. He is more relevant in his political philosophy important
ideas which, of course, is the centerpiece of his philosophical endeavor.
In this unit, you shall be learning about some of his important ideas, not
limited to his view on empiricism as a method, but his thought on
metaphysics, morality, society and politics.

33
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

2.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 identify the empirical tradition in Thomas Hobbes philosophy

 examine Thomas Hobbes thought on the nature of reality
 pinpoint his position on morality
 discuss Hobbes’ political thoughts, especially his social contract
theory.

2.3 A Brief Biography of Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was born in England to an uneducated vicar.

He was brought up by his uncle when the father finally lost his job.
Hobbes acquired a good knowledge of classics at a tender age, and at just
fourteen, he translated the ancient classic of Euripides, The Medea, into
Latin. Hobbes attended Oxforduniversity at age fifteen. He would later
confess that he profited little in his years atOxford, in 1610, aged twenty-
two years old, he became a personal tutor to Lord Hardwick, the second
Earl of Devonshire. While in France, Mersenne introduced him into the
philosophical and scientific circles. In 1636, Hobbes travelled to Italy
where he visited Galileo Galilei in Florence.

Following the build-up to the Civil War in England in 1640, Hobbes

feared that his safety was not guaranteed in England because of his
royalist convictions, sohe travelled to Paris. While in France, he served
as the tutor to the Prince of Wales was in exile. He returned to England
after the Restoration and made peace with the commonwealth in 1652.
Hobbes died in the winter of 1679 aged Ninety-one years. His major
works are, The Elements of Law, Natural and politic (1640), Leviathan
(1651), Form and power of Commonwealth (1651), De Corpore (1655),
De Homine(1658), among others.

2.4 Hobbes Empiricism/Theory of Knowledge

In the introduction, you learnt that Hobbes belongs to the empiricist, but
he admired the way of mathematics. Thomas Hobbes assumed that
empirical facts correspond to geometric axioms, or that the axioms that
the mind formulatescorrespond to the actual characteristics of observable
moving bodies (Essien, 2011:195). As an empiricist, Hobbes begins his
philosophy with the given, with sense- impressions made on us by
external bodies, and with our memories of such impressions (Coplestone,
1994: 3). For him, therefore, philosophy is knowledge of effects or
appearances as we acquire by true ratiocination from the knowledge we
have first of their causes or generation.

34
PHL342 MODULE 2

Hobbes divided knowledge into two kinds. The first is knowledge of facts
and the second is the knowledge of consequence. Knowledge of fact is
when one sees something done or remember seeing it done, then such
knowledge is knowledge of fact. Knowledge of fact is an absolute
knowledge. It is a kind of knowledge that a witness offers in a court of
law. On the other hand, knowledge of consequence is a conditional or
hypothetical knowledge. It is knowledge of relations or cause and effects,
example, if A is true, then B will be true. Hobbes maintained that
knowledgeof consequence is scientific knowledge, the kind of knowledge
which is required ofa philosopher, who, according to him, only pretends to
reason (Coplestone, 1994: 4).Hobbes described scientific or philosophical
knowledge as knowledge ofconsequence because he considered them to
be conditional or hypothetical. They areconcerned with the causes and
properties of bodies in motion. He is a materialist who maintains that
philosophy only takes account of bodies. For him, authentic knowledge
is knowledge of facts.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. What is the difference between knowledge of facts and
knowledge ofconsequence, according to Hobbes?

2.5 Metaphysics

Hobbes’ metaphysics is seen in his materialism. For him, reality is simply

bodies in motion. The goal of philosophy, according to him, is the
discovery of causes. But what does Hobbes mean by causes? A cause, for
him, is the sum or aggregate of all accidents. His metaphysics is
concerned with causal explanation. And by causal explanation, Hobbes has
in mind, an account of the generative process by which some effect comes
into being (Coplestone, 1994: 5). This implies that whatever that fails to
come into existence through generative process cannot be part of the
subject matter of metaphysics.

For him, therefore, metaphysics is concerned with the causes and

properties of bodies. However, all motions, according to him, is determined,
which also follows that human actions and behaviours are determined. But
how does Hobbes account for our internal actions? He accounts for it by
maintaining that motions are of two kinds; vital and voluntary motions.
Vital motions are such automatic activities as the circulation of blood,
breathing, digestion etc. while voluntary motions are the aspects of our
behaviours that show freewill (Lawhead, 2002: 220). Voluntary motions
begin with our individual endeavours such as desire or aversion. Hobbes’
vital motions have no problems at all, but the problem rests on the
voluntary motions. Hemaintains that voluntary motions correlate with our
experiences either as pleasurable or painful. However, if we take Hobbes
materialism too far, the result will be the mechanical outcome of forces
acting on every reality.

35
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Hobbes’s metaphysics is found in his immaterialism. True/False?

2.6 Ethics

Hobbes’ moral philosophy is enshrined in his theory of motion and also in

hispolitical philosophy. According to Asukwo (2016: 39), his moral and
ethical perception hinges on the human nature which manifests in man’s
interaction in a political society; it is also in line with the law of nature,
which is the natural law. Hobbes conceived of the goal of morality as
justice in the society. Justice for him, then, is “keeping of covenant which
is a rule of reason, by which we are forbidden anything destructive to our
life and consequently a law of nature” (Hobbes, 1988: 374).

Hobbes contended that the society rules are ordered by natural law, the
law ofreason, which also governs the state. He ascribed “good” to the
object of desire, whereas evil is the object of aversion. Hence, like the
Epicureans, he conceived of good and evil as terms derived from pleasure
and pain (Lawhead, 2002: 220). However, since good and evil are
subjective, Hobbes believes that we are guided bysubjective pursuit of
pleasure. This position depicts both psychological hedonism and
psychological egoism. On the critical perspective, Hobbes sees good as
what gives an individual pleasure. The implication of this is that morality.
But how can we can control people’s pleasure in the face of subjectivity?
This became the central task of his political thought which we shall
explore in the next section.

2.7 Socio-Political Philosophy

Thomas Hobbes had experienced a turbulent period in English history

following the civil war of 1642. From this experience, he came to the
conclusion that chaos is inevitable where there is no stable government
to prevent it. He also believes that for any government to control chaos, it
must possess an absolute power. With these conclusions, Hobbes set out to
solve the problem of political society where, as exemplified in his moral
theory, he presents the political states also as moving bodies.

Thomas Hobbes political theory is also his theory of social contract.

Hobbes began with a hypothetical position of men before the formation
of the civil state. According to him, people had lived in a natural state or
state of nature prior to the formation of a civil state. The word, right, in
the bare state of nature is a person's freedom "to do what he would, and
against whom he thought fit, and to possess, use and enjoy all that he
would, or could get." The driving force in a person is the will to survive,
and the psychological attitude pervading all people is fear—the fear of
death, and particularly violent death. In the state of nature all people are

36
PHL342 MODULE 2

relentlesslypursuing whatever acts they think will secure their safety. The
picture we get of thisstate of nature is of people moving against each
other, bodies in motion, or the anarchic condition Hobbes called the war
of all against all (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012:200).

Hobbes analyzes human motivation by saying that everyone possesses a

twofold drive, namely; appetite and aversion. These two drives account
for our motions to and from other people or objects, and they have the
same meanings as the words love and hate. People are attracted to what
they think will help them survive, and they hate whatever they judge to
be a threat to them. The words good and evil have whatever meaning each
individual gives them, and people call good whatever they love and evil
whatever they hate, there being nothing simply and absolutely so." We
are fundamentally egotistical in that we are concerned chiefly with our
own survival, and we identify goodness with our own appetites. It would
appear; therefore, that in the state of nature there is no obligation for
people to respect others and there is no morality in the traditional sense of
goodness and justice (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012).

In the state of nature, there was no government and no laws to guide the
activities of people. However, there was a law of nature or the natural law
which directed man to choose between good and evil. Recall that in his
moral theory Hobbes had suggested that we are guided by subjective
pursuit of pleasure. Becauseof this, there was bound to be crises in the
state of nature. Hence, he presents the state of nature as a state of chaos.
Because of this, the condition life in the state of nature was poor, solitary,
nasty, brutish and short. People became wolves unto themselves and
everyone lived in a state of perpetual fear because even the strongestwhere
also weak.

However, the natural law, which is the law of reason suggested to people
thatthey should create for themselves a fearful being (The Leviathan) and
hand over alltheir power to it. This being will then control the people,
wielding all the powers topunish, protect and adjudicate laws. This is how
the civil state came into existence.For Locke, the state is more powerful
than the individual and exist to control the affairs of people. For the state
to be able to perform its function, Hobbes advocates for an absolute state.
Hence, the objective morality of the state supersedes the subjective
morality of individuals. The state, for him, therefore, is an instrument of
control which limit the power of people.

Self-Assessment Exercise
3. Hobbes’ political philosophy is also known as?

37
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

2.8 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt the following:

 Hobbes begins his philosophy with the given, with sense-

impressions made on us by external bodies, and with our
memories of such impressions
 He divided knowledge into two kinds. The first is knowledge of
facts and thesecond is the knowledge of consequence.
 A cause, for him, is the sum or aggregate of all accidents.
 Hobbes conceived of the goal of morality as justice in the society.
 Metaphysics is concerned with the causes and properties of
bodies.

In the introduction, you learnt that Thomas Hobbes belong to the

empiricist tradition, although he admired the method of mathematics.
Thomas Hobbes assumed that empirical facts correspond to geometric
axioms, or that the axioms that the mind formulates correspond to the
actual characterization of observable moving bodies (Essien, 2011: 195).
As an empiricist, Hobbes began his philosophy with the given,with sense-
impressions made on us by external bodies, and with our memories of
such impressions (Coplestone, 1994:3). For him, therefore, philosophy is
a knowledge of effects or appearances that we acquire by true
ratiocination from the knowledge we have first of their causes or
generation.

2.9 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Asukwo, O. O. (2016). “Thomas Hobbes” in A.F. Uduigwomen, M.E.

Uka and E.

C. Uduma. (Eds.). A Critical History of Philosophy, Vol. 2. Ultimate

indexbooks. Pp 289-303

Coplestone, F. (1994). A History of Philosophy: Modern Philosophy,

The British Philosophers from Hobbes to Hume. Volume V.
Image books.

Essien, E. S. (2011). Summa Philosophica: An Introduction to Philosophy

and Logic. Lulu Press.

Lawhead, W. F. (2002). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy, (2nd ed.). Wadsworth and
Thomson.

38
PHL342 MODULE 2

2.10 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. Knowledge of fact is when one sees something done or remember

seeing it done, then such knowledge is knowledge of fact.
Knowledge of fact is an absolute knowledge. It is a kind of
knowledge that a witness offers in a court of law. On the other
hand, knowledge of consequence is a conditional or hypothetical
knowledge. It is knowledge of relations or cause and effects,
example, if A is true, then B will be true.
2. False
3. Social contract theory

39
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

UNIT 3 JOHN LOCKE AND THE RISE OF MODERN

EMPIRICISM

John Locke

Unit Structure

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
3.3 A Brief Biography of John Locke
3.4 Locke's Empiricism/Theory of Knowledge
3.4.1 A Rejection of Innate Ideas
3.4.2 Simple and Complex Ideas
3.4.3 Primary and Secondary Qualities
3.4.4 Degrees of Knowledge
3.5 Socio-Political Philosophy
3.6 Summary
3.7 References/Further Readings/Web Resources
3.8 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

3.1 Introduction

This unit discusses Locke’s empiricism. It adopts a step-by-step analysis

of Locke’s process of knowledge acquisition. Accordingly, it is worthy
of note that Locke has written on many areas of philosophy. But in this
unit, we are more committed to his empiricism and how he attempted to
challenge the position of the rationalists.

40
PHL342 MODULE 2

3.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 explain the process of knowledge acquisition in Locke’s

empiricism
 differentiate between simple and complex ideas
 discuss the various degrees of knowledge in Locke
 discuss the social relevance of Locke’s philosophy.

3.3 A Brief Biography of John Locke

John Locke was born in 1632 into a Puritan home. His father was a lawyer
of somewhat meager means. Locke studied theology, natural science,
philosophy, and medicine at Oxford University. After his graduation,
Locke stayed at Oxford for a while to lecture in Greek and rhetoric.
However, he became occupied by public lifeinstead of academics for the
majority of his life. During the years 1667–1683 he was the personal
physician and adviser to Lord Ashley (later to become the Earl of
Shaftesbury). Before doing any work in political philosophy, Locke
acquired a good deal of practical, political experience through his
association with Shaftesbury. In addition to holding a number of political
positions, Locke helped draft a constitutionfor the American Carolinas in
1669 (Lawhead, 2015: 301). Faced with recurring health challenges, he
retired from public life in 1691. Locke died quietly in 1704. His major
works are, Two Treatises on Government and An Essay Concerning
Human Understanding, (both published in 1690), Letters Concerning
Toleration (1689–1692). Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693)
and The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695).

3.4 Locke's Empiricism/Theory of Knowledge

In his philosophy, John Locke set out the central task of his project as that
of enquiring into the origin, certainty, and extent of human knowledge.
Locke believedthat if he could describe what knowledge consists of and
how it is obtained, he coulddetermine the limits of knowledge and decide
what constitutes intellectual certainty.His believe was that knowledge is
restricted to ideas and not the innate ideas of the rationalists but ideas that
are developed by things we experience. According to Locke, all our ideas
come from some kind of experience. This implies that we are all born
without knowledge; and that each person's mind at birth is like a blank
slateupon which experience alone can subsequently write knowledge. But
to inquire into the limit of human knowledge, Locke thought it was
necessary for him to first of all, dismantle the theory of innate ideas, a

41
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

position, as earlier discussed, which holds that we all come into the world
with some sort of ideas that are already built into the mind from birth.

3.4.1 A Rejection of Innate Ideas

One of the major doctrines of the rationalists is the theory of innatism or

innate ideas (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 231). Accordingly, this theory
claims that some kinds of ideas, principles, or knowledge are not acquired
through experience, but are built into the mind itself (Lawhead, 2015:
303). Locke rejected this position. According to him, knowledge arises
from the senses, that a child at birth is born empty and it is experience
that writes knowledge into the child as he grows. Locke also claimed that
knowledge emanates from ideas which are promoted by experience. For him,
an idea is that object which forms the raw material which understanding
isconcerned with while thinking (Ekanem, 2016: 195).

3.4.2 Simple and Complex Ideas

Locke believes that knowledge could be explained if we discover the raw

materials out of which it was made. According to him, experience
provides us with two sources of ideas, sensation and reflection. Locke
maintains that all the ideas wehave can be traced either to sensation or to
reflection, and these ideas in turn are either simple or complex (Stumpf
and Fieser 232).

Simple Ideas
Simple ideas constitute the chief source of the raw materials out of which
ourknowledge is made (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 232). These ideas are
received passively by the mind through the senses. Simple ideas,
according to Locke, come from sensation. But he also believes that some
are derived from reflection. Just as our senses grasp the object, our minds
also become aware of the object when we reflect on them. In relation to
the ideas received through the senses, our minds can develop other simple
ideas by reasoning and judging (Stumpf and Fieser,2012: 232).

Complex Ideas
Complex ideas, on the other hand, are not received passively but rather
are put together by our minds as a compound of simple ideas. In other
words, when Locke talks about Complex ideas, he is simply talking about
the collection of simpleideas such that it presents us with an idea of a
whole. Complex ideas deal with the workings of the minds with we are
presented with multiple simple senses. For Locke, ideas are produced by
objects of experience, therefore, all knowledge is derived from sense
experience.

42
PHL342 MODULE 2

3.4.3 Primary and Secondary Qualities

Locke introduced the term "quality" to refer to the ability of matter to

produce ideas in our mind. Locke here makes an important distinction
between two differentkinds of qualities in order to answer the question of
how ideas are related to objects. He terms these qualities primary and
secondary. Primary qualities are those that really do exist in the bodies
themselves (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 233). It has to dowith qualities that
belong to objects such as, solidity; extension, figure, motion or rest, and
number. Thus, our ideas which are caused by primary qualities resemble
exactly those qualities that belong inseparably to the object. Locke,
however, says that secondary qualities, such as colors, sounds, tastes, and
odors, do not belong to or constitute bodies except as powers to produce
these ideas in us. According to Stumpf and Fieser the importance of
Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities is just an
attempt to distinguish between appearance and reality(Stumpf and Fieser,
2012: 234).

3.4.4 Degrees of Knowledge

In the process of acquiring knowledge, Locke is of the view that our ideas
fitor do not fit. What we then call knowledge is that with proper related
ideas. He classified knowledge into three degrees, depending on its
method of acquisition. These are intuitive, demonstrative and sensitive
knowledge. By intuitive knowledge,he refers that form of idea which is
immediate, leaves no doubt, and is the clearest and most certain that
human frailty is capable. Demonstrative knowledge occurs when our
minds try to discover the agreement or disagreement of ideas by calling
attention to still other ideas ((Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 235).

Locke cautions that each step of the demonstration must have intuitive
certainty. This is particularly the case in mathematics, but again, Locke
thought thatdemonstration is a type of perception that leads the mind to
knowledge of some form of existing reality. Thus, man knows, by an
intuitive certainty; that bare nothing canno more produce any real being
than can be equal to two right angles. However, sensitive knowledge, the
last degree of knowledge, according to him, is not knowledge in the strict
sense of the term; it only passes under the name of knowledge. But sensitive
knowledge does not give us certainty, nor does it extend very far. In
particular, sensitive knowledge does not assure us that qualities that seem
to be related are in fact necessarily connected. We simply sense things as
they are, and aswe never sense substance, we never know from sensation
how things are really connected (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 236).

43
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Locke favours innate ideas over and above experience. True/False?
2. How does Locke define “idea”?
3. ------ ideas constitute the chief source of the raw materials out of
which ourknowledge is made?
4. -------, demonstrative and -------- knowledge are the different
degrees of knowledge

3.5 Socio-Political Theory

Locke begins his political theory like Hobbes did with a treatment of the
stateof nature. However, unlike Hobbesian state which was characterized
by chaos, Locke's state of nature was peaceful, for according to him,
there was the law ofnature that guided the actions of people. But though
there was the law of nature to regulate the affairs of men, there was no
universal legislator. Everybody, he noted, has rights that are natural to
him/her. But as there was no government, everyone wasan umpire unto
his/herself in the state of nature.

