PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

Philosophy in the Context of the History of Ideas:

An Intellectual Paradigm is a Rational Model for understanding a World-View.

An Intellectual Paradigm is a rational Model because it entails a small set of Ideas that are
Logically related. And an Intellectual Paradigm is a Rational model, because it constitutes our
standard of understanding World-Views. Over the past 30,000 years, humans have developed two
major forms of World-View, what I call the Symbolic World-View and the Natural World-View.
Here, we will use the three following Intellectual Paradigms to help us understand these two
World-Views.

1) The Symbolic Paradigm (for the ~30,000 Year Old Symbolic World-View)
Religion: An Institution for the expression of Emotions by means of Forms (eg Ritual)
World-View: Understanding of the World is based on Symbols and Personification (Analogy)
Magic: Understanding and Manipulating the World through Metonymy and Analogy
Mythos: The Language of Metonymic and Analogic Figures; used in Magic and Religion

2) The Natural Paradigm (for the ~3000 Years Old Natural World-View)
Philosophy: An Institution for the theorization of Experience by means of Forms (eg Logics)
World-View: Understanding of the Cosmos is based on Nature and Reification (Metonymy)
Science: Understanding and Manipulating the Universe through Causality & Analogy
Logos: The Language of Causal and Analogical Structures; used in Science and Philosophy

3) The Hermeneutic Paradigm (~300 Years Old, for both World-Views)

Hermeneutics: A cognitive perspective of Onticity that is based on Phenomenology
Rhetoric: The Language of Phenomenology & Hermeneutics; uses Contiguity & Isomorphism
Semiotics: Understanding and Manipulating Systems through Indexes, Icons, and Symbols
Linguistics: Analysis and Expression of Experience by means of Analogy and Metonymy
Hermeneutics is NOT an Institution; it is a Paradigm Shift that makes Phenomenology primary

The Fundamental Ideas:

The two most important fundamental ideas in the History of Ideas, for our purposes, are those of
Contiguity and Isomorphism. In Mythos these two ideas take the form of the Master Tropes:
Metonymy and Analogy; in Magic the two Methods: Contagion and Imitation. In Logos these two
ideas cast as the two types of formal deduction: Implication and Equivalence; and in Science we
find the two Scientific Methods themselves: Causality and Analogy. And in Rhetoric (which is
to say under the Hermeneutic Paradigm), they are seen to be the logical relations themselves.
The definitions of the two fundamental ideas, Contiguity and Isomorphism, are as follows:
1) Contiguity, or that which is ‘contiguous’ =d
1.a. touching along boundaries; adjacent [= Physical Contact]
b. next, with nothing similar between [= Succession]
c. nearby, close; not distant
d. continuous, unbroken, uninterrupted; touching or connected
2.a. immediately preceding/following in time/sequence; w/o interval or item b/w [Time]
b. near in time or sequence [Next]

1
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

2) Isomorphism, or that which is ‘isomorphic’ =d

1.a. being of identical/similar form/shape/structure

A Brief History of the Fundamental Ideas:

Plato (385 BCE): Phaedo 73C-74B
Plato discusses the association of Ideas, which he describes in terms of Recollection by means
of Similarity and Dissimilarity; and he gives an example of association by means of Contiguity.
In particular, he says, “

Aristotle (335 BCE): On Memory and Reminiscence 452a15-20

Aristotle discusses the association of Ideas by means of Contiguity and Similarity/Opposition.
In particular, the says, “

David Hume (1740’s): Treatise of Human Nature

The Association of Ideas:
1) Contiguity 3) Causality [which turns out to be a form of 1) Contiguity]
2) Resemblance

Charles S. Peirce (1860’s): Various Texts

Natural Signs: Indexes (Contiguity) and Icons (Resemblance)

Ferdinand de Saussure (1915): Course in General Linguistics, pgs. 80, and 122
“It is certain that all sciences would benefit from identifying more carefully the axes along which
the things they are concerned with may be situated. In all cases, distinctions should be drawn on
the following basis.”

The “Axis of simultaneity . . . concerns relations between things which coexist, relations from
which the passage of time is entirely excluded.”

As for the “Axis of succession. Along this axis one may consider only one thing at a time.”

