Book Intro
- thomas reid
- Jun 25, 2023
- 5 min read
Some of this information has been written before in blogs, so forgive the repetition.
Often in intro classes students ask me What is Philosophy? Each time I attempt an answer I realize further how impossible it really is to do. What I end up telling them is that this class - Intro to Philosophy - is a semester-long answer to that question. I also tell them that you never really get a simple answer.
An interesting way for me to answer the question - though it is a book-length answer - is this project. It is a multi-faceted response to multiple questions and I call it The Tenets Of Critical Commonsense.
In an intro sense it makes sense to consider some of these questions without answers. The first one is above. The next might be, What is wrong with Philosophy? Why do people hate philosophy? And why does it seem pointless? or What good is philosophy?
We will discuss A=A, Rand's response to people who want more philosophy. She felt, as Reid before her, that some answers were not that hard and were beaten-to-death by what I call HC philosophers. Is reality real? Simply yes. She also meant that there was logic behind her objectivism. She meant that things added up. For example, to be a nihilist (this is my idea) you have to believe absolutely that there are no absolutes. This is A equalling something else. For this project we are going to use this very example. HC is rife with examples of thinkers who logically claim knowledge or access to things they also claim are not known and not accessible. This contradiction is the historical marker for HC writing.
What is HC? It is most philosophy, and most certainly after Kant, that indulges obscurant writing and made-up words and phrases. The conclusion of reading HC writing is that you seem to have gained nothing and failed at solving a puzzle. A lot of people do not feel like this is the point of philosophy. Rand was one of those people. A quintessential example of this style or canon is Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). What makes HC even worse for many readers (in addition to arduous work with a lack of pay-off) is the lack of creativity. To understand this contrast Heidegger's writing which leaves one dry with Whitehead (another HC example) who does provide creativity. Despite Whitehead's obscurity and density, his writing provides interesting tangents and literary devices that seem as compensation.
After discussing A=A and the nihilist contradictions we move to metaethics. If we can ferret out one real sense of truth, as I think we can, then other's can follow. If we can agree that nihlist's fail logically and hold them accountable to truth, it makes sense to use this function to provide basic foudational truths for ethics. It is a CCS maxim that if there is one truth there are many. If one idea can in fact be true, we can agree, then from this potentially we can construct the world. Note that later we are making the basic claim that reality is real and if this is true an ethical system can be based on this world.
The third chapter is about commonsense principles. This was something Reid laid out though we might not follow him exactly. For the purposes of concision our system starts with these three: Cause is real (if unknown), Reality is real (if also unknown in susbstance) and Identity is real (continuous). Previous to this we have, in a metaethical sense, laid groundwork for objective moral standards and it may seem muddled to have that precede principles, but I did this only for organizational purposes. They all interwine as an effort to clear up radical skepticism and it's nihilist contradictions so that philosophy can unburden itself from the stagnation of "zero sum" and ridiculousness (Reid's favorite claim). Reid wanted to hold the empiricists accountable by emphasizing these three basic ideas: cause, reality and self.
After this, it is important to note how this factors into our lives. As Kant before us (at his best) we are creating a response to the question about free will. The most important principle, if the first three cohere, is active power. As individuals we have the ability to act and choose. And this acting and choosing has meaning.
Chapter five focuses on the question of reality. Because this was so important in the overthrowing of commonsense by radical skepticism, we try to add clarity and wisdom to the conclusions of metaphysics. Herein we find Rand's passion, the place in the larger debate, where she takes more time and attempts to critically examine what she is rebellion against and why. Her point, like Reid's, as it focuses on a commonsense system, respons to skeptics in identifiable ways. Is there a reality? Simply put, yes. Daniel N. Robinson (1937-2018) was a philosopher of mind who was notorious for saying, and I paraphrase: Why is reality real? Because it is. (As a side-note, the critical aspect of this new commonsense is essentially this: an answer to the question regarding versions of this quote and the charge that it is too simple by empiricists and academics.)
After this effort in realism (contra idealism) I introduce the core of my efforts regarding language, the evaluation of knowledge, and the conclusions of epistemology. The first step I have found that intro students must take, though it again seems too simple, is the understanding of the difference between rote and process thinking. In short, rote is memorization and practice and process is actual intellectual thought.
This is followed by "active knowledge," and the idea that only through exercising active powers, by doing, can learning be achieved.
Chapter eight is an exploration of specifically what is wrong with HC and the history of philosophy. It considers both why most people find it ridiculous today and why it unfortunately has no potential definition with which students might start.
Next is a discussion of Reid's take on Newton's take of our limits of knowledge. Reid was, like Robinson, somewhat of a professional scientist. The idea that a limit of knowledge outside of physical science, and specifically in philosophy, must be understood is where we begin. For example, we need to see that we may be able to talk clearly about free will and may be able to accurately describe it, this is not the same thing as understanding it. We will focus on philosophy's favorite issue: efficient causation.
And finally, the last major topic for the tenets of CCS is an applied version of what it means for one's actual life. Following an existentialist outline, I will attempt to make certain claims about on what we base things like ethics, politics, and society. Through this I want to keep the theme of temporality and that our actual lives, of what it consists, constrain how and what we know. Staying aware and true to this adds to the project of answering What is philosophy and avoids the problems of contradiction and decadence.
BornMarch 9, 1937
Monticello, New York
DiedSeptember 17, 2018 (aged 81)
Frederick, Maryland
Alma materB.A.Colgate University
Ph.D.City University of New York (Neuropsychology)AwardsLifetime Achievement Award (American Psychological Association
Division of the History of Psychology)Distinguished Contribution Award (American Psychological Association Division of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology)
Distinguished Alumni Award (2009), Graduate Center, City Univ. New York [1] Joseph Gittler Award (American Psychological AssociationScientific careerFieldsPhilosophy of Mind
History of PsychologyInstitutionsUniversity of Oxford
Comentarios