Locke held in high esteem, our rights to the work of our hand. This is the
rightto private property. I have a right to the product of my own labour
when I turn virginsoil into farmland. And everyone has a right in his or
her own person to freedom from assault or other interference (Rogers,
1998: 388). Unfortunately, the continuance of these rights without a
power to mediate whenever conflict arises ledto the formation of a civil
society, and so people agree to give up the freedom of thestate of nature
by entering into compact with others to accept the authority of political
society. Power is then given to the government (the sovereign) to protect
the natural rights of those who enter into the contract. When government
fails to protect the individual’s natural rights, then political society ceases
to exist and executive action returns to the individual and under such
conditions, government forfeits its right to rule and rebellion is justified.

3.6 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt that:

 Experiences provides us with two sources of ideas, namely,

sensation andreflection.
 There is no innate idea because the human mind is born empty
and itexperience that write knowledge on it.
 In knowledge acquisition, there primary and secondary qualities
 Ideas are either simple or complex.

44
PHL342 MODULE 2

In the beginning of his philosophical journey, John Locke maintained that

hismajor mission was to set out the grounds of knowledge, ethics, politics,
and religion.In tackling this set of problems, he took on a task of immense
proportions that he had inherited from the rationalists. His philosophical
optimism is indicated by the fact that he hoped to accomplish this mission
with the modest and humble tools of empiricism. The outcome is that he
ended up in an attempt to steer a path between dogmatism and skepticism.
In this unit, therefore, we made a case for Locke’s empiricism and his
rejection of the innate ideas thesis. The unit discussed the process of
knowledge acquisition in his philosophy beginning with ideas as the raw
material through which human knowledge is possible. Substance then,
becomes nothing but object of sensitive knowledge.

3.7 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Ekanem, S. A. (2016). “John Locke” in A.F. Uduigwomen, M.E. Uka

& E. C.Uduma. (Eds.). A Critical History of Philosophy, vol. 2.
Ultimate index books.

Stumpf, S. E. and Fieser, J. (2012). Socrates to Sartre And Beyond: A

History of Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.

Rogers, G. A. (1998). “John Locke” in R. H. Popkin (ed.). The Columbia

History of Western Philosophy. Columbia University Press. Pp
382-351

Lawhead, W. F. (2002). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy, (2nd ed.). Wadsworth and
Thomson.

Stumpf, S. & Fieser, J. (2012). Socrates To Sartre And Beyond: A

History of Philosophy. (8th ed.). McGraw hill education.

3.8 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. False
2. According to Locke, an idea is that object which forms the raw
materialwhich understanding is concerned with while thinking
3. Simple
4. Intuitive, demonstrative and sensitive knowledge

45
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

UNIT 4 GEORGE BERKELEY

George Berkeley

Unit Structure

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
4.3 A Brief Biography of George Berkeley
4.4 The Nature of Existence
4.5 Matter and Substance
4.6 God and the Existence of Things
4.7 Summary
4.8 References/Further Readings/Web Resources
4.9 Possible to Answer to Self-Assessment Exercise

4.1 Introduction

In unit 3, you learnt about the empiricism of Locke and how he limits the
dataof knowledge to ideas. Locke sees substance as the objects of our
ideas. In this unit, you shall be introduced into the thought of George
Berkeley and how it led to idealism. You shall also learn about his

46
PHL342 MODULE 2

conception of matter and substance and thedisparity between his thought

and that of other British empiricists.

4.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 discuss Berkeley’s empiricism and the nature of reality

 discuss his notion matter and substance and how it differs from that
of Locke
 explain his notion of God and the existence of things.

4.3 A Brief Biography of George Berkeley

George Berkeley was born in Ireland in 1685. At the age of 15, he entered
Trinity College, Dublin, where he studied mathematics, logic, languages,
and philosophy. He became a Fellow of the College a few years after he
earned his B.A.degree and was also ordained a clergyman in the Church
of England, becoming a bishop in 1734. George Berkeley died in 1753
and was buried in Christ Church Chapel in Oxford. His major works
includes, Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision (1709), A Treatise
Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), and Three
Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonus (1713).

4.4 The Nature of Existence

Influenced by Locke, George Berkeley began his philosophy by denying

the existence of matter. His philosophy is summed up by the popular
dictum accredited him, "to be is to be perceived." Clearly, this would
mean that if something were notperceived, it would not exist. Berkeley
speaks of sensible things as collections or combinations of 'sensations or
ideas' and draws the conclusion that they 'cannot existotherwise than in a
mind perceiving them'. In his New Theory of Vision, he argues that all
our knowledge depends on actual vision and other sensory experiences.
In particular, he argues that we never sense space or magnitude; we only
have differentvisions or perceptions of things when we see them from
different perspectives. According to him, all that we ever see are the
qualities of an object that our faculty of vision is capable of sensing
(Stumpf and Fieser, 240). We do not see the closenessof an object; we only
have a different vision of it when we move toward or away from it. The
more Berkeley considered the workings of his own mind and wondered
how his ideas were related to objects outside of his mind, the more certain
he was that he could never discover any object independent of his ideas
(Stumpf and Fieser,240).

47
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

4.5 Matter and Substance

Berkeley denies the independent existence of things other than that which
is given by perception in the mind. Berkeley's contention, therefore, is
that to say of a sensible thing or body that it exists is to say that it is
perceived or perceivable: in hisopinion, there is nothing else that it can
mean. This analysis, he maintains, does not affect the reality of things.
'Existence is percipi or percipere (Coplestone, 1994: 219). He described
matter as an unthinking substance. Going further, Berkeley says that If,
then, I try to describe or interpret reality in terms of my experience, I first
come to the conclusion that there are other people like myself who have
minds. From thisit can be assumed that, just as I have ideas, other people
likewise have ideas.

Apart from my finite mind and the finite minds of others, there is a greater
Mind analogous to mine, and this is God's Mind (Stumpf and Fieser,
2012: 243). God's ideas constitute the regular order of nature. The ideas
that exist in our minds are God's ideas, which he communicates to us so
that the objects or things that we perceive in daily experience are caused
not by matter or substance but by God. It isGod, too, who coordinates all
experiences of finite minds, assuring regularity and dependability in
experience, which in turn enables us to think in terms of the "laws of
nature.” Thus, the orderly arrangement of ideas in God's Mind is
communicated to the finite minds or spirits of people, with allowance
made for the differences in competence between the divine and finite
minds. The ultimate reality, then, is spiritual (God) and not material, and
the continued existence of objects when we are not perceiving them is
explained by God's continuous perception of them (Stumpf and Fieser,
2012: 244).

4.6 God and the Existence of Things

Berkeley claims that every individual mind exist exterior to other minds.
Andso also, human minds are diverted from things. There is therefore
some other mind wherein they exist, during the intervals between the time
of our perceiving them. And because all human minds are intermittently
diverted from things, "there is an omnipresent eternal Mind, which knows
and comprehends all things, and exhibits them to our view in such a
manner and according to such rules as he himself has ordained, and are
by us termed the Laws of Nature" (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 243).
Berkeley, therefore, concluded that the existence of things depends on the
existenceof God, and God is the cause of the orderliness of things in
nature.

48
PHL342 MODULE 2

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. What is the dictum Berkeley’s philosophy is summed up in?
2. What is Berkeley’s argument for the existence of God?

4.7 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt that:

 The crux of Berkeley’s empiricism is perception.

 There is no independent existence other than that which is
given by theperception of the mind.
 God is the cause of the orderliness of things in nature.
 The ultimate reality is spiritual and not material.

In this unit, we discussed the empiricism of George. We noticed that

Berkeley gave us an empiricist impression which holds that reality
consists of perception. However, he landed himself in contradiction when
he claimed that whatever exists is either an idea in the mind or perceiving
mind. This is an idealist position, which is a theory in Metaphysics. His
philosophy, therefore, is criticized of mixing up perception with being.

4.8 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Ekanem, S. A. (2016). “John Locke” in A.F. Uduigwomen, M.E. Uka

& E. C.Uduma. (Eds.). A Critical History of Philosophy, vol. 2.
Ultimate index books.

Stumpf, S. E. & Fieser, J. (2012). Socrates to Sartre And Beyond: A

History of Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.

Rogers, G. A. (1998). “John Locke” in R. H. Popkin (ed.). The Columbia

History of Western Philosophy. Columbia University Press. Pp
382-351

Lawhead, W. F. (2002). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy, (2nd ed.). Wadsworth and
Thomson.

Stumpf, S. & Fieser, J. (2012). Socrates To Sartre And Beyond: A

History of Philosophy. (8th ed.). McGraw hill education.

49
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

4.9 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. "to be is to be perceived."
2. Berkeley's argument for the existence of God is that all human
minds areintermittently diverted from things, therefore, there is an
omnipresent eternal Mind, which knows and comprehends all
things, and exhibits them to our view in such a manner and
according to such rules as he himself has ordained, and are by us
termed the Laws of Nature. The existence of things, therefore,
depends on the existence of God, and God is the cause of the
orderliness of things in nature.

50
PHL342 MODULE 2

UNIT 5 DAVID HUME

David Hume

Unit Structure

5.1 Introduction
5.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
5.3 A Brief Biography of David Hume
5.4 Hume's Empiricism
5.5 Hume on Substance and his Denial of Metaphysics
5.6 The Notion of Causality
5.7 Ethics
5.8 Summary
5.9 References/Further Readings/Web Resources
5.10 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

5.1 Introduction

David Hume took the genuinely empirical elements in the philosophy of

Locke and Berkeley, purged them from the lingering metaphysics in their
thought, and gave empiricism its clearest and most rigorous formulation.
In fact, he has been described as the most consistent of the British
empiricists. In his skepticism, Hume denied the idea of substance and
causality for lack of impressions producing them. In this unit, therefore,
you shall be learning about the skepticism of Hume. We shalldiscuss his
theory of knowledge, view on causality and also his denial of
metaphysical realities.

51
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

5.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 identify and discuss the empirical thought in Hume’s Philosophy

 differentiate between impressions and ideas
 give reason(s) for Hume’s rejection of causality and metaphysics.

5.3 A Brief Biography of David Hume

David Hume was born in 1711 in Edinburgh, Scotland, into a Calvinist

family of modest means. He attended Edinburgh University, where he
studied Classics, Mathematics, Science, and Philosophy. In 1763 he went
to Paris to serve as an assistant to the English ambassador. His reputation
as a historian and man of letters preceded him, and his three years in
France were spent living the life of a celebrity and being the idol of all
the leading social circles. He lived out the last years of his life in his
hometown of Edinburgh where he was the leading light in Scottish
intellectual and literary circles. Hume died in 1776. His major works are:
A Treatise of Human Nature, An Enquiry Concerning Human
Understanding, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals,
Natural History of Religion and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

Theory of Knowledge: Impressions and Ideas as the Origin of Our

Knowledge
Hume begins his philosophy with an analysis of our perceptions. By
Perceptions, he simply means the contents of consciousness (Lawhead,
2015: 336). Consequently, Hume divides perceptions into impressions
and ideas. Impressions and ideas make up the total content of the mind.
The original stuff of thought is an impression (a sensation or feeling), and
an idea is merely a copy of an impression. According to Hume, the
difference between an impression and an idea is only the degree of their
vividness. The original perception is an impression, as when we hear,see,
feel, love, hate, desire, or will. These impressions are "lively” and clear
when we have them. When we reflect on these impressions, we have ideas
of them, and those ideas are less lively versions of the original
impressions. To feel pain is an impression, whereas the memory of this
sensation is an idea. In every particular, impressions and their
corresponding ideas are alike, differing only in their degree ofvividness
with which they strike upon the mind and make their way into our thoughts
or consciousness (Coplestone, 1994: 265).

Besides distinguishing between impressions and ideas, Hume argues that

52
PHL342 MODULE 2

without impressions there can be no ideas. This is because if a particular

idea is simply a copy of an impression, it means for every idea there must
be a prior impression. Nevertheless, it is not every idea, however, that
reflects an exact corresponding impression, for instance when we talk about
a flying horse or a golden mountain even though we have ideas of them.
But Hume explains such ideas as being the product of the mind's "faculty
of compounding, transposing, or diminishing the materials afforded us by
the senses and experience"(Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 247).Association of
Ideas.

Hume argues that it is not by mere chance that our ideas are related to
each other. There must be, Hume says, some bond of union, some
associating quality; bywhich one idea naturally introduces another. His
explanation was that, whenever there are certain qualities in ideas, these
ideas are associated with each other (Stumpf and Fieser 247). These
qualities are, resemblance, contiguity in time or place, and cause and
effect. As resemblance, Hume says that when we see a picture, our
attention is often drawn to the original. Contiguity with time or place has
to do withan idea that a part indicates a whole, like when we mention a
room and someone thinks about other parts and the building as a whole.
Finally, the quality of cause and effects has to do with succession of
events, where when one event is preceded by another.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Perception is divided into ideas and ------?

5.4 On Causality

Hume's most original and influential ideas deal with the problem of
causality (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 247). For Hume the very idea of
causality cannot be proven. But Hume intend to investigate it a little, so
he asked "What is the origin ofthe idea of causality?" Since ideas are
copies of impressions, Hume asks what impression gives us the idea of
causality. His answer is that there is no impression corresponding to this
idea. How, then, does the idea of causality arise in the mind? His response
is that the idea of causality is a wrong idea that has no corresponding
impressions but only arises in the mind when we experience certain
relations between objects. For him, when we speak of cause and effect,
we mean to say that A Causes B. But what kind of a relation does this
show between A and B? in his response, Hume claims that in our
experience, we are being furnished by two relations, namely, (1)
contiguity, for A and B are always close together, and (2) priority in time,
where event A (cause) always precedes B, the effect. But how do we tell
if at very point A happens that B will follow? Hume argued that there is
no such necessary connection. According to him, while we do have
impressions of contiguity in space and priority in time, we do not have any

53
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

impression of necessaryconnection. Thus, causality is not a quality in the

objects we observe but is rather a mental habit of association" produced by
the repetition of instances A and B (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 248).

Self-Assessment Exercise
2. According to Hume, we can easily prove the idea of causality.
True/False?

5.5 Rejection of Metaphysics

Hume denied that substance in any form exists or has any coherent
meaning. If what is meant by the self is some form of substance, Hume
argued that no such substance can be derived from our impressions of
sensation (Stumpf and Fieser, 249). Hume, therefore, submit that notions
like substance, reality, mind, matter, etc, are actually meaningless and
unintelligible. He also says that questions that metaphysicians seek to
answer, like what is the nature of reality, what is the cause of the world,
what is the relationship between matter and mind, etc, are all
meaningless. They are meaningless because when we analyze these
questions in terms of our empirical meaning criteria, these questions
dissolve into nothingness (Essien, 2011: 231). For him, any material
containing metaphysical knowledge of realities should be discarded as
containing sophistry and illusion. He asserts:

When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc

must we make? If we take in our hand any volume, of divinity or school
of metaphysics, for instance; let us ask: "Does it contain any abstract
reasoning concerning quantity and number? No. Does it contain any
experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence? No.
Commit it then to flames, for it can contain nothing but Sophistry and
illusion (Hume, 1748: 132)

Hume also denied the existence of self. He questions if we have any one
impression that is invariably associated with our idea of self. Finding none,
he argues that the human mind is a kind of theatre where several perceptions
successively make their appearance and then disappear. Hume denies the
existence of a continuous self- identity and sees the self as nothing but a
bundle or collection of different perceptions.

5.6 The Notion of God

Hume emphasizes that the order of the universe is simply an empirical

fact and that we cannot infer from it the existence of God. He points out that
from a finite effect you cannot conclude an infinite cause (Lawhead, 2015:
349). However, this is not purely indicative that Hume denied the
existence of God.

54
PHL342 MODULE 2

5.7 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt that:

 Hume was the most consistent of the empiricists.

 He denied the existence of matter and substance.
 He denied causality.
 Impressions and ideas are the origin of our knowledge.

Hume’s philosophy leads to skepticism. However, no skeptical thought

remains unchallenged for; little wonder that his skepticism awoke Kant
from his dogmatic slumber, who responded with his critical philosophy
as we shall see later.

5.8 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Coplestone, F. (1994). A History of Philosophy: Modern Philosophy,

The British Philosophers from Hobbes to Hume. Volume V.
Image Books.

Essien, E. S. (2011). Summa Philosophica: An Introduction to Philosophy

and Logic. Lulu Press.

Lawhead, W. F. (2015). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy. (4th ed.). Cengage learning.

Stumpf, S. E. & Fieser, J. (2012). Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A

History of Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.

55
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

5.9 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. Impression
2. False

End of Module Exercise

1. ---------- learning is worse because it begins with the fixed
positions taken by earlier thinkers?
2. What goal did Bacon set to achieve in his philosophy?
3. According to Bacon there are four idols that hinder the mind from
acquiringknowledge briefly discuss?
4. Briefly discuss Francis Bacon’s theory of knowledge:
reconstructing thehuman mind?

5. What makes Hobbes an empiricist philosopher?

6. Two drives that Hobbes argues everyone possesses are ----- and -
-----?

7. -------- idea is a collection of simple ideas such that it presents us

with an idea of a whole.
8. Briefly explain primary and secondary qualities according to John
Locke?
9. What does Berkeley mean when he says “to be is to be perceived”?
10. What does matter and substance mean to Berkeley?
11. Briefly discuss the notion of causality according to Hume’s?How
is
12. David Hume an empiricist?

56
PHL342 MODULE 3

Module 3

Unit 1 Rene Descartes and the Foundation of Modern Philosophy

Unit 2 Benedict Spinoza
Unit 3 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Unit 4 Blaise Pascal
Unit 5 Nicholas Malebranche

UNIT 1 RENE DESCARTES AND THE FOUNDATION

OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY

Unit Structure

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
1.3 A Brief Biography of Rene Descartes
1.4 Theory of Knowledge: The Quest for Certainty
1.5 A Search for Method
1.6 Methodic Doubt
1.7 Metaphysics: The Existence of God and Eternal Things
1.8 Substance: Mind-Body Relation
1.9 Summary
1.10 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
1.11 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise(s)

57
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

1.1 Introduction

In module 2, we studied about the empiricists who affirmed the power of

the senses as the source of our knowledge. However, standing in
opposition to the empiricists are the rationalists who maintain that our
source of knowledge is reason.Rationalism, headed by Descartes, was the
most powerful doctrine of the 17th century. In this unit, we shall discuss
the ideas of Descartes, its founder.