“Syntagmatic relations hold . . . between two or more terms co-present in a sequence. Associative
[ie, Paradigmatic] relations, on the contrary, hold . . . between terms constituting a mnemonic
group.” (My italics)

2
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

1) The Hermeneutic Paradigm (~300 Years Old)

Hermeneutics is not a social institution in the sense that Religion and Philosophy are social
institutions. Religion and Philosophy, which speak to human Emotion and human Reason
respectively, are institutions that help fulfill the needs and concerns of all humans with respect to
these natural mental capacities. Historically, of course, it was Religion that emerged first, in large
part because our emotional needs, which are at least as important as our need to rationally
understand the world we live in, are readily nourished and satisfied by any narrative account (that
is, myth) with a positive moral tone. The histories of Religion and Mythology are replete with
myths, tales, and legends that meet this criterion and thus make the point. Satisfying our need for
a rational understanding of the world, in contrast, requires at least ersatz of an accurate assessment
of the facts of the World; and not only doing this but also learning how to go about it requires an
extended length of time to allow for the development of some familiarity with the minute physical
details of the World. This notwithstanding, a rational appreciation of the World eventually
emerges, and Science and Philosophy quickly add themselves to the list of vital social institutions
in the developing story of Western civilization. This is not the end of the story, though, because
we eventually realize that both of our social institutions had delivered World-Views that had been
developed before we understood what the role of the human Mind is in experiencing the world.
The emergence of an hermeneutic focus is a natural maturation of Understanding, then, as it goes
about this business. Hermeneutics is a Paradigm Shift that doesn’t replace the existing World-
View (as Philosophy did to Religion); instead, it recognizes the interpretive nature of our
experience, and it makes the Interpretation of the Phenomena primary and epistemologically prior
to the establishment of any World-View. Accordingly, Hermeneutics tells us that our World-View
is a fabrication of our brains and thus may not actually have the philosophical value (of
guaranteeing a particular metaphysics) that we had assumed.
With the Hermeneutic Paradigm, we reach a point in our development at which we begin to
appreciate the role that consciousness plays in understanding experience. The "natural standpoint"
of the Symbolic World-View had simply assumed that the different contents of experience—
whether from perception or memory or imagination—were all of the same ontological status. That
is, dreams and imaginations were as "real" as conscious perception. And the slightly more mature
Naive Realism of the early Natural World-View—which in the hands of the Greek Philosophers
had produced a fairly sophisticated mathematical science—still assumed that perception gave us
an accurate "view" of "reality". With the advance of science, however, we began to realize that
there is more to the world than what we experience, and in fact experience itself is a fabrication of
our brains, even if the fabrication does involve information about what "exists". Emerging upon
the heels of this realization, the Hermeneutic Paradigm is our way of acknowledging that we need
to understand how Conscious Experience comes about, and how it functions, before we can even
hope to understand "reality".
Whereas the Symbolic and Natural World-Views had their own distinct form of grammar—
Mythos and Logos, respectively—the language of the new paradigm (which we take to be a form
of the New Rhetoric) begins with a simple combination of Mythos and Logos, allowing (if not in
fact demanding) the use of both figurative and literal forms. This version of the New Rhetoric
takes yet another step towards the rigorization of the logical components—Metonymy and
Analogy for Mythos, Causality and Analogy for Logos—by replacing Causality and Analogy with
Contiguity and Isomorphism, just as earlier (in the transition from the Symbolic World-View to
the Natural World-View), scientific Causality and Analogy displaced magical Metonymy and

3
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

Analogy. The result is that, with the Hermeneutic Paradigm, we deal directly with Contiguity—
the logical basis of both Metonymy and Causality; and with Isomorphism—the logical basis of
Analogy; and these two logical relations are presumed to be the warp the and woof—the very
fabric—of all Human Understanding.
With this hermeneutic rigor we gain a symbolic power that allows for, among other things, the
introduction of the notion of a system as a replacement for the previous paradigm of natural things.
And in Systemics we assume that what exists (Onticity) are systems within systems within
systems. Accordingly, with the Hermeneutic Paradigm we see that "Reality" is a fabrication of the
brain derived from the brain's interaction with Onticity, and that the Objects of Reality in our
experience are abstracted from the systems of Onticity.

