Some of you may have chosen to read Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder for the summer reading. This book is very different than the other two choices on our list. The most obvious difference is that it is a novel instead of a traditional work of history. The novel is part mystery (Who is the philosopher? Who is Hilde? Who is Albert Knag, and what does he want with Sophie?) and it is part history of western philosophy. Of course, for our purposes, we are more interested in this novel as a history of philosophy. Gaarder does a very good job of making western philosophy more accessible to younger readers by wrapping it in the narrative of Sophie and the Philosopher. Pay close attention to the big ideas presented by the Philosopher in his lessons and the effect those ideas have on the world in which Sophie lives. It is these big ideas with which we should concern ourselves.
In our survey of modern European history this year we will be studying the history of ideas. Many students struggle with these ideas (especially when we get to the 19th century -isms). We added Sophie's World to the list of reading many years ago precisely because it deals only with ideas. One way to help understand the big ideas in the history of philosophy is to develop an understanding of the major themes in philosophy and some of the major conflicts. Every era likes to pretend that it has invented some great new idea or philosophical thread. On closer inspection, what seems like something new and revolutionary turns out to be a variation on a theme that sometimes can be traced back to the ancient Greeks. Einstein's search for a unified field theory can (as an idea) be traced back to Thales of Miletus, who postulated a theory of the universe as far back as 600 B.C.E. He believed that everything in the universe was tied together by water as the basic element. Even teachers haven't really invented anything new. We still use the basic question-and-answer technique to lead our students to understanding that was developed by Socrates in the 5th century B.C.E. (the Socratic Method). So, it should come as no surprise to see the same basic idea come and go throughout history.
 |
| Detail from The School of Athens by Raphael (1509 - 1511) |
To give you a little bit of help with Sophie's World, I will briefly introduce you to one of the biggest conflicts in philosophical history; the problem of universals. In the 12th century C.E. (A.D. for most of you), the problem of universals was a major issue for many theologians at the universities of Europe. The basic problem was actually the nature of reality. What constitutes reality? What is "real"? These theologians (people who study God's attributes and relation to the Universe) were divided into two camps that directly reflected the earlier schools of Plato and Aristotle, the Ancient Greek philosophers. Take a close look at the picture above. It's a detail from The School of Athens by the Renaissance painter Raphael (We'll learn more about him later this year.). In this giant fresco located in the Apostolic Palace at the Vatican, Raphael places images of Plato and Aristotle arguing about the nature of reality in the center of figures representing philosophy and the liberal arts. Raphael envisioned philosophy as the search for causes of knowledge, and identified this conflict between Plato and Aristotle as the root of this search.
So what? What were these big ideas that Plato and Aristotle have? How are they related to the "problem of universals" in the 12th century? Some of these arguing theologians took the position of Plato (the guy on the left). They claimed that the physical objects that surround us (rocks, trees, horses, etc.) are not real. They are simply the physical manifestations of universal ideas (ideals, "rockness", "treeness", "horseness", etc.) that reside in the mind of God. Plato called this the world of ideals. To him, we were all imperfect reflections of ideal forms that existed in this ideal world. We are nothing more than shadows cast on the wall. All knowledge comes from this world of ideals. That's why Plato is pointing to the heavens in the painting. To these 12th century theologians that means that every thought, every bit of knowledge that enters your mind has been planted there by God. One can only arrive at the truth by examining these universals. These theologians were known as realists.
The other camp took the position of Aristotle in the argument. They believed that the objects around us (those same rocks, trees, horses, etc.) constitute reality. If you've ever had an unfortunate encounter with a rock, tree, or horse, you probably see their point (ouch!). Just like Aristotle, they believed that universal ideas and concepts were simply names that we have applied to these things in the world. In other words, ideas come from the world around us through the application of human reason (which is a gift from God). One can only arrive at the truth by examining the objects and the world around us. This is why Aristotle is motioning to the world under the heavens in the painting. Adherents of this way of thinking were known as nominalists (from the Latin word nomina; name).
Now, get a load of this! Fast forward 500 years to the 17th century and the foundations of the Scientific Revolution. Two distinct modes of thinking and discovering "the truth" about the world developed. The first of these ideas claimed that the world of the senses was illusory and the only way that one could reach the truth was through the application of deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is a process that arrives at conclusions from a set of premises. In this case, these premises came from the examination of universal truths through the application of human reason. For example; all cats are animals; this is a cat; therefore, this is an animal. The most basic truth of all was the starting point for the major proponent of this way of thinking, Rene Descartes: I think, therefore, I am. The second way of thinking, known as inductive reasoning, was advocated by Francis Bacon. According to Bacon, the whole of human knowledge comes from observing the world around us, and then applying human reason to what we have observed. For example; every polar bear we have ever seen is white; therefore, all polar bears are white. This would have to be verified by further observation. While these may seem like new ideas, they are really a variation on the Plato (realists/deductive reasoning) vs. Aristotle (nominalists/inductive reasoning) argument.
If you are reading Sophie's World this summer, look for these big ideas and how they affect the way in which Sophie perceives the world around her. If I have confused you, or you have questions about the other books feel free to send me an e-mail, or use the comments section below.
No comments:
Post a Comment