1.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 discuss Descartes method of investigation

 explain how he arrived at the cogito
 examine his metaphysics vis-a-vis his notion of substance and
God
 discuss his mind-body dualism and the problem associated with
it.

1.3 A Brief Biography of Rene Descartes

Rene Descartes was born in Touraine in 1596. His father was a councilor
of the Parliament of Brittany. From 1604 to 1612 Descartes studied in the
Jesuit college of La Fleche, where his curriculum included mathematics,
logic, and philosophy. Hewas most impressed during these years with the
certainty and precision of mathematics, as compared with traditional
philosophy; which invariably produced doubts and disputes. After
traveling widely throughout Europe, he decided, in 1628, to settle in
Holland, and it was here that Descartes wrote his principal philosophical
works, including his Discourse on Method (1637), Meditations on First
Philosophy(1641), Principles of Philosophy (1644), and The Passions of
the Soul (1649). He went to Sweden in 1649 at the invitation of Queen
Christina, who wanted Descartesto instruct her in his philosophy. As the
queen could see him only at five o'clock in the morning, this
unaccustomed encounter with the bitter cold at that hour made himeasy
prey to illness. Within a few months he suffered an attack of pneumonia
and inFebruary 1650, at the age of 54, he died.

1.4 Theory of Knowledge: The Quest for Certainty

Descartes assumes that everyone is familiar with the phenomenon of

being deceived by his senses. One may see something at which turns out
to be quite otherwise when seen close up, or see things when they are in

58
PHL342 MODULE 3

water from when theyare out of it, example, when one is rowing, the oar
appears to be bent. Since this sometimes happens, Descartes suggests we
cannot really be certain that we are not always mistaken (Popkin and
Stroll, 1996: 215). If one grants this is sometimes thecase, but objects that
in most cases we can be quite certain that our senses are not deceiving us,
then Descartes presses:

But perhaps, even though the senses do sometimes deceive us when it is

a question of very small and distant things, still there are many other
matters concerning which one simply cannot doubt, even though they are
derived from the very same senses: for example, that I am sitting here next
to the fire,wearing my winter dressing gown, that I am holding this sheet
of paper in myhands, and the like. But on what grounds could one deny
that these hands andthis entire body are mine? Unless perhaps I were to
liken myself to the insane, whose brains are impaired by such an
unrelenting vapor of black bile that they steadfastly insist that they are
kings when they are utter paupers, or that they are arrayed in purple robes
when they are naked, or that they have heads madeof clay, or that they are
gourds, or that they are made of glass. But such people are mad, and I
would appear no less mad, were I to take their behavior as an example for
myself (Descartes, 1998: 60).

Descartes, therefore, begins to question the knowledge of whatever is

given to us by experience. In fact, he raises another more troubling
problem when he reflects:

This would all be well and good, were I not a man who is accustomed to
sleeping at night, and to experiencing in my dreams the very same things,
or now and then even less plausible ones, as these insane people do when
they are awake. How often does my evening slumber persuade me of such
ordinary things as these: that I am here, clothed in my dressing gown,
seated next to the fireplace - when in fact I am lying undressed in bed!
But right now, my eyes are certainly wide awake when I gaze upon this
sheet of paper. This headwhich I am shaking is not heavy with sleep. I
extend this hand consciously and deliberately, and I feel it. Such things
would not be so distinct for someone who is asleep. As if I did not recall
having been deceived on other occasions even by similar thoughts in my
dreams! As I consider these matters more carefully, I see so plainly that
there are no definitive signs by which to distinguish being awake from
being asleep (1998: 60).

The fundamental aim of Descartes was, obviously enough, to attain

philosophical truth by the use of reason (Coplestone, 1994: 66). Descartes
was chiefly concerned with the problem of intellectual certainty. So he
sought to construct the system of true knowledge upon the capacities of
human reason alone. Descartes broke with the past and gave philosophy

59
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

a fresh start. In particular, since his system of truth would have to be

derived from his own rational capacities, he would no longer rely on
previous philosophers for his ideas, now would he accept any idea as true
simply because it was expressed by someone with authority (Stumpfand
Fieser, 2002: 207). He therefore gave philosophy a fresh start by using
only those truths he could know through his own powers as the
foundation for all other knowledge.

1.5 A Search for Method

Descartes's method consists of harnessing the abilities of the mind with a

special set of rules. He insisted on the necessity of method and on
systematic and orderly thinking. Descartes looked to mathematics for the
best example of clear andprecise thinking. Indeed, he wanted to make all
knowledge a sort of universal mathematics. He was convinced that
mathematical certainty and self-evidence of it reasoning are results of a
special way of thinking (Lawhead, 2002: 208). Descartes, therefore,
thought that if he could discover this way, he would have a method for
discovering true knowledge. In mathematics Descartes discovered
something fundamental about mental operations.

Descartes held on to the mind's ability to apprehend directly and clearly

certain basic truths. He placed the whole edifice of knowledge on the
foundation of intuition and deduction, and he believed that these two
methods are the most certainroutes to knowledge adding that any other
approach should be rejected as suspect of error and dangerous. In a
nutshell, intuition gives us foundational concepts, and deduction draws
more information from our intuitions (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 207).
Descartes describes intuition as an intellectual activity or vision of such
claritythat it leaves no doubt in the mind. Descartes describes deduction
as “all necessary inference from facts that are known with certainty”.
What makes intuition and deduction similar is that both involve truth. By
intuition we grasp a simple truth completely and immediately, whereas by
deduction we arrive at a truth by a process,a continuous and uninterrupted
action of the mind.

1.6 Methodic Doubt

Descartes used the method of doubt in order to find an absolutely certain

starting point for building up our knowledge. Two arguments persuaded
Descartes that he could doubt virtually all his normal beliefs. The first is
the argument from dreaming. I believe that I am sitting by the fire with a
piece of paper in my hand. Why? Because my senses tell me so. But could
I not be dreaming? In dreams my senses present me with information of
the same kind as I receive waking. So how doI know that I am not dreaming
now? Having set out in his Rules that we should never accept anything

60
PHL342 MODULE 3

about which we can entertain any doubt, he now tries to doubt everything.
His intention is clear; for he wants to sweep away all his former opinions,
so that they might later on be replaced, either by others which were better,
or by thesame, when I had made them conform to the uniformity of a
rational scheme" (Stumpf and Fieser 2012:207). By this method of doubt,
Descartes shows how uncertain our knowledge is, even of what seems most
obvious to us. While Descartes was doubting everything, there was one
thing which he could not doubt, and that isthe fact that he was doubting.
In discovering this, Descartes makes his point as expressed by Stumpf
and Fieser thus:

But I was persuaded that there was nothing in all the world, that there was
noheaven, no earth, that there were no minds, nor any bodies: was not
then likewise persuaded that I did not exist? Not at all; of a surety I myself
did exist since I persuaded myself of something. But there is some
deceiver or other, very powerful and very cunning, whoever employs his
ingenuity in deceivingme. Then without doubt I exist also if he deceives
me, and let him deceive meas much as he will, he can never cause me to
be nothing so long as I think thatI am something (2012: 211).

According to Descartes, even if God is deceiving him in every possible

way;he knows that he exists since; in the very mental act of doubting, he
is affirming his own existence. Descartes, therefore expresses this his
popular dictum "I think, therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum). Thought
(reason) becomes the instrument of which Descartes intend to use as the
foundation of knowledge.

1.7 Metaphysics: The Existence of God and Eternal Things

The kind of ideas that Descartes believed must be innate are those of
mathematical objects, like the idea of a circle, and also, and most
important, the ideaof a perfect being, God. These ideas have properties
that do not appear in our experience. No circle that we see is perfectly
round. But the one that we can think about, is. We ourselves are not
perfect enough, Descartes claimed, to invent the sort of perfection that
appears in some of our ideas, especially that of God (Popkin and Stroll,
1993: 236). We are merely finite, temporal creatures, and yet we have an
ideaof an infinite and eternal God. How then, Descartes asked, can we
create concepts of properties, which we neither discover in our
experience, nor in ourselves? From such reasoning, he concluded that
mathematical ideas and the idea of God must be of a special category,
called ‘innate’, which must be implanted in us by some agencyother than
ourselves and other than the events of our lives.

Developing the concept of a perfect being, Descartes concluded that this

idea can only be caused by something that had at least the same

61
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

perfections as the idea itself exhibited. The idea is that of ‘a substance

that is infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, all-knowing, all-
powerful, and by which 1myself and everything else,if anything else does
exist, have been created’. I do not have properties like these tomake use
of in inventing an idea, and in my experience, I never see anything with
such perfection (Popkin and Stroll, 1993: 237). Therefore, the idea of a
perfect beingmust come from something that is at least as perfect as the
idea. Hence, Descartes reasoned, there must be a God, who has created
me, and who has implanted in me the idea of a perfect being (Popkin and
Stroll, 1993: 237).

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Descartes appeals to experience and the uncertainty of the
intellect. True/False?
2. Mind and body have the same attributes in Descartes’
philosophy? True/False?
3. How Descartes does defines of substance?

1.8 Substance: Mind-Body Relation

Descartes defines substance as a thing which exists in such a way as to

depend on no other thing for its existence (Lawhead, 2002: 237).
Descartes definition of substance would only fit God’s description, since
everything else depends on him. According to Descartes there are two
main categories of substances: mental substances and physical
substances. This implies that the mind and body are two completely
different entities. You will recall that Descartes started out by being sure
of his own mental existence but in doubt as to whether or not his body
existed. Thisled him to conclude that the mind is a separate substance
from the body because it does not need the body in order to exist or to be
understood.

Furthermore, the mind and the body are separate substances because they
have completely different attributes. Minds are capable of conscious acts such
as thinking, doubting, and willing. Bodies are not conscious and are
simply moved by mechanical forces acting on them. Minds are not
extended and so do not take up space. They are a kind of nonphysical or
spiritual reality. Because they are not extended, they are not made up of
parts and cannot be divided. Bodies, of course, are extended, occupy
space, and can be divided into more elementary particles (Lawhead,
2015: 256).

However, the problem so generated by this position is if the spiritual can

influence the physical, and if yes, where do they interact? While he tried
to locate the mind in the pineal gland, the technical problem of interaction
remains. If there isinteraction, there would have to be contact, and so mind
would have to be extended.On this problem, his rules of method did not lead
him to any clear and distinct conclusion (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 215).

62
PHL342 MODULE 3

1.9 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt the following:

 Knowledge, for Descartes, come from the faculty of reasoning and
notexperience.
 The method he adopted to carry out his investigation is the methodic
doubt.
 Human beings are born with some ideas or knowledge that are innate.
 Descartes introduced the mind-body problem into philosophy and the
problem so generated is the problem of interaction between the mind
and the body.
 The idea of God is innate and cannot be known by experience.

Descartes is the father of modern philosophy. Unlike the early modern

philosophers who did not develop any new system in their philosophy,
Descartes introduced the cogito (reason), as the foundation of human
knowledge. His central task was to establish science and philosophy in an
unshakable foundation using the method of mathematics. As a
mathematician, Descartes discovered that the knowledge of mathematics
is certain, distinct and indubitable. So, he devoted his time into creating
a new foundation for philosophy as the foundation of other sciences.
However, Descartes did not succeed in his quest as he found himself drown
in mind-body dualism. Notwithstanding the problem he later encountered,
Descartesprojects truly opened up a new vista of investigating the nature
of reality in philosophy. He is the undisputed leader of the 17th century
rationalist movement, aschool of thought which emphasizes the power of
reason and not experience, as thefoundation of knowledge.

1.10 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Coplestone, F. (1994). A History of Philosophy: Modern Philosophy:

From Descartes to Leibniz Volume IV. Image Books.

Lawhead, W. F. (2002). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy, (2nd ed.). Wadsworth and
Thomson.

Lawhead, W. F. (2015). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy. (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Popkin, R H. & Stroll, A. (1996). Philosophy. (3rd ed.). Made Simple

Books.

Stumpf, S. E. & Fieser, J. (2012). Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A

History of Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.

63
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

1.10 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. False
2. False
3. Descartes defines substance as a thing which exists in such a way
as todepend on no other thing for its existence

64
PHL342 MODULE 3

UNIT 2 BENEDICT SPINOZA

Benedict Spinoza

Unit Structure

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
2.3 A Brief Biography of Benedict Spinoza
2.4 Theory of Knowledge
2.5 Levels of Cognition
2.6 Metaphysics: Substance, God and Attribute
2.7 Ethics
2.8 Mind-Body Problem
2.9 Summary
2.10 References/Further Studies
2.11 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

2.1 Introduction

In our previous unit, we noted how Descartes attempt to establish

knowledge on a firm foundation led him into creating a problem of
dualism. In this unit, we shall consider Benedict Spinoza, another
rationalist, and how he solved the problemof dualism that was started by
Descartes as well as his idea on the source and natureof knowledge.

65
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

2.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 discuss the pantheism of Spinoza

 discuss his theory of knowledge
 outline and distinguish the three levels of cognition
 discus his metaphysics vis-à-vis the notion of substance and God
as differentfrom Descartes.

2.3 A Brief Biography of Benedict Spinoza

Baruch Spinoza (or Espinosa) was born in Amsterdam in 1632. He was

among the greatest of Jewish philosophers. His originality of mind is
suggested by his expulsion from the Synagogue of Amsterdam for his
unorthodox views. His refusal to accept the chair of philosophy at
Heidelberg was further evidence of his desire to preserve his freedom to
pursue his ideas wherever the search for truth might lead him. Though he
was content to live in simplicity, to earn a modest living grinding lenses,
his fame as a thinker spread abroad and inspired both admiration and
condemnation. Spinoza was born in Amsterdam in 1632 in a family of
Portuguese Jews who had fled from persecution in Spain. He was trained
in the study of the Old Testament and the Talmud and was familiar with
the writings of the Jewish philosopher Maimonides. Forced to leave
Amsterdam, in 1663 he went to The Hague, where he carried on his literary
career, of which his Ethics is the crowning work. Spinoza died in 1677
aged of 45.

2.4 Theory of Knowledge

Spinoza's theory of knowledge is based on the principle of logical

necessity. In other words, Spinoza believes that the fabric of the universe
is woven from the warp and woof of logical necessity. “In Nature there is
nothing contingent, but all things are determined from the necessity of
the divine nature to exist and act in a certain manner” (Lawhead, 2015:
265). Why, then, do some events seem contingentto us? Spinoza replies
that “a thing cannot be called contingent unless with reference to a
deficiency in our knowledge.” When we fail to see that everything is
necessary,it is “because the order of causes is concealed from us” (qtd in
Lawhead 2005: 265).Hence, while we can deduce some truths apriori,
only someone with the exhaustiveknowledge of the divine mind could
deduce the existence and behavior of any particular thing. The important
point is that all truths are capable of demonstration, though not for the
human intellect.

66
PHL342 MODULE 3

4.5 Levels of Cognition

Spinoza holds that all human ideas fall into three categories, which range
from the most inadequate and confused to the highest possible level of
human knowledge.These categories are classified into:
1. Opinion or imagination: This is the source of inadequate ideas and
false beliefs. The most inadequate form of information is mere
secondhand opinion (for example,my belief that I was born on such
and such a day). It also includes perception arisingfrom signs, such as
the ideas and images I get from hearing or reading certain words.The
most common form of this low-grade cognition is what I receive
from vagueexperience.
2. Reason: This is the second level of cognition. Reason goes beyond
fleeting sense experience and searches out the underlying chain of
reasons or causes that make something what it is. it is of the nature of
reason to perceive things under a certain form of eternity
3. Intuition: The third and highest level of knowledge is intuition.
Spinoza is not asclear about this as we would like, for he describes its
beneficial effects more than hedoes its nature. It is best seen as an
integrated vision of the whole that arises out of the level of reason
(Lawhead, 2015: 264-265).

4.6 Metaphysics: Substance, God and Attribute

Spinoza’s metaphysics revolves around his position that there is only one
substance, "God or Nature" (Russell, 1945: 571). Spinoza offered a strikingly
unique conception of God, in which he identified God with the whole
cosmos, a view that we now call pantheism. His famous formula was "God
or Nature" (Deus sive Natura), as if to say that these two words are
interchangeable (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 216). The clue to Spinoza's
unique conception of God is found in his definition: God I understand to
be a being absolutely infinite, that is, a substance consisting of infinite
attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence (Stumpf
and Fieser, 2012: 216). Spinoza's special thoughts revolve around the
ideas of substance and itsattributes and for him, there is only one single
substance with infinite attributes.

An attribute, Spinoza says, is that which an intellect perceives as

constitutingthe essence of substance. Since God is defined as a substance
consisting of infinite attributes, God thus possesses an infinite number of
aspects to his essence. However, as we examine God from our limited
human perspective, we can comprehend only two attributes of God's
substance: thought and extension, that is, God's mind and God's body.
Descartes thought that these two attributes showed the existence of two
distinct substances, thereby leading him to affirm the dualism of mind
and body. Spinoza, though, saw these two attributes as different ways of
expressing the activity of a single substance. God is therefore substance
perceived as infinite thought and infinite extension. Being infinite, God

67
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

contains everything (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012:217). Through an intricate

sequence of arguments, Spinoza arrives at the conclusionthat the ultimate
nature of reality is a single substance. He defines substance as "thatwhich
is in itself and is conceived through itself: I mean that the conception of which
does not depend on the conception of another thing from which it must be
formed."

Everything, according to Spinoza, is ruled by an absolute logical

necessity. There is no such thing as free will in the mental sphere or
chance in the physical world. Everything that happens is a manifestation
of God's inscrutable nature, and itis logically impossible that events should
be other than they are (Russell, 1945: 571). If God is infinite, Spinoza
reasoned, it must follow that there cannot be anything thatis not God. If
you discover something in the universe that is not God, then God can’tbe
infinite, because God could have in principle been that thing as well as
everythingelse. We are all parts of God, but so are stones, ants, blades of
grass, and windows. All of it. It all fits together into an incredibly
complex whole, but ultimately everything that exists is part of this one
thing: God (Warburton, 1962: 78).

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Spinoza regards reason as the highest form of knowledge.
True/False?
2. The source of inadequate ideas and false beliefs is opinion.
True/False?
3. How would Spinoza respond to Descartes’s view that the mind
and body arecompletely separate?