Hermeneutics: A technographic explication of Experience in which Interpretation is primary

Rhetoric: The Language of Phenomenology & Hermeneutics; uses Contiguity & Isomorphism
Semiotics: Understanding and Manipulating Systems through Indexes, Icons, and Symbols
Linguistics: Analysis and Expression of Experience by means of Analogy and Metonymy

Hermeneutics: A technographic explication of Experience based upon Phenomena

Systemization: The belief that what exists is Systems of Energy and Information
Interpretation: Evaluating the Presentations in various Perceptual Modes of Experience

Semiotics ― A Theory of Signification

The Natural Logoi
Contiguity
Indexes
Reading Indexes
Isomorphism
Icons
Reading Icons
Symbols
[Reading Symbols]

Linguistics ― A Theory of Language

Grammar
3 Sets of Examples

Design (Features)
Grimm’s Law
The Phonetic Schematic
The Phonetic Apparatus
Derivations of ‘tik’
Original Forms of ‘tik’
Design-Features Analysis
Aristotle
Shannon and Weaver
Design-Feature Analysis

4
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

Jakobson
Function Description

1c) Rhetoric ― A Theory of Discourse (that is, Persuasive Language)

Aristotle’s Technic of Rhetoric:

The Structure of Communication:

The Speaker The Speech The Audience

The Forms of Persuasion:

Ethos Logos Pathos

. . . PG-BRK

5
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

2) The Symbolic Paradigm (~30,000 Years Old)

Religion: Understanding the World based on Symbolism and Personification (Analogy)

Symbolism: The belief that the Forces and Forms in the World are Messages
Personification: The belief that the Forces and Forms in the World are Persons

Magic: Understanding and Manipulating the World through Contagion and Imitation
Contagious Magic: Physical-contact Magic inspired by Metonymic Figures of Speech
Imitative Magic: Formal-resemblance Magic inspired by Analogic Figures of Speech

Mythos: The Language of Metonymic and Analogic Figures; used in Magic and Religion
Metonymy: Figures of Speech based upon Contagion by means of Parts and Wholes
Analogy: Figures of Speech based upon Imitation by means of Similarity of Form

Ethnological Evidence ― Paleolithic Examples and Date of the Symbolic Paradigm:

Bird Shaman #1: Journey Through the Ice Age, Lascaux Caves
Bird Shaman #2: Rock Art and Symbols of the Greater Southwest
Bird Shaman #3: Rock Art and Symbols of the Greater Southwest
Lion Shaman #1: Journey Through the Ice Age, 29.6 cm, Germany (Hohlenstein-Stadel)
Lion Shaman #2: unknown web site
Lion Shaman #3: The Codex Borgia: Meso-America

The Symbolic Paradigm is intimately connected with societies that practice Literacy; these are
called Oral Societies, as opposed to the more modern Literate Societies that practice Literacy

Some Psychodynamics of Orality [vs Literacy]:

1) Additive [vs] Subordinating
2) Aggregative [vs] Analytic
3) Redundant or Copious [vs Terse]
4) Conservative or Traditionalist [vs Liberal and Creative]
5) Close to the Human Life-World [vs Urbane and Cultivated]
6) Agonistically Toned [vs Cooperatively Toned]
7) Emphatic and Participatory [vs] Objectively Distanced
8) Homeostatic [& Past-Focused vs Transformational and Future-Focused]
9) Situational (Concrete) [vs] Abstract

Further Characteristics:
1) Sounded Words are Actions and Power rather than Things and Knowledge
2) You Know only what you can Remember: Mnemonics and Formulas

Pre-historic Mythos, as we find it in ancient civilizations as well as in the Americas, has been
extensively catalogued; and it has been determined that the Mythoi of the Americas as it was
recorded by modern research is similar to and thus representative of the Mythoi of the Old World.
For example:

6
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

Peter Farb, Man’s Rise to Civilization as shown by the Indians of North America, pgs. 7-8:
“North America is the place in the world most nearly ideal to observe the evolution of human
societies and customs, institutions and beliefs, for these are revealed there with all the clarity of a
scientific experiment.”

“The perplexing problems that have bewildered thinkers since the earliest human speculated about
himself might find an answer in the living laboratory of North America.”

Westin La Barre, The Ghost Dance, pgs 124-5:

“. . . although migrations from Asia to America occurred over a definable range of several thousand
years, through a careful assessment of widespread or universal cultural traits in both Americas, we
can get a fairly clear picture of the primary culture base of the New World in relation to the Old.
This culture horizon again is roughly from the Magdalenian (the late Paleolithic of Eurasia) to the
Mesolithic.”

“The core culture of the Americas is therefore Asiatic Magdalenian-Mesolithic in base, with later
specialized local developments independent of Asia.”