4.7 Ethics
In his treatment of human behaviour, Spinoza believed that people are an
integral part of nature. His point is that human behavior can be explained
just as precisely in terms of causes, effects, and mathematics as any other
natural phenomenon. Spinoza argued for the unity of all Nature, with
people as an intrinsic part of it, he develops a naturalistic ethics whereby
all human actions, both mental and physical, are said to be determined by
prior causes. All people possess as a part of their nature the drive to
continue or persist in their own being, and this drive Spinoza calls
conatus, that is, innate striving. When this conatus refers to the mind and
body; it is called appetite, and insofar as appetite is conscious, it is called
desire.As we become conscious of higher degrees of self-preservation
and perfection, we experience pleasure, and with a reduction of such
perfection, we experience pain. Our ideas of good and evil are related to
our conceptions of pleasure and pain. He cautions that we must study not
only our emotions but the whole order of Nature, for is only from the
perspective of eternity that we can really understand our own particular
lives, for then we see all events through the idea of God as cause ((Stumpf
and Fieser, 2012: 220-221). According to him, Passions enslave us only
when we lack knowledge.

68
PHL342 MODULE 3

4.8 Mind-Body Problem

Contrary to Descartes’s dualism, Spinoza replies that “the mind and the
bodyare one and the same thing, conceived at one time under the attribute
of thought, andat another under that of extension (Lawhead, 2015: 269).
Spinoza’s solution to the problem of mind and body is ingenious, though
complex to assimilate. The mind and the body are one and the same thing,
which is conceived now under the attribute of thought, now under the
attribute of extension.’ The theory of the attributes implies not only that
the one substance can be known in two ways, but that the same two ways
of knowing apply also to the modes of that substance.

4.9 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt the following:

 There is only one substance and it is either God or nature.

 There are three levels of cognition and the highest level is
intuition.
 All things are determined from the necessity of the divine nature
to exist andact in a certain manner
 The mind and the body and one and the same thing.

In this unit, we have discussed that Spinoza accepted pantheism where he

sees God and nature as opposites sides of the same coin. For him,
everything is a manifestation of God, hence, all things are determined
from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and act in a certain manner.
We have also noticed in his thought, the mind-body problem is a pseudo-
problem.

4.10 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Russell, B. (1945). The History of Western Philosophy. Simon and

Schuster.

Warburton, N. (2011). A Little History of Philosophy. Yale University

Press.

Lawhead, W. F. (2015). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy. (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Stumpf, S. E. and Fieser, J. (2012). Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A

History of Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.

69
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

4.11 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. False
2. True
3. Spinoza would respond by claiming that his mind is a finite mode
of the infinite substance conceived as thought; the body is a finite
mode of the infinite substance conceived as extension, and these
two finite modes are in fact one and thesame. Hence, the mind is
the idea of the body.

70
PHL342 MODULE 3

UNIT 3 GOTTFRIED WILHELM LEIBNIZ

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Unit Structure

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
3.3 A Brief Biography of Benedict Spinoza
3.4 The nature of substance: Monads
3.5 The Principle of Pre-Established Harmony
3.6 Theory of Knowledge
3.7 Summary
3.8 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
3.9 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

3.1 Introduction

Dissatisfied with the thoughts of Descartes and Spinoza, Leibniz came up

with his theory of deterministic monism. In this unit, we shall discuss his
notion of substancehis solution to the mind-body dichotomy of Descartes
and also his theory of knowledge.

71
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

3.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 discuss Leibniz’s conception of reality

 examine his theory of pre-established harmony as a solution to
Descartes dichotomy
 explain his theory of knowledge as necessity and contingency
 differentiate between truth of reason and truth of facts
 explain his philosophy as centred on his theory of monadology.

3.3 A Brief Biography of Gottfried Leibniz

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was born in 1646 in Leipzig, Germany. His

fatherwas a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Leipzig.
Leibniz was considered an intellectual genius. As a young boy, he learned
to read the Greek andLatin classics in their original languages. At the age
fifteen, Leibniz was admitted into the University of Leipzig and
graduated at age seventeen. After a brief stint at Jena, where he studied
mathematics, he returned to Leipzig to study for a degree inlaw. However,
academic politics intervened and a committee of faculty and students
voted against giving him a doctorate, a situation which been attributed to
his young age. This painful experience drove him to the University of
Altdorf, near Nuremberg, where he was readily accepted (Lawhead, 2015:
277-278). At the completion of his dissertation there, he not only received
his doctoral degree in law at twenty-one years of age, but was also offered
a professorship. Although Leibniz had enjoyed a fruitful public life, his
popularity declined at the end of his life and he died in obscurity in 1716
at the age of seventy (Minimah, 2016: 104). His major works are
Discourse on Metaphysics (1690), Monadology (1714), New System of
Nature (1695), On Individuation (1663), among others.

3.4 The nature of substance: Monads

Leibniz was not satisfied with Descartes and Spinoza’s description of the
nature of substance, because for him, their view of substance affects our
understanding of human nature, the nature of freedom, and God. He
considered the explanations inadequate and sets out to offer a more useful
explanation. Whether he succeeded or not is a case for philosophical
ratiocination. But first, what does he think of substance?

Descartes assumed that extension referred to a material substance that is

extended in space and is not divisible into something more primary. For
Spinoza, extension was an irreducible material attribute of God or nature.

72
PHL342 MODULE 3

However, Leibniz maintained that extension are aggregates of

compounds, composing of simple substances called monads (Essien,
2011: 205). Monads are simple substances, but unlike the atoms of
Democritus and Epicurus which were inert and only derive their motions
from something external to them, Leibniz’s monads were described as
dynamic force capable of action. Every individual monad is different from
the others, and possesses its own force which is the principle of action.
For Leibniz, substance must contain life or force.

3.5 The Principle of Pre-Established Harmony

Monads introduced the principle of established harmony to describe how

monads interacts in nature. For him, the fact that underlies the appearance
of universal interaction between finite substances is that the total state of
each monad at each moment is infinitely complex and each different
factor in it represents the contemporary total state of a different one of
the remaining monads (Essien, 2011: 216). In other words, every
organism possesses a ‘dominant monad’, distinct by the clarity of its
perceptions of all the others; and this dominant monad is the source of the
unity within the organism (Scruton, 1984: 73). This means that the
universe is well ordered in a way so as to avoid interference.

3.6 Theory of Knowledge

Leibniz’s deterministic conception of reality also reflected in this theory

of knowledge. Leibniz believes that some ideas (such as those we find in
logic and mathematics) could not be derived from the senses. He argues
for the weakness of sense experience to lead us to truths that are certain
and necessary. Leibniz claims that if some items of our knowledge possess
these qualities of necessity and certainty, then they must be innate ideas that
the mind discovers within itself (Lawhead, 2015: 279).

Central to his theory of knowledge is his approach to the notion of truth.

Leibniz distinguished between truths of reason and truths of fact.
According to him,truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is
impossible. Because they areknowable only by reason, Leibniz says that
they are necessary, analytic and self- evident truths. Their denial will lead
to a contradiction and it is the principle of sufficient reason that attests to
their facts. He expresses this thus:

When truth is necessary, the reason for it can be found by analysis, that
is by resolving it into simpler ideas and truths until the primary ones are
reached. It is in this way that mathematics, speculative theorems and
practical canons are reduced by analysis to definitions, axioms and
postulates (Leibniz, 1956: 184).

73
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

Truths of reason, therefore are tautologies such that they cannot be denied
without one getting into self-contradiction. These truths need no
empirical proof. For instance, the assertion “A bachelor is an unmarried
man” is a truth of reason andit is not possible for it to be denied without
one getting into self-contradiction. A truth of reason, therefore, is a
necessary truth because the very meaning of the termsused and the type of
human understanding require that certain things be true (Stumpf and
Fieser, 2012: 228). If the truth of reason are necessary truths, truths of
facts, therefore, are contingent truth and can be denied without one
engaging in self-contradiction. Truth of facts are not known apriori but
aposteriori, and unlike the truth of reason, their subjects are not contained
in their predicates.

We live in the world of facts, because of this, knowledge requires that we

verify what is given to us by the senses. Accordingly, Leibniz made a
distinction oftwo ways by which we derive knowledge from facts. These
are perception and apperception. Perception is the sense data while
apperception is the workings of consciousness or the internal workings of
the mind on the data. Through this reflective acts, the principal objects of
our reasoning is being furnished (Copleston, 1994: 312). To derive
knowledge from truth of fact, therefore, calls for our syntheticfaculty.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Leibnitz being a contemporary of Spinoza and Descartes was
highly in favour of their works. True/False?
2. Leibniz makes a distinction between truths of reason and truths of
fact. True/False?
3. Truth of reason are contingent truth and they are not tautologous.
True/False?
4. Leibnitz’s philosophy is synonymous to the term monadology.
True/False?

3.7 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt the following:

 Leibniz conceives of substance as an aggregate force capable of

actions.
 Extension are aggregates of compounds, composing of simple
substances calledmonads.
 There is necessity and contingency in knowledge.
 The universe is well ordered in a way so as to avoid interference.
 Every individual monad is different from the others, and
possesses its own forcewhich is the principle of action.

74
PHL342 MODULE 3

Our investigation into Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz (the rationalists)

revealthat knowledge is based on the rational capacity of human minds to
arrive at certainsystems of truths which are innate in them. Though they
all believe in reason as thesource of knowledge, they however, differ as to
what constitute the nature of reality.Descartes conceives of it as thought
and extension. For Spinoza, it is God or nature. For Leibniz, reality
consists of just one substance. This means that among the rationalists, we
have a dualist, a pantheist and a monist.

3.8 References/Further Readings/Web Sources

Coplestone, F. (1994). A History of Philosophy: Modern Philosophy:

From Descartes to Leibniz Volume IV. Image books.

Essien, E. S. (2011). Summa Philosophica: An Introduction to Philosophy

and Logic. Lulu Press.

Lawhead, W. F. (2015). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy. Fourth edition. Cengage
learning.

Leibniz, G.W. (1956). Discourse on Metaphysics. Garber, D. and Ariew,

R. (Trans.). Hackett publishing.

Scruton, R. (1984). A Short History of Modern Philosophy: from

Descartes to Wittgenstein. (2nd ed.).

Stumpf, S. E. & Fieser, J. (2012). Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A

History of Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.

3.9 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. False
2. True
3. False
4. True

75
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

UNIT 4 BLAISE PASCAL

Unit Structure

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
4.3 A Brief Biography of Blaise Pascal
4.4 Pascal's Conception of God, Nature and Grace
4.5 The Misery of Man Without God
4.6 Summary
4.7 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
4.8 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

4.1 Introduction

The modern period became a period of unrestricted quest for knowledge.

The outcome was a gradual decline in the belief in Christian God and
human beings weremore dependent on their abilities to manipulate nature
to their own advantage. Thisnew found religion and its new god, the god
of science, worried Pascal, himself a scientist. Despite his scientific
background, Pascal turned to the defence of Christianity as the only hope
of man. In this unit, you will learn about his thought.

76
PHL342 MODULE 3

4.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 discuss Pascal’s conception of God, nature and grace

 explain Pascal wager
 examine Pascal’s argument for the misery of man.

4.3 Brief Biography of Blaise Pascal

Blaise Pascal was born June 19, 1623 in Clermont, France. He was the
third of Étienne Pascal's children and his only son. Blaise's mother died
when he was onlythree years old. In 1632 the Pascal family, Étienne and
his four children, left Clermont and settled in Paris. In 1632 the Pascal
family, Étienne and his four children, left Clermont and settled in Paris.
Blaise Pascal's father had unorthodox educational views and decided to
teach his son himself. Étienne Pascal decided thatBlaise was not to study
mathematics before the age of 15 and all mathematics textswere removed
from their house. Blaise however, his curiosity raised by this, started to
work on geometry himself at the age of 12. In December 1639 the Pascal
family left Paris to live in Rouen where Étienne had been appointed as a
tax collector for Upper Normandy. Pascal invented the first digital
calculator to help his father with his work collecting taxes. He worked on
it for three years between 1642 and 1645. The device, called the
Pascaline, resembled a mechanical calculator of the 1940s (MacTutor-
online). Pascal died on August 19, 1662 aged 39 in intense pain after a
malignant growth in his stomach spread to the brain. He published many
books which include: The Generation of Conic Sections (1648), Treatise
on the Equilibrium of Liquids (1653), New Experiments Concerning
Vacuum (1647), among others.

4.4 Pascal's Conception of God, Nature and Grace

Blaise Pascal was a scientist an inventor, and an intelligent

mathematician. His most original mathematical ideas were about
probability. However, he is best remembered as a religious philosopher,
although he did not consider himself a philosopher, following from his
assumption that philosophers know little. Instead, Pascal considered
himself a theologian. Warburton describes Pascal's journey into faith with
the following clear expressions:

Pascal switched from work in Mathematics and Science to writing about

religion as a young man after he had been converted to a controversial
religious sect known as Jansenism. The Jansenists believed in

77
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

predestination,the idea that we don’t have free will, and that only a few
people had already been pre-selected by God to go to heaven. They also
believed in a very strictway of life (2011: 69).

For him, belief in God is about the heart and faith. He was not persuaded
by the sorts of reasoning about God’s existence that philosophers generally
use. He wasnot, for example, convinced that you could see evidence of
God’s hand in nature (Warburton, 2011: 67). For him, it is the the heart,
not the brain, shows us the way to God.

Pascal integrated his mathematical ingenuity into his message. In his

work, Pensées, Pascal came up with a clever argument to persuade those
ponder on the existence or non-existence of God to simply believe in
God, an argument that has come to be known as Pascal’s Wager. Pascal
Wager's argument shows his knowledge of probability which he had
earlier developed. This argument goes thus:If you are a rational gambler,
rather than just an addict, you will want to have the best chance of
winning a big prize, but you will also want to minimize your losses
wherever possible. Gamblers calculate odds and, in principle, bet
accordingly. So, what does that mean when it comes to betting on God’s
existence? Assuming you aren’t sure whether or not God exists, there are
a number of options. You can chooseto live your life as if God definitely
doesn’t exist. If you are right, then you will havelived without any illusion
about a possible afterlife, and so you will have avoided agonizing about
the possibility that you are too much of a sinner to end up in heaven.You
also won't have wasted time in church praying to a non-existent being. But
thatapproach, though it has some obvious benefits, carries with it a huge
risk. If you don’t believe in God, but God does actually turn out to exist,
not only might you loseyour chance of bliss in heaven, but you might end
up in hell where you will be tortured for the whole of eternity. That is the
worst imaginable outcome for anybody (Warburton, 2011: 72; Ukah,
2016: 122).

Coplestone in his History of Western Philosophy points out that as Pascal

is concerned simply with knowledge of God as the supernatural end of
man, with God as revealed in Christ, mediator and redeemer, he excludes
natural religion and philosophical theism to all intents and purposes
(Coplestone,1994:161). If philosophy is unable to establish the existence
of God, at least if it is unable to establish the existence in the only sense
in which it is worth while doing so, it is alsoincapable of revealing to man
where lies true happiness (162). Pascal argues also that reason is too
limited to establish the science of humanity. For without the light of the
Christian religion it is not possible for human beings to know themselves.

78
PHL342 MODULE 3

4.5 The Misery of Man Without God

Pascal argues that without God, our condition is essentially characterized

by anxiety, alienation, loneliness and ennui (Ukah, 2016: 123). Human
beings are, therefore, nothing without God. For him, humans are nothing
in comparison to God.They are unable to know the greater things of nature
and even the smallest of them. We conceal our true conditions from
ourselves through self-deception. And in our bid to get ourselves
distracted, we involve ourselves in acts that are not morally justifiable.
We are filled with an unsatisfied desire for happiness, and this desire in
turn brings us unhappiness. In the face of our predicaments, Pascal
describes us as only a reed, the frailest thing in nature (Coplestone, 1994:
172). Pascal holds that our gulf can only be filled by God Himself.

However, Pascal has been described by some scholars, especially

Voltaire, as a Christian apologetics. He argues against his position that
human condition is that of anxiety and wretchedness by saying that we
are neither as wicked not as miserable as Pascal thought (Voltaire, cited
in Ukah, 2016: 125).

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Paschal considers himself more as a theologian than a
philosopher. True/False?
2. Pascal argues that without God, our condition is essentially
characterized by anxiety, --------, loneliness and ------?
3. -------called Paschal a Christian apologetics?

4.6 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt the following:

 The believe in God is all about heart and faith

 Reason is too limited to proof the existence of God.
 Our gulf can only be filled by God Himself.
 Human beings are nothing without God.

In this unit, we discussed Pascal’s defence of Christianity. We also

noticed how he described the situation of man without God. However, for
people to go to God, the need faith and believe and not heir reason.

79
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

4.7 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Coplestone, F. (1994). A History of Philosophy: Modern Philosophy,

The British Philosophers from Hobbes to Hume. Volume V.
Image books MacTutor. Blaise Pascal. www.athshistory.st-
andrews.ac.uk

Ukah, M. E. (2016). "Blaise Pascal" in A.F. Uduigwomen, M.E. Uka

and E. C. Uduma. (Eds.). A Critical History of Philosophy, Vol. 2.
Ultimate index books.

Warburton, N. (2011). A Little History of Philosophy. Yale University

Press

4.8 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. True
2. Alienation and ennui
3. Voltaire

80
PHL342 MODULE 3

UNIT 5 NICHOLAS MALEBRANCHE

Nicholas Malebranche

Unit Structure

5.1 Introduction
5.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
5.3 A Brief Biography of Benedict Spinoza
5.4 The philosophy of Malebranche
5.5 Summary
5.6 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
5.7 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise(s)

5.1 Introduction

Descartes mind-body bifurcation created a division among the rationalists.

However, there were others who agreed with him about the nature of the
two substances, but differ in terms of their relationship. Malebranche was
one of such disciples who believed in the dualism of Descartes. However,
he did not agree with the nature of interaction as described by Descartes.
This unit assess Malebranche’s response to interactionism of Descartes.

81
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

5.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 differentiate between the nature of interaction in Descartes and

Malebranche
 explain the different attribute of both substances in his philosophy.

5.3 A Brief Biography of Nicholas Malebranche

Malebranche was born on August 6, 1638 in Paris. He was a student at

the Collège de la Marche, and after graduating he went to study theology at
the Sorbonne. His education left him with a distaste for a scholasticism
that focused on the work of Aristotle. Thus, in 1660 he decided to leave
the universities and to enter the Oratory, a religious congregation founded
in 1611 by the Augustinian theologian Pierre Bérulle. At the Oratory in
Paris, Malebranche studied ecclesiastical history, linguistics, and the
Bible, and with his fellow students also immersed himself in thework of
Augustine. He was ordained a priest on September 14, 1664 (Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Malebranche died on October 13, 1715. He
published many books which include, De la Recheche Del Verde (1674),
Traite de la Nature et de la Grace (1680), Traite de Morale (1684),
among others.

5.4 The Philosophy of Malebranche

Malebranche was a disciple of Rene Descartes. His theory, which is

called occasionalism, insists on the Cartesian distinction between mind and
matter and how they interact. Malebranche was dissatisfied with
Descartes’s refusal to explicate therelationship between mind and body.
He argued that one cannot dismiss the mind- body question simply by
saying that experience plainly shows that the body and themind act on
each other (Radner, 1993: 320). As an attempt to tackle this problem, he
came up with his philosophy of occasionalism. Malebranche maintains
that thereis no interaction between the mind and the body since they both
possess different attribute. Instead, the relationship is occasioned by God
so that both the mind and the body move simultaneously in unity.
Moreover, he believes that it cannot be part of the explanation that the
mind and the body become capable of the same sorts of modifications.
Daisie Radner quotes Malebranche thus:

Each substance remains what it is, and as the soul is incapable of

extension and movement, so the body is incapable of sensation and
inclinations. The only alliance of mind and body known to us consists in

82
PHL342 MODULE 3

a natural and mutual correspondence of the soul’s thoughts with the brain
traces, and of the soul’semotions with the movements of the animal spirits
(Radner, 1993: 331).

This means that the relationship between the mind and the body are
mutual. Malebranche initiated two types of argument against the causal
efficacy of bodies. First, there is an argument of material substance as
passive by nature. The only kindsof properties that pertain to extension
are figure and motion. As extended things, bodies have the passive faculty
of receiving such modes, but they lack the active faculty of producing
them. The second type of argument has the form of reductio adabsurdum.
Suppose that bodies had a power to act or to bring about change. The
exercise of this power would involve some state of affairs that is
incompatible withthe Cartesian ontology. Malebranche uses this form of
argument against the humanbody as cause of sensations in the mind, and
also against one body as cause of another body’s motion (Popkin and
Stroll, 1996: 130).

Malebranche insisted if the mind and body are so distinct, then there
cannot be any interaction or connection between them. What actually
happens, according to Malebranche, is that although mental events have
nothing to do with physical ones, whenever anything happens in one
realm, God makes something corresponding to occur in the other (Popkin
and Stroll, 1996: 131). Therefore, the relationship that occur between the
mind and the body are occasions created by God. Malebranche associated
human act of imagination as the production of images in the ordinary
sense (Coplestone, 1994:186). Thus, even our imaginations are parallel to
the sensesbut weaker than what is given in actual existence.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Malebranche attributes the relationship between the mind and the
body to -----?
2. His theory on referred to as ------?
3. What is Malebranche’s argument against Descartes nature of
interaction?

5.5 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt the following:

 Although mental events have nothing to do with physical ones,

whenever anything happens in one realm, God makes something
corresponding to occurin the other.
 This position is called occasionalism’
 The relationship that occur between the mind and the body are

83
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

occasions created by God.

 He denied Descartes theory of mind-body interaction.

This unit presented Malebranche’s argument against Descartes nature of

interaction. In his thought, the mind is superior to the body, though
equally distinct their nature, hence, interaction between them is not
possible.

5.6 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Coplestone, F. (1994). A History of Philosophy: Modern Philosophy:

From Descartes to Leibniz Volume IV. Image books.

Popkin, R H. & Stroll, A. (1996). Philosophy. (3rd ed.). Made Simple

Books.

Radner, D. (1993). "Occasionalism" in G.H.R. Parkinson (ed.). Routledge

History of Philosophy: The Renaissance and 17th Century
Rationalism. Volume IV. Routledge. Pp 320-352.

84
PHL342 MODULE 3

5.7 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. God
2. Occasionalism
3. Malebranche initiated two types of argument against the causal
efficacy of bodies. First, there is an argument of material substance
as passive by nature. The only kinds of properties that pertain to
extension are figure and motion. As extendedthings, bodies have
the passive faculty of receiving such modes, but they lack the
active faculty of producing them. The second type of argument has
the form of reductio ad absurdum. Suppose that bodies had a
power to act or to bring about change. The exercise of this power
would involve some state of affairs that is incompatible with the
Cartesian ontology.

End of Module Exercises

1. Discuss Descartes Methodic Doubt
2. What is the relationship between the mind and the body
relationship?
3. The drive that all people possess as a part of their nature Spinoza
refers to this in his Ethics as ------- which implies ---------?
4. According to Spinoza, what are the three levels of cognition?
5. What does Leibniz mean by “pre-established harmony”?
6. --------- truths are necessary and their opposite is impossible.
7. What is the name of the controversial religion sect Paschal
converted to?
8. Discuss Pascal’s conception of God, nature and grace.
9. List two books written by Malebranche
10. State the difference between interactionism and occasionalism?
11. What is the similarity between interactionism and occasionalism?

85
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

MODULE 4

Unit 1 Immanuel Kant: Synthesizing Rationalism and Empiricism

Unit 2 Isaac Newton and the Age of Enlightenment
Unit 3 Robert Boyle: The Father of Chemistry

UNIT 1 IMMANUEL KANT: SYNTHESIZING

RATIONALISM AND EMPIRICISM

Unit Structure

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
1.3 A Brief Biography of Immanuel Kant
1.4 Forms of Judgment: Analytic and synthetic Judgment
1.5 Kant's Copernican Revolution
1.6 Metaphysics: The Noumena and the Phenomenal
1.7 Ethics
1.8 Space and Time
1.9 The Existence of God
1.9 Summary
1.10 References/Further Reading/Web Sources

1.1 Introduction

The debate between the empiricists and the rationalists and their response
to the nature and source of human knowledge provided the ground
through which the thought of Kant flourished. While the empiricists

86
PHL342 MODULE 4

rooted for experience as the natureand source of human knowledge, the

rationalists were of the claim that knowledge comes from reason and that
the human mind is crowned with ideas that are innate totheir existence.
Immanuel Kant toed the middle ground by attempting a reconciliation
between these two opposing traditions. This gave birth to a revolutionin
epistemology in the same manner that Copernicus did in Astronomy. In
this unit,you will learn about Kant’s attempt at synthesizing rationalism
and empiricism.

1.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 Explain Kant’s Copernican Revolution in epistemology.

 Differentiate between the two types of judgment.
 Differentiate between the noumena and the phenomena
 Discuss Kant’s ethics.
 Understand Kant’s position on the existence of God.

1.3 A Brief Biography of Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was born in Konigsberg, East Prussia, on April 22, 1724.
His parents were Pietists, a sect of Protestants who lived severe,
puritanical lives and emphasized faith and religious feelings over reason
and theological doctrines (Lawhead, 2015: 355). Although Kant’s later
religious thought was hardly orthodox, he was always sensitive to the
longings of the heart that cannot be met by the cold dictates of theoretical
reason. He attended the University of Konigsberg and later ended up
becoming a professor there himself. Kant retired from public life and
lecturing in 1797. He died on February 12, 1804 after a period of illness.
His majorworks are, Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Prolegomena to Any
Future Metaphysics (1785), Critique of Practical Reason (1788), Critique
of Judgment (1790), Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science
(1786), Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason (1793),
Perpetual Peace (1795), Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals (1797),
among others.

1.4 Forms of Judgment: Analytic and synthetic Judgment

As earlier stated in our introduction, Kant’s task was to reconcile

empiricismand rationalism. His epistemological quest, therefore, became
the quest for a kind ofknowledge that is synthetic-apriori. He was able to
locate synthetic or aposteriori propositions in the empiricist programme,
and apriori propositions in the rationalists programme. The synthetic-
apriori judgments synthesized rationalism with empiricism, since it

87
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

contains aspects of both doctrine (Essien, 2011: 239).

It is the belief of Kant that knowledge always appears in the form of
judgments in which something is affirmed or denied (Lawhead,
2015:360). Therefore, to have a clear knowledge, he thought it was
necessary to begin with theexamination of the kinds of judgments that we
make. Accordingly, he maintains that there are two categories of
Judgments: analytic and synthetic.

Analytic judgments are based on the principle of contradiction. For

example, “all bachelors are unmarried” is a true analytic judgment
because the contradiction of this statement is necessarily false. We can
confirm the truth of this judgment not by going out and gathering facts
but merely by analyzing the meaning of the terms. The predicate
“unmarried” is already contained within the subject “bachelors.”
Furthermore, because the truth of this judgment is independent of any
particular facts, it does not give us any new knowledge about the world.
Synthetic judgments, however, do give us new information about the
world. For example, “All the bachelors in this class are six feet tall” is a
synthetic judgment. Judgments of this sort synthesize or bring together
the subject (“bachelors in this class”) with the predicate (“six feet tall”).
It would not be a logical contradiction to deny this statement about
bachelors (Lawhead, 2015:360).

Kant makes a further distinction, this time between judgments that are
aprioriand judgments that are aposteriori. According to him, all analytic
judgments are apriori: Their meaning does not depend on our experience
of any particular cases or events since they are independent of any
observations, as in the case of mathematics. Synthetic judgments, on the
other hand, are for the most part aposteriori, that is, theyoccur after an
experience of observation ((Stumpf and Fieser 276). Besides the analytic-
apriori and the synthetic-aposteriori, Kant locates another form of
judgments called the synthetic-apriori. The synthetic judgment is located
in empiricism while the apriori judgment is rooted in rationalism.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. -------- Judgments are based on the principle of contradiction?
2. -------- judgments, however, do give us new information about
the world
3. “all bachelors are unmarried” is an example of what type of
judgment?

1.5 Kant's Copernican Revolution

In the first line of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant asserts that, “There
can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience…but
though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that

88
PHL342 MODULE 4

it all arises out of experience.” From this position, it is evidenced that in

the first part of the statement,Kant supported empiricism, but in the second
part, we also cite with the rationalists. Kant rejected either absolute
empiricism or rationalism. As a result, he struck a synthesis between these
two opposing epistemological schools. Taking clue from the revolution
in astronomy initiated by Copernicus, Kant proposes a “Copernican
revolution” in epistemology. The empiricists thought that the mind is
passive when confronting the world and simply records impressions. In
this picture, knowledgeconforms to its objects.

However, Kant proposes a different view to this believe. He reverses this

picture asks us to consider the possibility that objects conform to our
knowledge (Kant, CPR Bxvi). In other words, for sense data to be
experienced as objects by us, the mind must impose a certain rational
structure on them (Lawhead, 2015: 258). This means that in the process
of acquiring knowledge, it is not the human mind thatconforms to objects,
instead, it is rather the objects that conform to the structure of the human
mind so that we can only know things as they appear to us. This new
hypothesis is what is called Kant’s Copernican revolution.

1.6 Metaphysics: The Noumena and the Phenomenal

Kant claims that there are two nature of reality; reality as they are in
themselves and as they appear to us. Things are they are in themselves
are called noumena while things as they appear to us are called
phenomena. Kant maintain that the noumena are beyond the scope of
human knowledge while the phenomena are the product of the human
mind (Omoregbe, 1998:13). The conclusion of this is thatfor Kant, we
cannot know reality as they are in themselves, but only the way they
appear. Kant maintains that there are certain aspects of reality that human
understanding could not access. Therefore, any attempt to explore these
areas by our pure concepts of understanding is considered as going
“beyond all possible experience” and this is certainly a misleading
attempt. In other word, all objects of understanding which are beyond the
possible experience, are impossible; at least with regard to our available
abilities (Abdullah, 2008). This is due to the fact that the noumenal world,
including the concept of substance, force, action etc., has certain
characteristics that differentiated and distanced it from experience or the
phenomenon. The characteristics of the noumenal world which were
described as 1)independent of experience; 2) contain no appearance of the
senses; and 3) hold a necessity of determination, had veiled it from being
known or perceived by human experience (Neujhar, 1995).

1.7 Ethics

The foundation of Kantian ethics is the will. In his Groundwork of

Metaphysics of Morals, Kant states: “Nothing can possibly be conceived
in the world, or even out of it, which can be called ‘good’ without

89
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

qualification, except a good will” (Kant, 2008: 12). This implies is that,
for Kant, the seat of moral worth is in the will, and the good will is one
that acts out of a sense of duty. Popkin and Stroll (1996: 41), notes that
the main question which Kant’s moral theory was designed to answer is:
‘What is the nature of morality?’ This question, they reason, can also
be put in different ways such as: ‘What is a moral action as contrasted
witha non-moral one?’ or again, ‘What is the difference between a person
who acts morally and one who does not? For Kant, a person is acting
morally only when he suppresses his/her feelings and inclinations, and
does that which he/she is obliged todo. Kant stresses that the essence of
morality is to be found in the Will from which the act is done. All those
Wills reduced to one that a person is moral when he acts from a sense of
duty (Popkin and Stroll, 1996: 44).

According to Kant, the moral law is presented to us as a categorical

imperative.It tells you what you ought, should, or must do, but it does not
depend on any prior conditions, or subjective wants and wishes, and it
contains no qualifications (Lawhead, 2015: 372). A major test of a
morally good act is, therefore, whether its principle can be applied to all
rational beings and applied consistently. Moral philosophy is the quest
for these principles that apply to all rational beings and that lead to
behavior that we call good (Stumpf and Fieser, 2012: 287).

Self-Assessment Exercise
4. The moral law is presented to us as hypothetical imperative.
True/False?

5. Kant maintains that the ------ are beyond the scope of human
knowledge while the ------- are the product of the human mind

6. Where can we find the essence of morality in Kant's ethics?

1.8 Space and Time

A discussion on the doctrine of space and time is the most important part
of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (Russell, 1945: 712). His thesis in the
discourse is that space and time are not mysterious sorts of “things”
within experience but are fundamental frames of reference in terms of
which objects, which he calls the “forms of intuition," appear to us
(Lawhead, 2015: 361). In Kantian perspective, space is a form of all
appearance of outer sense. It is the necessary condition of all outer objects
as they appear to us but does not necessary underlie things as they are in
themselves(Essien, 2011: 241). Time, on the other hand is closely related
to space. However, the difference is that time is a form of intuition or
perception of ourselves and our inner state, not of our intuition of objects
outside us. The Existence of God

90
PHL342 MODULE 4

Kant’s argument for the existence/non-existence of God is quite simple.

Following from his critical remarks, Kant claims that we cannot
demonstrate God'sexistence, neither can we demonstrate that God does
not exist by pure reason alone.If, therefore, the existence of God cannot
be effectively dealt with by the theoreticalreason, then some other aspect
of reason must be considered as the source of the ideaof God (Stumpf and
Fieser, 2012: 283). Kant's argument for the existence of God, therefore,
is that we cannot use transcendental ideas or theoretical principles to
demonstrate the existence of God.

1.9 Summary
In this unit, you have learnt that:
 Kant made an attempt to reconcile empiricism and rationalism
 There are two natures of reality which are the noumena and the
phenomena.
 We can only have knowledge of phenomenal realities because
the noumenaare unknowable
 Space and time are apriori form of intuitions
 Synthetic-apriori judgments contain both reason and experience
 Moral laws are presented as categorical imperative.

Kant attempted to put to rest, the struggle between rationalism and

empiricism on the source and nature of human knowledge. His thought has
even been describedby some scholars as the last of man struggle with
skepticism. However, it is not without criticism. As a matter of fact, it has
been argued that Kant was not successful in his revolution as he failed to
establish any truth about objective reality.

1.10 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Kant, I. (1781). Critique of Pure Reason. N. Kemp (trans.). Merchant
Books.Omoregbe, J.

Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. T. K. Abott

(trans.). Wilder Publications.

Lawhead, W. F. (2015). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy. (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Popkin, R H. & Stroll, A. (1996). Philosophy Made Simple. Third edition.

Russell, B. (1945). The History of Western Philosophy.

Stumpf, S. E. & Fieser, J. (2012). Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A

History of Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
(1990). Metaphysics Without Tears. JERP

91
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

1.11 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. Analytic
2. Synthetic
3. Analytic
4. False
5. Noumena, Phenomena
6. In Kant's ethics, the essence of morality is to be found in the
motive from which the act is done. All those motives reduced to
one that a person is moral whenhe acts from a sense of duty.

92
PHL342 MODULE 4

UNIT 2 ISAAC NEWTON AND THE AGE OF

ENLIGHTENMENT

Isaac Newton

Unit Structure

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
2.3 A Brief Biography of Isaac Newton
2.4 The Impact of Newton Science
2.5 Philosophizing in a Newtonian Style
2.6 The Consequences on Religion
2.7 Summary
2.8 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
2.9 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

2.1 Introduction

The enlightenment age is often described as the period of optimism, hope,

happiness, confidence and happiness. It is a period where man escaped
from self- imposed tutelage to question his existence in all areas without
restriction. It was also the age of revolution in science and technology
which sprang up to improve the lifeof man. The enlightenment period
started in the 18th century. Lawhead (2015: 293),describes this period as
"perhaps the last period in the history of Western Europe when human
omniscience was thought to be an attainable goal. However, the
enlightenment period did suddenly come into being, instead, It came as a
culmination of many of the cultural and intellectual trends such as

93
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

empiricism and rationalism. Apparently, the spirit of enlightenment

reached its apogee following thediscovery of Newtonian science. In this
unit, therefore, you will be exploring the contribution of Isaac Newton to
enlightenment.

2.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 highlight Newton’s contribution to the enlightenment

 explain how his style prompted a new style in philosophising
 discuss the consequence of Newton’s thought on religion.

2.3 A Brief Biography of Isaac Newton

Sir Isaac Newton was English physicist and mathematician, who was the
culminating figure of the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century. He
was born December 25, 1642 in the hamlet of Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire,
England. Newton was the only son of a local yeoman, also called Isaac
Newton and the mother was Hannah Ayscough. In June 166, Newton
was admitted into Trinity College, Cambridge, where it is on record that
he was far older than other undergraduates because of his interrupted
education. Upon his arrival in Cambridge, Newton joinedthe movement
now known as the Scientific Revolution. Newton received hisbachelor’s
degree in April 1665. Shortly later in that same year, the university was
closed following the outbreak of plague.