2a) Mythos ― The Figurative Language of Metonymy and Analogy:

Mythos: The Language of Metonymic and Analogic Figures; used in Magic and Religion
Metonymy: Figures of Speech based upon the relation of a Part to the Whole
Analogy: Figures of Speech based upon the relation of the Similarity of Form

Giambattista Vico (1720’s): The New Science of Nations

Four Master Tropes: Metaphor, Metonymy, Synecdoche, & Irony
[But Synecdoche and Irony are types of Metonymy, so the four Master Tropes are really only two:
Metaphor and Metonymy]

Roman Jakobson (1950’s?; with Halle): Fundamentals of Language, pgs. 90-96. Cf:

Chandler (1990’s): Semiotics, the Basics

“Jakobson adopted two tropes rather than four as fundamental—metaphor and metonymy.”
“. . . Jakobson’s notion of two basic axes has proved massively influential. Jakobson argued that
metaphor is a paradigmatic dimension (vertical, based on . . . similarity) and metonymy a
syntagmatic dimension (horizontal, based on . . . contiguity). pgs. 139-40:

George Lakof (1980): Metaphors We Live By

“Metaphor and metonymy are different kinds of processes. Metaphor is principally a way of
conceiving of one thing in terms of another, and its primary function is understanding. Metonymy,
on the other hand, has primarily a referential function, that is, it allows us to use one entity to stand
for another. But metonymy is not merely a referential device. It also serves the function of
providing understanding.” (p36)

“Like metaphors, metonymies are not random or arbitrary occurrences, to be treated as isolated
instances. Metonymic concepts are also systematic . . . .” (p37)

7
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

“Thus metonymy serves some of the same purposes that metaphor does, and in somewhat the
same way, but it allows us to focus more specifically on certain aspects of what is being referred
to. It is also like metaphor in that is not just a poetic or rhetorical device. Nor is it just a matter of
language. Metonymic concepts (like THE PART FOR THE WHOLE) are part of the ordinary, everyday way
we think and act as well as talk.” (p37)

So our Master Tropes are:

1) Metonymy (which is based upon Contiguity), and
2) Analogy (which is based upon Isomorphism)

2b) Magic:
According to Sir James George Frazer, Paleolithic Humans misunderstood the nature of the Master
Tropes, and assumed that what existed in language as a conceptual connection between things was
in actuality a physical connection. As a result, the two Master Tropes became the basis for
Sympathetic Magic.

Sir J. G. Frazer (1900’s): The Golden Bough

“If we analyze the principles of thought on which magic is based, they will probably be found
to resolve themselves in to two: first, that like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause;
and, second, that things which have once been in contact with each other continue to act on each
other at a distance after physical contact has been severed. The former principle may be called the
Law of Similarity, the latter the Law of Contact or Contagion. From the first of these principles,
namely the Law of Similarity, the magician infers that he can produce any effect he desires merely
be imitating it: from the second he infers that whatever he does to a material object will affect
equally the person with whom the object was once in contact, whether it formed part of his body
or not.” (p11)

“Wherever sympathetic magic occurs in its pure unadulterated form, it assumes that in nature one
event follows another necessarily and invariably without the intervention of any spiritual or
personal agency. Thus its fundamental conception is identical with that of modern science;
underlying the whole system is a faith, implicit but real and firm, in the order and uniformity of
nature. The magician does not doubt that the same causes will always produce the same effects,
that the performance of the proper ceremony, accompanied by the appropriate spell, will inevitably
be attended by the desired result, unless, indeed, his incantations should chance to be thwarted and
foiled by the more potent charms of another sorcerer. . . . Thus the analogy between the magical
and scientific conceptions of the world is close. In both of them the succession of events is
assumed to be perfectly regular and certain, being determined by immutable laws, the operations
of which can be foreseen and calculated precisely . . . .” (p48)

“The fatal flaw of magic lies not in its general assumption of the sequence of events determined
by law, but in its total misconception of the nature of the particular laws which govern the
sequence. If we analyze the various cases of sympathetic magic . . . [we see] . . . that they are all
mistaken applications of one or other of two great laws of thought, namely, the association of ideas
by similarity and the association of ideas by contiguity in space and time. A mistaken association

8
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

of similar ideas produces homeopathic or imitative magic; a mistaken association of contiguous

ideas produces contagious magic.” (p49)

Clyde Cluckhohn, The Navaho, pgs. 312-13:

“[The Laws]: Like produces Like and the Part stands for the Whole:
These are two ‘laws of thought’ almost as basic to Navaho thinking as the so-called Aristotelian
‘laws of thought’ have been in European intellectual history since the Middle Ages.”
“Because the juice of the milkweed resembles milk it is held to be useful in treating a mother who
cannot nurse her infant. Since the eagle can see long distances, the diviner who does star-gazing
must rub a preparation which includes water from an eagle’s eye under his eyelids.”

Elsie Clews Parsons, Pueblo Indian Religion, pg. 88:

“This use of resemblance as a principle of cause and effect or a means of determining effects is a
conspicuous habit of the Pueblos, controlling and fundamental in their ceremonial life. In such
ideology, which is quite familiar, since it is far from being confined to the Pueblos, like causes or
produces like, or like follows like; like may also preclude or cure like.” (Exs: Corn, Melons)

The Elements of Magic

EB11.298, Magic is [any] “ritual performance or activity that is thought to lead to the influencing
of human or natural events by an external and impersonal mystical force beyond the ordinary
human sphere:

We may analyze the psycho-physical situation of the ritual magical performance in terms of four
distinct and essential elements, for:

Objects and/or incantations are used in a ritual performance by the Magician.

[M1] [M2] [Rite: M3] [M4]

This coincides with Malinowski’s analysis of the Elements of Magic, as follows:

The 3 Main Elements in Magic (per Malinowski in EB11.298):

1) Objects [M1] ] and/or Spells [M2]:

M1) Material Objects/“Medicines”: m/b actual poisons, but can be merely representative
Representative objects m/b Homeopathic (Analogical) or Sympathetic (Metonymic)
M2) The Spell: often uses archaic/esoteric vocabulary; but can use Magician’s own words

2) Performer [M3]:
Condition of the Performer: Taboos & proper Purifications must be strictly adhered to
Reasons: Ritual impurity could nullify the effect; Taboos etc. signify Ritual sanctity

3) Rites [M4]:
The Rite: Magic is practiced only in formal and carefully defined ritual situations
The Rite itself may be symbolic (like the objects; eg Sprinkling water to make Rain)

9
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

Rites

Spells Magic Objects

The Ritualist

2c) Religion ― The Overarching Social Institution:

A Religion is a system of Ceremonies (Rites and Rituals), traditional Beliefs, and specialized
Objects that establishes an absolute Cult. According to the EB, religious symbolism has the
following form:

The 3 Forms of Religious Symbolism (based on EB12.793 — K. W. Bolle):

S1) Objects: [Reistic; M1: Materials]

Water, Earth, Plants, Animals
Fetishes, Bundles, Candles, Furniture, Rooms, Buildings

S2) Narratives: [Linguistic; M2: Texts]

Myths, Legends, Tales, Sermons
Incantations, Spells, Prayers, Chants, Songs, Hymns

S3) Behavior: [Ritualistic; M3: Rites]

Rituals (involving elements of S2)
Recitals (involving elements of S1)

[S4) The Symbolists (Not given, but must be assumed)]

10
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

Behavior Ritual Acts

Narrative Symbolism Objects Beliefs Religion Objects

[The Symbolists] The Cult

The Characteristics of Religion (per EOP7.141):

Similarly, we may analyze the psycho-physical situation of many Religions in terms of four
distinct and essential elements, as illustrated by the following statement:

Objects and/or Beliefs are used in the Religious Ceremony performed by the Cult.
[R1] [R2] [Rite: R3] [R4]

According to the EB, all religions exhibit the following characteristics, which however may be
classified according to the four elements mentioned above:

a) Belief in Supernatural Beings (gods) [Spirits]

b) Distinction between Sacred and Profane Objects
R3 c) Ritual Acts focused on Sacred Objects [Ritual, R3; Objects, R1]
d) Moral Code held to be sanctioned by the gods
R1 e) Religious Feelings (awe, mystery, etc.) about Sacred Objects, Rituals, etc. [the Cult, R4]
f) Prayer and other forms of communication with the gods
R2 g) World-View, with a purpose and requirements [Metaphysic, R2]
h) Local personal organization of one’s life based on the World-View
R4 i) Social Group united by the above (a-h) [ie, an Ethnos: a Community or Cult, R4]

11
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

Clifford Geertz: The Interpretation of Culture

Ch. 5. Ethos, World-View, and the Analysis of Sacred Symbols

Religion, according to Clifford Geertz, provides a People with, among other things, a World-
View and an Ethos, as illustrated in the following table:

Religion:

World-View Ethos

Metaphysics Morality and Aesthetics

Ideas of Order Style of Life

Belief (?) Ritual (?)