Newton was elected to a fellowship in Trinity College in 1667, after the

university reopened. Two years later, Isaac Barrow, Lucasian professor
of mathematics resigned the chair and recommended Newton to succeed
him. However,the professorship exempted Newton from the necessity of
tutoring but imposed the duty of delivering an annual course of lectures.
He died on March 20, 1727. His major works are, Philosophiæ Naturalis
Principia Mathematica (1687), Opticks (1704), Observations upon the
prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (1733), The
Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (1728), Method of Fluxions
(1736), Arithmetica Universalis (1707), and An Historical Account of Two
Notable Corruptions of Scripture (1754).

2.4 The Impact of Newton Science

Newton, in his Principia, denounced any speculative theories that are not
firmly grounded on the empirical data. He was critical of any attempt to
investigate the essences of things. Instead of focusing on essences,

94
PHL342 MODULE 4

science should focus on describing the nature of phenomena. For him, we

cannot comprehend things scientifically unless we focus on the phenomena.
Newton’s methodological principle had great impact in the philosophies of
Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant. After Newton it gradually became
apparent that the more science and experience were considered the sole
basis of knowledge, the less we could know about reality in itself apart
from the way it appears to us (Lawhead, 2015: 296).

2.5 Philosophizing in a Newtonian Style

Lawhead observes something quite important about thinkers of the

enlightenment age, following the thoughts of Newton. According to him,
the philosophers of the time thought that just as Newton had resolved all
mysteries concerning physical bodies, so now the task was to apply
the same methods of experimental observation to the mysteries
concerning human existence (2015: 296).They reasoned that operations
of the human mind, ethics, and politics were collection of phenomena that
could be explained in terms of descriptive laws. Hence, the philosophers of
this time all aspired to formulate human sciences based on Newton’s
science.

The model of Newtonian physics greatly manifests in the epistemology of

this era. Corresponding to the physical particles whose laws of motion
Newton unveiled,ideas were thought to be mental particles that could be
analyzed down into fundamental, atomic units (Lawhead, 2015: 296).
This awakens in the thinkers of this age, the believe that all the ideas were
complexes made up of simple ideas that are given to us by experience.
They likened the human mind to the outer space of the astronomer as the
“inner space,” where ideas float and connect together according to
psychological laws derived from experience.

2.6 The Consequences on Religion

Newtonian science influenced the religion of the age as well. Following

his reduction of all abstract entities, which were once thought to showcase
God’s providence, into a precise mathematical code, there was an attack
on some of the received doctrine in theology. As a result, many feared that
materialism and atheism would creep in from the back of mechanistic
science and take total control of the way people act, live and reason.
However, Newton himself did not think that science will lead to atheism,
for he was a consistent Christian. For him, science revealed a universe
that was majestic and marvelous in its design, pointing to the greatness
of its creator. His argument for God for the existence of God was not
solely based on the evidence of design, but also on the problems within his
own physics. For instance, he could not explain why the gravitational
attraction of the stars does not cause them to collapse together. He could
not also explain what seemed to be irregularities in the universe that
95
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

would eventually cause it to run down. Running short of scientific ideas

to explain these phenomena, Newton assumed that God actively
intervened tokeep the world machine going (Lawhead, 2015: 297). This
position has been styled “God-of the-gaps.” However, Lawhead,
commenting on this position believes that it is risky to use gaps within
our scientific knowledge as evidence for the necessity of God because
when these gaps are eventually filled as scientific knowledgeexpands,
there may seem to be less need to believe in God.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. How did Newton physics influence the thinkers of his age?
2. Newtonian science because it is highly scientific had little or no
influence in religion. True/False?

2.7 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt the following:

 Newton establish empiricism as a method of science.

 He denied the possibility of the human intellect to grasp the
essences of thing
 The world consists of ideas given by experience
 In his idea of God, he believes that God is actively involved in
the world tokeep it going

Every philosophy is the product of its age. The eighteenth century was
characterized by scientific revolution and Newton was a proponent figure
of the age. It is therefore, not surprising that his idea impacted the
empiricists in their search for what constitute the source and nature of
human knowledge. Newton reduced all forms of natural phenomenon, the
world of matter and all abstract entities into a precise mathematical code
called the calculus (Mendie, 2016: 286). In this unit, youhave learnt that
his influence became enormous that his thought radically reflected in the
manner of which philosophers of his age developed their thoughts.

2.8 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Mendie, P. J. (2016). “Isaac Newton” in A.F. Uduigwomen, M.E. Uka

and E. C. Uduma. (Eds.). A Critical History of Philosophy, Vol. 2.
Ultimate index books. Pp 289-303.

Lawhead, W. F. (2015). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy. (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.

96
PHL342 MODULE 4

2.9 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. motion Newton unveiled, ideas were thought to be mental particles

that could be analyzed down into fundamental, atomic units
(Lawhead, 2015: 296). Thisawakens in the thinkers of this age, the
believe that all the ideas were complexes made up of simple ideas
that are given to us by experience.
2. False

97
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

UNIT 3 ROBERT BOYLE: THE FATHER OF CHEMISTRY

Robert Boyle

Unit Structure

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
3.3 A Brief Biography Robert Boyle
3.4 Theory of knowledge: Perception and Imagination
3.5 The Nature of the Mind
3.6 Mind-Body Relation
3.7 Summary
3.8 References/Further Readings/Web Sources
3.9 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise(s)

3.1 Introduction

Robert Boyle is the father of modern chemistry. Boyle detached

chemistry from the mysticism of alchemy, magic and sorcery (Mendie,
2016: 298). According to him, most followers of alchemy were
disinterested in finding the fundamental causes of phenomena. However,
this is a philosophical work, so we shall be more concerned about his
contribution to philosophy, specifically, natural philosophy. Inthis unit,
you will learn about his Epistemology and his approach to Mind-Body
relations.

98
PHL342 MODULE 4

3.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 state the difference between perception and imagination in

Boyle’s theoryof knowledge
 explain how knowledge is possible according to Boyle
 outline the functions of the mind
 discuss the nature of interaction between the mind and the body.

3.3 A Brief Biography of Robert Boyle

Robert Boyle was born on 27 January 1627 in County Waterford in the

south-east of Ireland. He was the seventh son of the earl of Cork. He was
educated at Etonand later travelled to Europe to continue his studies. He
returned from the continentin 1644 extremely interested in science and
settled in Dorset where he built a laboratory. Between 1655 and 1666,
Boyle moved to Oxford. In Oxford, he engaged Robert Hooke as an
assistant and together they devised the most famous piece of experimental
equipment, the vacuum chamber or air-pump. In 1660, together with 11
others, Boyle formed the Royal Society in London which met to witness
experiments and discuss what would constitute scientific topics. In 1668,
Boyle moved permanently to London, living with his sister. In 1680
he refused the presidency of the Royal Society because the oath required
violated his strongly heldreligious principles. Boyle died in London on
31 December 1691 (BBC, online). Boyle had many publications to his
name.

3.4 Theory of Knowledge: Perception and Imagination

Robert Boyle believes that we have knowledge of the world through

perception and imagination. By perception, Boyle refers to the way by
which information enters the brain as a result of causal interaction
between the perceived and the perceived object. Boyle says that when the
information perceived arrives atthe brain, it is processed by a subsystem
or set of subsystems devoted to presentingit to the mind, and to storing it
thereafter. He says that upon entering the mind, the information is first
processed by the common sense, which combines the inputs from the various
sense organs.

Material images, according to him, are formed in the brain through

imagination. Hence, he sees imagination as a process by which material
images areformed in the brain. However, Boyle argues that we could have
knowledge of things that are unimaginable (Stanford Encyclopedia of

99
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy). This is because somethings are either too large or too small
to be imagined, that is, such things cannot be imaged. And because
somethings are not imaginable, Boyle maintains that there is need for a non-
material faculty in order to account for such things. This position gave
birth to a great revolution in science that gave birth to chemistry as a
discipline established by strict scientific rules. Boyle laid the foundation
for scientists to rely more on the outcome of experiment rather than
speculative knowledge which opened up the method of experiment in
science (Asuo, 2011: 373).

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. We have knowledge of the world through ------ and ------
2. Boyle agrees with Descartes dualism. True/False?
3. The idea of God is central to the interaction that takes place
between the mind and the body. True/False?
4. What are the primary functions of the mind when united to the
body accordingto Boyle?

3.5 The Nature of the Mind

Boyle adopted the dualism of Descartes. Set within a Cartesian substance

dualism, he says that there are two sorts of substances, material and
immaterial. The soul is an immaterial substance. However, he does not
consider souls as the only immaterial beings; there are also angels,
demons and God (Anstey, 2003: 188). The soul, for him, has some affinity
with these other incorporeal beings. Like Descartes, Boyle believes that
the function of the mind is thinking. Again Boyle also puts forward the
thesis that even our unassisted reason can establish that the soul ‘being
an incorporeal substance, cannot perish with the body. This, however
does not entails that the soul is immortal by nature, but merely that, in
virtue of its being different from material bodies, it can exist apart from
them, and that it retains its power of thinking even when divorced from
the body. Boyle believes that we cannothave a full knowledge of the mind,
hence, he calls for the need to search for anothersource of knowledge
about the mind, over and above natural reason, if we are to establish its
immortality (Anstey, 2003: 188). And Boyle believes that this source is
Scripture. In his work, The Christian Virtuoso, Boyle argues that the
immortality ofthe soul is one of the grand principles of natural religion.
He tells us that the soul, ‘being an immaterial spirit, and consequently a
substance not really divisible, can have no parts expelled or transposed,
and so being exempted from the physical causes of corruption that destroys
bodies, she ought to last always" (Boyle, n.d: 518).

Boyle maintains that the mind is only housed in the body to perform its
functions. He points out that the primary functions of the mind when
united to the body are understanding, volition, action and the response to

100
PHL342 MODULE 4

external stimuli by the production of sensations. However, he believes

that the soul can also function independently from the body. It has powers
of inference and the forming of clear and distinct ideas, the ability to
reflect upon its own operations and of knowing its own limits that in no
way depend upon its union with the body (Anstey, 2003: 189).And of
course, unlike any corporeal entity, it is fitted to ponder and appreciate
the excellences of God (Anstey, 2003: 189). It follows from Boyle's
thought, therefore,that the mind is immaterial, incorruptible and rational
while the soul is material and corruptible. Here, Boyle adopts the
Platonian and Cartesian assumptions that the soul is a prisoner to the
body.

3.6 Mind-Body Relation

Having agreed with Descartes on the dualism of the mind and the body,
what is Boyles position on the relationship between them? Boyle cited
with the nomic occasionalists. According to him, God ensures that the
persevering motion of corpuscles after a collision is uniform and
rectilinear (or circular) and that a predetermined quantity of motion is
transferred on collision. So, the collisions of corpuscles are the occasion
of God’s nomic intervention in the world (Anstey, 2003:187). This implies
that there is a union established by God according to certain laws that
demarcate the scope of interaction and it furnishes both the body and mind
withnew powers. Boyle styles the interaction that results from this union
as ‘supra- mechanical’ and interestingly, he takes this to be the third in a
tripartite division of the ‘operations of God’ in nature. Ostensibly this
implies that God is integral to supra-mechanical interactions (Anstey,
2003: 191-92).

3.7 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt the following:

 We have knowledge of the world through perception and

imagination.
 The soul (mind) is an immaterial substance.
 Material images, according to him, are formed in the brain through
imagination.
 The relationship between the mind and the body is indicative of
the operations of God in nature.

In this unit, we discussed the natural philosophy of Boyle. We assessed

his philosophy where it is evident in his epistemology that he embraced
dualism. His position on mind-body a relation and their interaction are
also discussed.
101
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

3.8 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Anstey, P. R. (2003). The Philosophy of Robert Boyle. Routledge

Asuo, O. O. (2011). "Robert Boyle and Medical Chemistry" in

Uduigwomen, A. F. (Ed). Philosophy and the Rise of Modern
Science. El-johns publishers.

BBC. (n.d). “Robert Boyle (1627-1691).” www.bbc.co.uk/history.

Retrieved 27-05- 2021 Boyle, R. (n.d). “Christian virtuoso” in
Works, V.

Mendie, P. J. (2016). "Robert Boyle" in A.F. Uduigwomen, M.E. Uka

and E. C. Uduma. (Eds.). A Critical History of Philosophy, Vol. 2.
Ultimate index books. Pp 289-303 Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.

102
PHL342 MODULE 4

3.9 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. Perception and imagination

2. True
3. True
4. For Boyle, the primary functions of the mind when united to the
body are understanding, volition, action and the response to external
stimuli by the production of sensations.

End of Module Exercise

1. Discuss Kant’s Copernican revolution
2. Differentiate between the two types of judgment.
3. What is the difference between the noumena and the phenomena
4. Explain how Newton’s philosophy influenced Hume.
5. Briefly explain the consequences of religion according to Newton
6. Explain how knowledge is possible according to Boyle?

103
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

MODULE 5

Unit 1 Johann Gottlieb Fichte

Unit 2 Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling
Unit 3 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Unit 4 Thomas Hill Green

UNIT 1 JOHANN GOTTLIEB FICHTE

Unit Structure

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
1.3 A Brief Biography of Johann Fichte
1.4 Fichte's Metaphysics
1.5 Fichte's Epistemology
1.6 Ethics
1.7 Critique
1.8 Summary
1.9 References/Further Readings/Web Resources
1.10 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

1.1 Introduction

Immanuel Kant's critical philosophy brought a new wave of thought in

German; the wave of idealism. In Kant's philosophy, the mind is all that
there is andanything that we come to know is simply structured by the
Mind. However, he divided reality into the noumenal and the
phenomenal, that is, things as they are in themselves and things as they

104
PHL 342 MODULE 5

appear to us. This gave rise to the assumption that while the phenomenal
world is the product of the human mind, the noumenal world remains
beyond the bounds of the mind. The implication of this is that the human
mind can only capture reality in part and not in whole. This skepticism
involving the unknowability of things in themselves (the noumena)
became the starting point of German idealism. In this unit, however, we
shall begin an investigation to German idealism by discussing the
idealism of Fichte.

1.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 examine the idealist thought in the philosophy of Johann Fichte

 identify his arguments against Kant
 explain his conception of reality.

1.3 A Brief Biography of Johann Fichte

Fichte was born on May 19, 1762, in Rammenau, in Saxony, Germany,

to a family of modest means. He received his education through
aristocratic benefactors.Fichte attended University of Jenna, Wittenberg
and Leipzig from 1780 to 1784, where he studied theology and law
without taking a degree (Zoller, 1999: 524). In 1794, he was offered a
professorship at University of Jenna, but he lost the positionfive years
after, on charges of atheism. Fichte spent the remaining years of his life
in Berlin giving private lectures. However, following the establishment of
University of Berlin, he was appointed as its rector between 1811-1812.
Fichte died on January29, 1814 of typhoid fever which he contracted from
his wife who was a nurse. His major works are, Attempt at a Critique of
All Revelation (1792), Addresses of the German Nation (1808),
Foundations of the Wissenschaftschre (1794-1795), The Vegetation of
Man (1800), among others.

1.4 Fichte's Metaphysics

Fichte’s metaphysical system is a reaction to Kant’s transcendental

idealism. Accordingly, he rejected Kant’s noumena and accepted his
phenomena as the only reality that there is. Phenomena, for him, is the
product of the mind. According to Essien, (2011: 247), Fichte followed
Kant in maintaining that the phenomenal world, that is, the physical world
of sense perception, is the product of the human mind. This human mind
is termed as the “Ego” by Fichte. Fichte argued that the ego can penetrate
the things in themselves. The ego, for him, is the human mind which is

105
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

also a fragment of the Infinite or the Absolute ego (God). Fichte argued
against the Kantian position that the noumena (things in themselves) are
unknowable. For him,the entire universe is an expression of the Infinite
Ego which is capable of penetrating things as they are in themselves.

For Fichte, the ground for all existence rests on the subject, the self-
positing “I” which is also the object of reality. In defiance to Kantian
heritage, Harrison- Barbet (2012) writes:

Fichte rejected the idea of an unknowable thing-in-itself; this, he said,

leads to dogmatic materialism and idealism. But he was aware of himself
as a free,moral being, with an interest in the self rather than in ‘things,' and
understoodthis as the active, free, Absolute Ego, which is self-affirming
intelligence-in-itself, creative thought and the Absolute moral principles
in man.

However, Fichte was faced with the problem of how to derive ‘objective’
consciousness from self-conscious intelligence-in-itself and how to
account for the world of material objects. In attempting to solve these
problems, he posited three principles.

 The pure Ego posits itself and this self-positing intuition constitutes
its ‘being’ which we refer to as reality.
 In positing itself as pure of Absolute Ego, a ‘Non-Ego’ is opposed
to it and itis here that category of negation is applicable.
 The Ego and Non-Ego must limit or restrain each other; for if
they are unlimited, they would cancel each other out and there
would be no consciousness at all. And we thus reach the category
of limitation or finitude(Darty, 2012).

Fichte accounts for the genesis of the thing-in-itself in the pure self-
positing act of the “I.” According to Saitya Das (2012), since the “I”
cannot be an object of outer sense like any other objects of cognition, as
against Kant, “I” can only emergein a pure primordial act of inner self. For
such a being as I, there is no other predicatethan itself. It is its own object.
This object appears as its own nature which is the self-limitation of the self-
positing subject.

1.5 Fichte's Epistemology

Fichte in his epistemology rejected dogmatism. This rejection follows

from his conviction that consciousness can only be explained in terms of
empirical and mechanical necessity. His theory of knowledge, therefore,
makes the Ego the foundation of knowledge. Hence, he sets out the
conditions under which the subject can achieve consciousness of itself.
He argues that self-consciousness presupposes the individuation of the
subject as a person among others and the application of categorical
concepts that lend a lawful structure to the manifold of sensory data
(Zoller, 1999: 526).

106
PHL 342 MODULE 5

Fichte develops a distinction between the knowing subject and the known
object by means of dialectical relationship among three chief capacities
of the Ego.These three capacities of the Ego are the Absolute Ego, the
theoretical Ego and the Practical Ego. The Absolute or Infinite Ego is the
ground of everything. The theoretical ego is the human mind or subject
of cognition whereas the practical ego consists in the ego striving to
completely destroy what is not given to the mind (the Non Ego),
thereby eliminating any source of determination other what is given to
the mind itself. The human mind, for him, is part of the absolute mind and
since theabsolute mind is infinite, human beings then are able to acquire
knowledge because they possess the mind and the human mind is a
fragment of the Absolute mind.Knowledge, therefore becomes possible
through a form of intuition.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Fichte accepts Kant’s transcendental idealism. True/False
2. Fichte’s metaphysical system is a reaction to Hegel’s
transcendental idealism. True/False
3. The three capacities of the Ego are the ----- Ego, the theoretical
Ego and the -------- Ego
4. What is Fichte's view on Kant's noumena?