Reason Emotion

Existence (Ontic) Values (Normative)

Meaning can only be stored in Symbols, and in this case the Sacred Symbols relate an Ontology
& Cosmology to an Aesthetics & Morality [Or better: Sacred Symbols relate an Aesthetics and a
Metaphysics to a Morality]

According to Geertz’ Analysis:

Morality
Ethos
Style of Life
Sacred
Symbols

Metaphysics Aesthetics

World-View
Ideas of Order

12
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

3) The Natural Paradigm (~3000 Years Old)

Philosophy: Understanding the Cosmos based on Nature and Reification (Metonymy)

Nature: The physical Creative-Power that produces the order that adorns the World
Reification: The belief that Forces and Forms are parts of Nature, are Natural Things

Science: Understanding and Manipulating the Universe through Causality & Analogy
Causality: The Generation of one thing from another; based upon Contiguity
Analogy: The Comparison of one thing with another; based upon Isomorphism

Logos: The Language of Causal and Analogical Structures; used in Science and Philosophy
Hypothetical Logic: Causality and Analogy in the Logic of Natural Things
Deductive Logic: Implication and Equivalence in the Logic of Ideal Symbols

Main Trends of Classical Philosophy ― per Dewey: RIP, Ch. One

1st ― Philosophy and Religion:
The task of Philosophy was pre-determined by Religion
To justify, on Rational grounds, the spirit of Traditional Beliefs (but not their Form)

2nd ― Philosophy and Logic:

The Traditional Beliefs were beginning to be unsupported by Religious Authority
So Philosophy had to “make much” of Logic and Proof
But Traditional Beliefs were not verifiable or falsifiable
So Philosophy had to parade its logicality (i.e., its Logical Form)

3rd ― Philosophy and Reality:

Philosophy accepted the Religious Dichotomy of Above-Divine and Below-Mundane
Sacred/Profane as Being/Appearance and Ontos/Phainomena [ie, Onticity/Reality]
That gives Philosophy a Transcendent, Absolute Reality (Onticity) to evaluate

13
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

The West ― The Origin and Development of Science, Philosophy, and Sophism

The Philosophical Schools: The New Ideas:

Milesian Phusiologoi
Thales (624-546 BCE) Phusis, Unity In Multiplicity, Geometric Principles
Anaximander (610-546 BCE) Unbound, Opposites, Evolution, Spherical World
Anaximenes (585-525 BCE)

Pherecydes (f 540 BCE)

Xenophanes (570-470 BCE) One God (Pantheism), Geology (Tectonics)

The Pythagorean School

Pythagoras (570-490 BCE) Relation, Logos & Analogos, Numbers, 1st Kosmos
Alkmaeon (570 BCE-490 BCE) 1st Geographer, World Map, critic of Greek Myths
Philolaus (470-380 BCE)
Archytas (428-347 BCE)

Heraclitus (535-475 BCE) Logos (as Law/Fire), Perpetual Flux

The Eleatic School

Parmenides (510-440 BCE) “Being”, Concepts, Semantic Analysis
Zeno of Elea (490-430 BCE) The Dialectic Method
Melissos of Samos (c.470 BCE-?)

The Pluralists
Empedocles (490-430 BCE) 4 Elements, Evolution, Oscillating Kosmos
Anaxagoras (500-428 BCE) Stoicheai (pre-Atoms), Nous

The Atomist Pluralists

Leucippus (5th century BCE) Atoms & the Void, Causality (Sufficient Reason)
Democritus (460-370 BCE)

Sophism
Sokrates ― The Turning Point The New Ideas:
Sokrates (469 BCE-399 BCE) Induction, Definition, Ethics
‘Philosophos’ (that is, ‘Philosopher’)
Antisthenes (445 BCE – 365 BCE) One of the most important of Sokrates’ students
The Platonic School
Plato (424 BCE-347 BCE) The Forms, Theory of Knowledge/Being
Speusippos (408 BCE-398 BCE)
Ξenophánes (396 BCE-314 BCE) 3 Branches: Physics, Logics, and Ethics

14
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

The Cynics
Diogenes of Sinope (412 BCE – 323 BCE) Most significant Cynic, wore a barrel in the streets
Crates of Thebes (365 BCE – 285 BCE) Teacher of Zeno of Citium, founder of Stoicism

The Megarans
Euclides of Megara (435 BCE – 365 BCE) Founded the Megaran “School”
Eubolides of Miletos (f 4th c. BCE) Logical Paradoxes (7 are extant)
Stilpon of Megara (360 BCE – 260 BCE) Logic and Dialectics

The Peripatetic School

Aristotle (384 BCE-322 BCE) Material and Formal Logic
3 Branches: Aesthetics, Logic, and Ethics
Theophrastos Hypothetical Propositions

The Dialecticians
Kleinomaxos of Thurii (f 4th c. BCE) First to study Propositions and Predicates
Diodorus Cronos (? BCE – 284 BCE)
Philo of Megara (f 300 BCE) Defined Implication Truth-Functionally

The Stoic School

Zeno of Citium (334 BCE – 262 BCE)
Chrysippos of Soli ((279 BCE – 203 BCE)

The Epicurean School

Epikouros of Athens (341 BCE – 270 BCE) Pleasure is the true Good

. . . PG-BRK

15
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

3a) The Three Branches of Philosophy:

Pythagóras is reported to have said that humans in general are like spectators at public spectacle.
Some come for “money and gain” (i.e., “riches and luxury”); some come for “renown” (“power .
. . and glory”); but the “most liberal” come to “observe the beautiful” (“contemplation”).
per Xenocrátes and the Platonists:

Glory Ethics

Pythagoras Platonists

Contemplation Luxury Logic Physics

According to Aristotle, Thought, Knowledge, and Science all allow for different kinds of
expression: Poetic or Creative expression (Poietiké), Theoretic or Speculative (Theoretiké), and
Pragmatic of Practical (Praktiké)

Sources:

Topics ― 145a15-16
Knowledge:
Pragmatic Theoretical
Pragmatic
Productive
Metaphysics ― 1025b25
Thought (Dianoia)
Pragmatic
Aristotle Productive
Theoretical
Natural Science (Phusiké Epistemé)
Theoretic Poetic Not Pragmatic
Not Productive
But Theoretical
Nicomachean Ethics ― 1139a26-28
Thinking (Dianoia)
Practical (Praktiké, Orexis)
Theoretical (Theoretiké, Nous)
Productive (Poietiké, Aisthesis)

The Three Branches Modern Philosophy:

Morality Practical Reason

Hume Kant

Intellect Passions Pure Reason Aesthetics

. . . PG-BRK

16
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

The Utility of Values:

Philosophical Values: Natural Values:

The People
Two Ethical Values: Two Social Values:
Goodness & Evil Cooperation & Competition
Two Social Alternatives Amity & Enmity
Propagation Extinction
Consorts Rivals
Cooperation Competition

The Human Community

and
Two Logical Values: Two Cognitive Values:
Truth & Falsity You Memory & Imagination
Reality & Fantasy
and
The Physical World

Life Death
Nutrients Threats
Pleasure Pain
Two Personal Alternatives
Two Aesthetic Values: Two Physical Values:
Awesome & Awful Pleasure & Pain
The World Comfort & Discomfort

Above Awesome

Right Behind Goodness Falsity

Forward Left Truth Evil

Below Awful

17
 PHIL 1301 ― Lecture Notes

The Triune Brain:

1) The Reptilian Complex (RC): Breathing, Pulse, Arousal, Movement, Balance, Sleep,
and early stages of Sensory Information processing

2) The Mammalian Complex (MC): Motivated Behavior, Emotions, Memory; Blood

Pressure, Blood Sugar, etc.

3) The Human Complex (HC): Higher Cognitive and Emotional Fns., including Conscious
Experience of Perception, Emotion, Thought, Planning, & Unconscious processes

Aristotle’s Analysis of the Psyche:

1) The Psyche has 2 parts: one Rational and the other Irrational
2) the Irrational part has 2 parts:
a) the Nutritive: widely distributed, causes nutrition and growth
b) the Appetitive: the part of the Irrational that is responsive to Reason

The Psyche:

Rational Irrational

Reason Appetition Nutrition

Ethical
Character

Society

Rational Appetitive
Reason Emotion
HC MC
Psyche

Nutritive
Growth
RC

18