1.6 Ethics

In his ethics, Fichte conceives of the human being as a dualistic entity.

First, as an agent that is governed by laws of sense intuition, determined
by nature, responsible for his/her self-preservation, and second, as a self-
determining subject. Human being is inclined to freedom which, to
Fichte, is possible in both realms of body and spirit (Abam, 2016: 368).
The extended world, therefore, is structured by our interests and values
which provides an avenue for us to make choices and realizeour moral
goals. Fichte expresses this thought when he asserts:

The Nature on which I have act is not a foreign element, called into
existence without reference to me, into which I cannot penetrate. It is
molded by my own lawsof thought, and must be in harmony with them; it
must be thoroughly transparent, knowable, and penetrable to me, even to
its inmost recesses. In all its phenomena, it expresses nothing but
connections and relations of my own being to myself, so surely may I expect
to comprehend it (Fichte, 1956:93).

From the above excerpts, Fichte made a point between the harmony of
natureand how it penetrates our inmost recesses. This is why the notion of
conscience plays a very crucial role in his moral theory. Conscience for
him is the immediate consciousness or feeling of our determinate duty
(Abam, 2016: 368). Hence, he is of the view that a moral agent ought to

107
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

deduce and set general rules that will guide his actions and categorize them
to their conduciveness to the Ego’s moral end (Abam, 2016: 369). Fichte
conceived of the infallibility of the human conscience. Conscience for
him, is the function of the empirical Ego and failure to adhere to it amount
to the performance of evil actions by a moral agent.

1.7 Critique
Fichte’s claim to the primacy of the self-positing Ego as the subject and
object of reality was rejected by subsequent idealist thinkers. For instance,
Harrison- Barbet (2012) is of the view that in the context of German
idealism, Fichte’s systemhas been held to be one-sided and subjective
since it deals with nothing but the self-imposing ego. Similarly, Bowman
(2012) alludes to the claim that Fichte’s system leads to nihilism; that
is, attempting to produce reality out of mere mentalrepresentations, and
thus, from nothingness.

According to Lawhead (2002: 350), Fichte’s account of the Absolute

lacks the anthropomorphic qualities of traditional concept of deity.
Instead, it is more likean impersonal but rational moral order that is in the
process of evolving. Again, thesubjectivity of human consciousness gives
a good ground for the contradiction of Fichte’s position that the individual
mind is part of or representation of the Absolutemind. This contradiction
arises from the fact that different individuals think, act and behave
differently. Why should this be the case when every individual ego arises
from the Absolute Ego? However, despite the criticisms brought against
Fichte’s metaphysical system, the importance of his thought is also
enormous. Hence, in thehistory of German idealism, Fichte is described
as the stage setter upon which subsequent German idealists stood to
elucidate the nature of reality.

Fichte presents the world as a dynamic and spiritual process in which

human beings are active participants. His thoughts, therefore, made a
serious attempt to broaden and give justifiable credence to idealism as a
foundation for understandingreality.

1.8 Summary
In this unit, you have learnt the following:

 That reality, according to Fichte, consists of the mind.

 There is an absolute mind through which individual mind shares
its form.
 The entire universe is an expression of the Infinite or Absolute
Mind.
 The "Mind," the "ego" or "I" are the same thing.
 There is harmony in nature and this harmony is maintained
in a form ofsubject-object relationship.

108
PHL 342 MODULE 5

1.9 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Abam, M. E. (2016). "Johann Gottlieb Fichte." In A. F. Uduigwomen, M.

E. Ukah and E. C. Uduma (Ed.). A critical history of philosophy:
modern philosophy,vol. 2. Ultimate index book publishers Ltd. Pp
363-373.

Bowman, C. (2012). Johann Gotlieb Fichte (1762 - 1814). The Internet

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.).
http://www.iep.utm.edu/

Harrison-Barbet, A. (2012). Philosophical connections.

http://philosophos.com Fichte, J. G. (1956). The vocation of man.
W. Smith (trans.). R. M. Chisholm (Ed.). Bobbs-Merrill

Lawhead, W. F. The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to

Philosophy, (2nd ed.). Wadsworth and Thomson Learning.

Zöller, G. (1999). "Johann Gottlieb Fichte." In R. H. Popkin (ed.). The

Columbia History of Western Philosophy. Columbia University
Press. Pp 524-528

1.10 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. False
2. False
3. Absolute, practical
4. Fichte argued against Kant's position that the noumena (things in
themselves) are unknowable. For him, the entire universe is an
expression of the Infinite Mind and as such, the mind is capable of
penetrating things in themselves.

109
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

UNIT 2 FRIEDRICH WILHELM JOSEPH VON SCHELLING

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling

Unit Structure

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
2.3 A Brief Biography of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling
2.4 Schelling’s Idealism
2.5 Summary
2.6 References/Further Readings/Web Resources
2.7 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

2.1 Introduction

In unit 1, you learnt about how Fichte argued against the possibility of
the noumena. In this unit, you will be learning about another German
idealist who was himself a disciple of Fichte, but was more emphatic than
what Fichte did concerningthe physical nature as the objective form of
the Absolute.

2.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 discuss the idealism of Schelling

 highlight where he disagrees with Kant.

110
PHL 342 MODULE 5

2.3 A Brief Biography of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von

Schelling

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling was born on January 27, 1775 I
Leonberg, Germany. He was the second child of his parents, Gottliebin
Marie and Joseph Schelling. In1788, Schelling attended the Latin School in
Nurtingen. In 1790, he studued at Tubingenstift, a Protestant Seminary,
where he met Holderlin and Hegel, both of which later became great poet
and philosopher of German origin respectively. Schelling graduated from
philosophy department in 1792 and also completed his degree in theology
in 1795. He was greatly influenced by the philosophy of Fichte. When
Schelling turned 23 years of age in 1798, the Universityof Jenna offered
him a professorship position. He later left the University of Jenna to join
Wurzburg as a professor in 1803. Following the fall of Wurzburg to Berlin
in1805, Schelling travelled to Munich. However, he was later called upon
to occupy the vacant chair of philosophy position in Berlin following
Hegel’s death in 1840. Schelling died on August 20, 1854 in Switzerland.

2.4 Schelling’s Idealism

The dichotomies postulated by Kant and those before him, such as

subject- object, matter-spirit, ideal-real, noumena-phenomena, alarmed
Schelling and this resulted in a search for synthesis in his system. As
against these dualisms, Schelling maintained that there is unity in nature.
According to him, all these dichotomies aremanifestations of one and the
same reality, the Absolute. He maintained that all contractions and
opposites are synthesized, harmonized, and overcome in the Absolute
(Essien, 2011: 247). This Absolute is a spiritual reality, hence, reality is
ultimately one and it is spiritual. This means that the whole universe and
everythingwe see around us are manifestations of the Absolute.

Schelling placed a greater emphasis on the physical nature as the

objective form of the Absolute than Fichte did (Lawhead. 2002: 350). He
described the Absolute as the indubitable, all-encompassing, self-
creating, unifying principle of reality that permeates nature (ibid).
Because the Absolute permeates nature, Schelling maintained that we can
understand nature because it is comprised of the same spirit that is in us.
He believed further that the Absolute is made up of both theunconscious
and the conscious forces, and that these forces are fused in glorious
synthesis. This implies that the world evolves from the unconscious force
availablein both organic and inorganic nature and steadily moves until it
realizes itself in self-consciousness such as the creativity of an artist or the
rationality of the philosopher.

111
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

Schelling reasoned that since the ego precedes all thinking (I must exist
beforeI think) and thinking determines all being (a thing is nothing other
than the object of thought), then the absolute ego (“I”) must be the
fundamental principle of reality (Darty, 2012). However, Schelling, in his
subsequent works, attempted to demonstrate that the unity of thinking and
being can be approached from two different directions beginning either
with nature or with spirit. This implies that thisunity of thinking and being
can be deduced from the absolute ego as Fichte did and also from the
unconscious but dynamic powers of nature. Feeling betrayed by Schelling
whom he thought of as a loyal disciple, Fichte was displeased with
Schelling’s nature of the ego. Accordingly, he argued that Schelling had
confused the categories of “the ideal” and “the real” by making the Ego,
the ideal to be dependent upon nature, the real.

From the above, it is evidenced that Schelling started out from a Fichtean
position which emphasized the primacy of an unlimited self-positing Ego,
he came to regard the objective world of nature (matter) and the
subjective self (spirit) as equally real and originally in a unity. For
Schelling, nature becomes invisible spirit and spirit becomes invisible
nature and in this sense, both spirit and nature may be regarded as
developing in parallel (Darty, 2012). Schelling held the opinion that
man’s conscious mind emerges from nature which is controlled by an
unconscious,creative, intelligent, active principle or world soul. Hence,
nature is a manifestation of the Absolute. As expressed by Harrison-
Barbet (2012), the Absolute, for Schelling, is a pure identity of
subjectivity and objectivity. Darty (2012) is also of the view that while
we move in Schelling’s philosophy of nature, from the objectiveto the
subjective, his transcendental idealism is an attempt to move from the
subjective to the objective. For Schelling, therefore, both the subjective
and the objective approaches to reality are complementary.

On the nature of reality, Schelling maintains the position that reality deals
with being in its double manifestation as nature and mind. Schelling’s
thought did not only influence other Idealists, but also provided a
metaphysical basis to art. Thisis why it is often believed that for Schelling,
reality is unfolded through aesthetic experience.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Schelling wanted to synthesize all the differences that
philosophers before him created. True/False?
2. How did Schelling describe the Absolute?

112
PHL 342 MODULE 5

2.5 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt that:

 Schelling made an attempt to synthesize dualism

 The Absolute is the ultimate reality
 The whole universe and everything we see around us are
manifestations of theAbsolute
 The Absolute consists of the unconscious and conscious forces
fused inglorious synthesis

Schelling attempted the unification of metaphysical dualism through his

postulation of the Absolute as the permeating force of all reality. This
Absolute force progresses from unconsciousness to self-consciousness.

2.6 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Essien, E.S. (2011). Summa Philosophica: An Introduction to Philosophy

and Logic. Lulu Press.

Darty, D. (2012). German Idealists’ Metaphysics: Fichte, Shelling, Hegel

and Schopenhauer. In Uduigwomen, A. & Akpan, C. Metaphysics:
A Book of Readings. Ultimate Index Book Publishers Ltd.

Lawhead, W. F. (2002). The voyage of discovery: a historical

introduction to philosophy. Wadsworth and Thomson learning

2.7 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. True
2. Schelling describes the Absolute as the indubitable, all-
encompassing, self- creating, unifying principle of reality that
permeates nature.

113
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

UNIT 3 GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Unit Structure

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
3.3 A Brief Biography of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
3.4 Theory of knowledge
3.5 Metaphysics
3.6 Ethics
3.7 Political Theory
3.8 Summary
3.9 References/Further Readings/Web Resources
3.10 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

1.1 Introduction

The German Idealism that started with Kant reached its apex in the
philosophy of Hegel. Having been influenced by the thoughts of Kant,
Fichte and Schelling, Hegel believed that all reality must conform to a
rational pattern. As a matter of fact,this conviction led him to picture the
goal of philosophy as an attempt to achieve a unified and systematic
understanding of things as whole. In this unit, you shall be learning about
Hegel’s idealism and how it is distinct from other idealists before him.

114
PHL 342 MODULE 5

3.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 discuss the idealism of Hegel

 examine his dialectics as the movement of the Absolute
 relate his political theory as self-objectification and self-
development of theAbsolute Spirit.

3.3 A Brief Biography of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Hegel was born in Stuttgart in present Southern Germany in 1770. He

was raised in the period of the French Revolution. In 1788, Hegel entered
the Universityof Turbingen through a state sponsored education. While
in the University, Hegel made friends with Holderlin and Schelling who
were at the same time studying in the same school. After his graduation,
Hegel became a private tutor. He later became the headmaster of a
Gymnasium, (a high school equivalent) in Nuremberg. By this time,
however, Hegel had started to distinguish himself as a philosopher. As a
result of the new reputation, he was invited to become a professor of
philosophy in Heidelberg where he served from 1816-1818. Later, he
was invited to an enviable position of chair of philosophy at the
University of Berlin. Hegel died in 1831 of cholera. His major works are,
Phenomenology of Spirit, Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences,
The Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Rights, Philosophy of Nature,
among others.

3.4 Theory of Knowledge

Hegel’s epistemology revolves around his dictum “the real is rational and
the rational is real” (Essien, 2011: 248). This position is in contrast to Kant’s
assumption that the real is unknowable. Hegel argues that if the noumenon
exists, then it is knowable. In other words, Hegel is of the view that Kant
contradicted himself by postulating something he could not know. For
Hegel, if we could rationalize on the noumenon, then it exists because
when we look at the world rationally, the world also looks rationally back
at us.

The crux of German idealism is the glorification of the mind as the

ultimate source of knowledge. The mind constitutes the rational part of
human beings. Hence, Hegel believes that if all our objects of knowledge
are product of a mind other thanour individual minds, then there must be
an absolute mind, an intelligent mind through which individual minds
share in its intelligibility. Accordingly, Hegel, like other idealists,

115
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

concluded that “all objects of knowledge, and indeed the whole universe
are the product of an absolute subject, indeed, an Absolute mind” (Stumpf
and Fieser, 2003: 310). For Hegel, therefore, reality and the knowledge of
it is found in the Absolute idea. This Absolute idea, however, is
progressive, moving from a lower to a higher level of consciousness in a
dialectical order.

3.5 Metaphysics

In his metaphysical system, Hegel believes that there is only one ultimate
reality called the Absolute Spirit (Geist). The Absolute Spirit is the totality
of things.This Absolute Spirit, by its nature, undergoes self-projection,
self-expression, self- externalization and self-manifestation (Essien,
2011: 248). Hegel set himself to address the problem of the Absolute or
infinite and the relation between the finite and the infinite. In attempting
to overcome a dualistic outlook between the finite andthe infinite, Hegel
believed that the Absolute is infinite love and the conscious unityof life. It
is the infinite life that unites all finite things from within, however, without
annihilating them. In other words, infinite life or spirit is a living unity of
the manifold (Darty, 2012). This position is expressly corroborated by
Rusk and Scotland (1979), when they offered a panoramic summary of
Hegel’s metaphysics thus:

In Hegel, the idealism of Kant finds its consummation and most complete
expression. Instead of two realms – a natural and spiritual – as with Kant,
there is for Hegel, only one form of existence, the spiritual, and it
comprises the natural. The ultimate source of all being and of all knowing
is mind or theabsolute (182).

This means that the absolute is mind (spirit). The whole world, the
universe, is a single great organism through which an external uniformity
manifests itself. This uniformity expresses itself both in external nature
and in spirit (Darty, 2012). Life then, is the union of the spiritual with the
material. Without mind or spirit, matter islifeless, it remains formless and
in the words of Hegel, it is a “mere chaos.” It is onlythrough the entrance
of the spirit into the material that the cosmos originates (Rusk and
Scotland, 1979: 83).

Hegel maintains that the Absolute Spirit manifests itself in the physical
universe. This implies that our physical universe is nothing but the
Absolute Spirit disclosed, this disclosure occurs in a dialectical process
of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. In the Hegelian dialectics, reality
(being) is the thesis, non-being is the antithesis and the synthesis is
becoming. For Hegel, everything undergoes a constant process of change.
This change is not just a blind force, but a form of gradual unfolding of
self-consciousness. For him, therefore, reality is constantly moving

116
PHL 342 MODULE 5

toward its goal of understanding itself (Warburton, 2011: 128). Hegel,

therefore, explains change as a movement of the Absolute Spirit. For
Hegel, the central idea ofreality is the while which is “the absolute” – the
infinite creative totality in which allfinite distinctions are unified. It is the
spirit and self-thinking thought, the identity- in-difference of the ideal and
real, of subjectivity and objectivity. Hegel holds that the absolute is a
necessary process of self development from potentiality to actuality
revealing itself through nature. The point of it all is that for Hegel, reality
as absolute reason is revealed objectively in the dialectic processes of
nature through the reasoning processes of individual human minds
(Harrison-Barbet, 2012).

The idealist metaphysics of Hegel which subsumes matter into spirit sees
theabsolute spirit as the only medium through which matter can have life
and form (Darty, 2012: 368). However, the understanding of reality in the
Hegelian perspective resulted in the later opposition championed by the
logical positivists. As Redding (2012) puts it, Hegel’s conception of
reality had within it, a dark mystical roots and overt religious content.
Hence, it is hardly surprising that Hegel’s metaphysics so understood, is
regarded as being very confrontational to the largely secular and scientific
conceptions of reality that have been dominant from the twentieth century
till now. Notwithstanding its shortcomings, Hegel’s metaphysical system
which presages the final stage in German idealism, according to Darty (2012:
368), was an extraordinary achievement. This is why Hegel ranks as one
of the greatest and most influential western thinkers. His metaphysical
system positively inspired thinkers like Marx and Sartre, though it also
had a negative impact on Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard.

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Hegel’s dictum is -------?
2. Hegel thinks Kant contradicts himself. True/False?
3. Hegel believes that there are several realities that Absolute Spirit
is one of them. True/False?
4. What does Hegel think of our physical universe?

3.6 Ethics

Like his metaphysics, Hegel’s moral theory also depicts the movement of
theAbsolute Spirit becoming conscious of itself through the human spirit.
Instrumentalto his moral theory are the notions of human freedom and
will. According to Lawhead, as the rationality in nature becomes fully
explicit and self-aware through its realization in the human spirit, the
human community creates a second world of its own that consists of
ethical, political and legal institutions and all other accomplishments
(2002: 369).

117
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

Morality for Hegel, is essentially a matter of purpose and intention in the

ethical life of humanity (Akpan, 2016: 416). Living ethically, then, entails
a return of consciousness to world social roles and institutions. More so,
moral duty, for Hegel, is derived from the requirements of identifying a
person’s individual will with that of the universal will (Akpan, 2016: 416).
There is no way, for Hegel, that an individual will could be separated
from the universal will because he believes that the particular cannot be
separated from the whole. This is what constitute a perfect explanation of
freedom for him, hence, he says that the relation between the individual’s
will and the universal’s will, is the relation between freedom and duty,
objectivity and subjectivity (Hegel, 1953: 37).

3.7 Political Theory

Hegel’s political thought is connected to his moral theory and

metaphysics. In his view, the state is the highest form of human society in
which the spirit objectifiesand actualizes itself (Omoregbe, 2010: 86). The
state is the synthesis between the family and the civil society. What this
implies is that the spirit objectifies itself, firstin the family, then the civil
society and finally in the state. Using his dialectics, the family is the
thesis. It is characterized by unity; however, this unity is negated by the
diversity of the civil society. The civil society then forms the antithesis.
The state comes into existence as a synthesis between the unity of the
family and the diversityof the civil society.

Omoregbe (2010: 87), observed that Hegel emphasizes the unity of and
supremacy of the state. The state possesses its own will which is the
collective will of every citizen of the state. Hegel calls this will the
Universal Will. This Universal Will is the will of the Absolute and
consequently the authentic will of the individualcitizens (ibid). The law
of the state is then established to ensure the conformity of the individual
will with the universal will:

For the state is not the abstract confronting the citizens; they are parts of
it, like members of an organic body, where no member is end and none is
means.It is the realization of freedom, of the absolute, final purpose and
exists for itsown sake (Hegel, 1953: 52).

It is observed from the above excerpts that the state, for Hegel, is not
human construction, neither did the action of human beings force them to
form a state. Instead, the state is a living organism. It is the objectification
of the absolute through human beings, therefore, the state is superior to
the individual. The state has right, the abstract right which dims the light
of individual right. This right of the state emanates from her freedom which
extinguishes the freedom of the individual (Essien, Ukpe and Iniodu, 2014:
253).

118
PHL 342 MODULE 5

In Hegel’s political thought, human right as the right of the individual is

considered a joke. Freedom and right, according to him, belong to the
state. Right inHegel’s philosophy, is primarily that immediate existence
which freedom gives itselfin an immediate way. In his Philosophy of
right, freedom does not consist in possibilities of acting, but a kind of
action in which one is determined entirely through oneself, and not all by
any external factor. He describes freedom as actively relating to something
other than oneself in a manner that the other becomes integrated into
one’s project, completing and fulfilling them so that it counts as
belonging to one’s own action rather than standing over against it. What
this means is that freedom is possible only to the extent that we act
rationally, and in circumstances where the objects of our actions are in
harmony with our reason (Essien, Ukpe and Iniodu, 2014). Hegel believes
that the most spiritual of such objects is the state in which we live.

For Hegel, therefore, freedom is only possible in a rational society whose

institutions can be felt and known as rational by individuals who are with
themselves in those institutions. Freedom then becomes the freedom of
the social order, the state and the right emanating from this absolute
freedom is abstract right.

3.8 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt that:

 There is only one ultimate reality, according to Hegel, and it is

the AbsoluteSpirit.
 The Absolute Spirit by its nature undergoes self-projection, self-
expression,self-externalization and self-manifestation.
 The rational is real and the real is rational.
 Hegel debunked the unknowability of Kant’s noumena
 The state is the highest form of human society in which the
absoluteobjectifies and actualizes itself

Hegel’s philosophy is characterized by the movement and objectification

of the Absolute Spirit. This absolute spirit operates through a triadic
dialectical processcrowned by the synthesis of the subjective spirit as the
thesis and the objective spiritas the antithesis the absolute spirit becomes
conscious of itself through the finite spirit of individuals. However, on a
critical perspective, the view that everything is the manifestation of the
absolute cast dust on his freedom of will. It is a contradiction for Hegel to
presuppose the freedom of individuals and at the same time believe that
every event in the universe is a self-manifestation, self-projection and
self- externalization of the absolute. The features of his Absolute spirit
means the absolute is a deterministic force. But away from this criticism,
Hegel’s philosophy is of greatimpact not only philosophy, but to social
science who are more focused on individuals.

119
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

3.9 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Akpan, C. O. (2016). “Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel” in A. F.

Uduigwomen, M. E. Ukah & E. C. Uduma (Eds.). A Critical
History of Philosophy: Modern Period. Vol. 2. Ultimate Index
Book Publishers Ltd.

Burton, N. (2011). A Little History of Philosophy. Yale University Press.

Darty, D. (2012). German idealists’ metaphysics: Fichte, Shelling, Hegel

and Schopenhauer. In Uduigwomen, A. & Akpan, C. Metaphysics:
A Book of Readings. Ultimate Index Book Publishers Ltd.

Essien, E. S. (2011). Summa Philosophica: An Introduction to Philosophy

and Logic. Lulu Press.

Essien, E; Ukpe, J. & Iniodu, J. (2014). Political Philosophy and

Practice. Advantage Media House.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1953). Reason in History: A General Introduction to The

Philosophy of History. R.S. Hartman (trans.). Bobbs-Merril.

Lawhead, W. F. (2002). The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical

Introduction to Philosophy. (2nd ed.). Wadsworth and Thomson
learning.

Omoregbe, J. (2010). Socio-Political Philosophy: A Systematic and

Historical Study. Joja Press Ltd

Rusk, R. & Scotland, J. (1979). The Doctrines of The Great Educators.

Macmillan Publishers.

Stumpf, S. E. & Fieser, J. (2003). Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A

History of Philosophy. (7th ed.). McGraw Hill.

3.10 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. “the real is rational and the rational is real”

2. True
3. False
4. Hegel thinks of our physical universe as the Absolute disclosed.

120
PHL 342 MODULE 5

UNIT 4 THOMAS HILL GREEN

Thomas Hill Green

Unit Structure

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Intended Learning Outcomes
4.3 A Brief Biography of Thomas Hill Green
4.4 Religious Views
4.5 On Eternal Consciousness
4.6 On the Will
4.7 Summary
4.8 References/Further Readings/Web Resources
4.9 Possible Answer for Self-Assessment Exercise

4.1 Introduction

You have learnt about German Idealism in units 1, 2, and 3 of this

module. The twentieth century brings with it a new wave of Idealism
domiciled in Great Britain. Robert Hill Green represents a significant
expansion in scholarship of British idealism. In this unit, you shall be
introduced to his thought.

121
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

4.2 Intended Learning Outcomes

By the end of this unit, you will be able to:

 explain the idealist thought in Green’s philosophy

 discuss Green’s understanding of consciousness.

4.3 A Brief Biography of Thomas Hill Green

Thomas Green was a member of the British Idealist movement. He was

bornon April 7, 1836 in Oxford, England. In 1855, he attended Balliol
college in Oxford. Green is best known as a moral and political
philosopher. He also had interest in theology. Thomas Green died on
March 26, 1882. His major works are, Essay on Christian Dogma,
Prolegomena to Ethics, Moral Psychology, Different Senses of Freedom,
Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation, Lecture on Liberal
Legislation and Freedom of Contracts, Different Senses of Freedom as
Applied Will and the Moral Progresses of Man, among others.

4.4 Religious View

Green lived at a time in England when the developments in geology and

Paleontology were rapidly shaking the foundations that were laid by
classical and scholastic philosophy and theology (Effiong, 2016: 448-
449). In his Essay on Christian Dogma, Green developed his matured
thought on theology. He began by his projects by analyzing the history of
Christian dogma. From this analysis, he attacked most of the practices of
that were being carried out in the church. One of such dogma was the
formulation of creeds. Accordingly, he maintained that the church was
more committed to traditions than the real doctrine of the Bible. Green
characterized the formulation of creeds an attempt to arrive at an
authoritative expression of those doctrines by which all Christians –
irrespective of time and place – should judge the varying interpretations
of faith (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Green argued that rather than allow people to worship God as an actual
dynamic being present in the world, creed tends toward idolatry as it
made people to worship images instead of God. He also argued that reason
is an essential element in the pursuit of salvation because rational self-
consciousness is an element of that which identifies us with the perfect
being (Effiong, 2016: 499). Through this rational self-consciousness, we are
able to realize ourselves in principle, which makes it possible for us to
understand the spiritual world and our reliance on God for knowledge and
existence.

122
PHL 342 MODULE 5

4.5 On Eternal Consciousness

The first and most important problem that Green intended to tackle in his
philosophy is the nature of knowledge and its implication about the nature
of man. He has several sets of opponents in mind whom he wishes to
refute. The most prominent, whom he confronts first, are those who argue
for an empiricist or naturalistic account of man and of knowledge.
Green’s attack is on those who seek to create a natural science of man, on
the grounds that they are trying to carry science outside its proper province.
He never disputes or impugns the idea of science and scientific
knowledge (Nicholson, 2006: 142). On the contrary, his rejection of a
science of man presupposes that science itself is possible, legitimate, and
successful.The point on which his whole position pivots is that science,
the acquisition of knowledge of the natural world, itself necessarily
requires a conception of the scientist (standing in for ‘man’) which
cannot be accounted for in purely scientificterms.

There are two principal features of Green’s claim to distinguish; first,

what scientific knowledge is and what this implies, logically, about the
knower; and second, what, by logical extension, scientific knowledge
could be and what that implies, logically, about the knower. Green
contends that in scientific knowledge everything known, so far as it is
known, consists in relations between it and other things (relations such as
position and succession), themselves likewise related, and that the source
of all these relations must be a consciousness or self which unifies the
relations into a connected whole. The consciousness, working on the
assumption that there is a single, uniform, and unalterable order of
relations, decides which of its experiences is ‘real’ and ‘objective’ by
checking that each new experience is combinable in one system with
other recognized relations (Nicholson, 2006). That assumption is a
necessary assumption of science in the sense that it must be made ifthere
is to be knowledge of a world at all. However, the consciousness which
is organizing experience must itself be outside time and space: as the
condition of relations, it cannot be a relation, and therefore no scientific
explanation of it can begiven (since natural science necessarily explains
things in terms of relations).

From Green’s perspective, therefore, the naturalists and empiricists are

simply contradicting themselves whenever they attempt to offer an
explanation of man because a natural explanation of man uses a theory
about nature, but the very idea of such a theory itself presupposes that
man is more than simply natural. Green’s first main conclusion, then, is
that our consciousness, or understanding, that is, the consciousness of
each individual human being, ‘‘makes nature’’ for us, in the sense of
enabling us to conceive that there is such a thing’ (Green, 2003: 19). He
argues further that our understanding ‘makes nature’ in the additional

123
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

sense that, ‘it is the source, or at any rate a condition, of there being these
relations. It is our consciousness, therefore, that establishes ‘the relations
in which it conceives realityto consist’ (Green, 2003: 13).

The second sense of ‘man making nature’ goes further in claiming that
not only nature as an intelligible whole but also all its constituent parts, are
the creationsof man’s consciousness, that is, not only the end-products of
the mind’s work are the mind’s creation, but also all that the mind works
on to produce them. Green argues,nevertheless, there is an Infinite mind
that the human mind participates in the Infinite mind (Essien, 2011: 253).
He conceives of the mind as a fragment of the all prevailing and Infinite
mind. The universe, for him, is also a manifestation, a projection and an
externalization of the Infinite Mind. Human consciousness, then,
becomes possible because the human mind is inextricably inseparable
from the Infinite Mind. The unfolding of the eternal consciousness, therefore,
is the increasing manifestation of God in the world (Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy).

4.6 On the Will

Green’s theory of the will is simply his discussion of the moral agent as
the human self. For him, the self is the willing agent who has to make a
choice between desires and emotional impulses (Effiong, 2016: 452).
Green argues that desires and emotional impulses are recognized by
human subjects as indispensable to his natureas they make him realize his
existence. This implies that by desiring, we acknowledge our existence
as self-conscious. However, it is in the nature of individuals to desire
many things at a time. But knowing that it is not possible for us to have
everything we desire at the same time, we are then forced to decide what
we truly wish to achieve. In this way, the will chooses which object to
possess. In this way, choice becomes a determinant of action, which is
backed by the will. According to Green, what makes the will free is choice.
For Green, the action of a moral agent, then, is to be explained in terms
of motive rather than desire. Unlike the mere animal pushed from behind by
some want, desire, or impulse, human beings, because they are self-
conscious, have the capacity in thought to transcend both the present and the
actual and to look forward to possible future states, thereby creating for
themselves ends which they then endeavour to bring about (Dimova-
Cookson and Mander, 2006). Green goes on to argue that the motive
determining an agent’s will is always an idealized future state of his own
self,a conception of himself as satisfied, whatever it may be that he seeks.
For this, he argues that moral action is “the process of self-realization,
that is, of making a possible self real” (Green, 1997: 224). In historical
terms, Green’s arrival at the formula of self-realization represents an
important shift in ethical thinking. Instead of asking with the utilitarian,
intuitionist, and even the Kantian philosophers of the day, ‘What ought I

124
PHL 342 MODULE 5

to do?’, Green and the many Idealists who followed him re- construed
ethical inquiry in the mould of an older question, ‘What kind of person
ought I to be?’(Dimova-Cookson and Mander, 2006: 9).

But what leads Green to this formula? The answer is not wholly clear. At
times the derivation seems a trivial one, amounting to no more than the
claim that, whatever we want, in wanting it we necessarily want also a
state in which our own wanting is satisfied. In this sense it amounts to
more than the claim that the act is a self-conscious or deliberate one. At
other times, however, Green seems to be asserting a stronger thesis
equivalent to some type of psychological egoism. He says that self-
reflection reveals to us that the only desire possible is for our own personal
good in some form or other (PE §§91, 95): that unless an act was for the
agent’s owngood (however we may go on to construe that notion), he
would simply have no reason to perform it.

There are, of course, a great many things which we might desire for
ourselves.But it is notorious that not everything we want is really in our
own best interests. And what we want today, we may grow out of
tomorrow. Green introduces the notion of what he calls the true good,
which he describes as ‘an end in which the effort of a moral agent can
really find rest’ (2003: 171), ‘an abiding satisfaction of an abiding self’
(2003: 234). The true or unconditional good is, thus, that which fulfils the
agent’s desire for long-term satisfaction on the whole. Linking with
Green’s theme of moral and cognitive growth, it is what would satisfy us
in our fullest development. But what would such a good be? One of the
most interesting aspects of Green’s moral philosophy is his claim that this
cannot be known. The moral ideal amounts to the complete realization or
perfection of human capacities, but since these have never yet been
perfectly realized, we cannot now properly say what this would amount to.
Green’s moral theory is a species of ideal or perfectionist ethics, but since our
moral understanding stands in need of development just as much as our
moral nature itself, a measure of ignorance is, according to him,
unavoidable.

Green holds that the true good is a common or social good. Transforming
his earlier egoism into something almost directly its opposite, Green
argues that while it is indeed true that the moral ideal is one of personal
development and that the only possible motive for action is the
attainment of personal good, it needs to be recognized that people
are fundamentally social creatures, and hence that our true personal good
properly understood turns out to be social good. To pursue a selfish life
is to misunderstand one’s own true nature, and hence where one’s own
true happiness lies. The theory of the common good thus gives a
distinctive twist to Green’s account. According to it, in the same way as
we carry a vision and a will fora better self, we carry also interests in the

125
PHL342 EARLY MODERN PHILOSOPHY

good of other persons, ‘interests which cannot be satisfied without the

consciousness that those other persons are satisfied’(Green, 2003). Green
calls this a ‘distinctive social interest’ (Green, 2003: 200), andhe views it
as a permanent feature of human nature, not simply enlightened self-
interest or the result of some process of evolution from earlier stages in
which men were less civilized. The notion of the common good helps
Green to define the moralideal substantively, providing content to what
would otherwise remain a merely formal notion (Dimova-Cookson and
Mander 2006).

Self-Assessment Exercise
1. Explain Green’s idea of the self.
2. The true good is a --------?
3. ------ is the earlier ethical position that Green held

4.7 Summary

In this unit, you have learnt that:

 Green marked new force of idealism which took place in Britain

in the 20thcentury.
 The human mind participates in the Infinite mind.
 The human mind possesses eternal consciousness of which
everything resides.
 What makes the will free is choice.

Thomas Green’s philosophy had enormous influence on British Idealist

movement. Aside the philosophical circle, it also extended to social and
political disciplines. In his idealism, he argues that knowledge has to do
with system or structure. For him, the difference between what counts as
knowledge and illusions, dreams, or error are relations or actions of the
mind. This mind, he maintained, possesses an eternal consciousness of
which everything that there is resides.

4.8 References/Further Readings/Web Resources

Effiong, D. A. (2016). “Thomas Hill Green.” A. F. Uduigwomen, M. E.

Ukah & E. C. Uduma (eds.). A Critical History of Philosophy:
Modern Period. Vol. 2.Ultimate Index Book Publishers Ltd. Pp
448-454

Essien, E. S. (2011). Summa Philosophica: An Introduction to Philosophy

and Logic. Lulu Press

126
PHL 342 MODULE 5

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011). “Thomas Hill Green.”

www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/green/£4

Green, T. (2003). Prolegomena to Ethics. Brink, D. (ed. and intro.).

Clarendon Press.

Green, T. (1997). Collected Works of T. H. Green. Unknown.

Nicholson, P. (2006). Green’s eternal consciousness. In Dimova-

Cookson, M. & Mander, W. (Eds ). T. H. Green Ethics, Metaphysics,
and Political Philosophy. Clarendon press.

Dimova-Cookson, M. & Mander, W. (2006). Introduction. In Dimova-

Cookson, M. & Mander, W. (Eds). T. H. Green Ethics,
Metaphysics, and Political Philosophy. Clarendon Press.

4.9 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise

Answer

1. Green conceives of the self as the willing agent who has to make
a choicebetween desires and emotional impulses
2. common or social good
3. egoism

End of Module Exercises

1. Briefly discuss how knowledge is possible in Fichte's
epistemology
2. The -------- Ego is the ground of everything in Fichte’s philosophy
3. The ----------- ego is the human mind or subject of cognition
Fichte’s philosophy
4. The --------- ego consists in the ego striving to completely destroy
what is not given to the mind (theNon Ego) Fichte’s philosophy
5. Discuss the similarity between Schelling’s idealism and Kant?
6. Discuss the idealism of Hegel
7. Relate Hegel’s political theory as self-objectification and self-
development of theAbsolute Spirit
8. Discuss Green’s understanding of consciousness.

127