Key Terms

Deductive reasoning

‘Be careful of that wasp; it might sting’

This is based on the logic that wasps as a whole have stingers; therefore, each individual wasp will have, therefore we do not have to examine each and every wasp to reach a conclusion about what characteristics it may have, as through deductive reasoning we can make an assumption that is efficient.

In short, you argue from the GENERAL (all wasps have stings) to the PARTICULAR (this wasp will have a sting) – make sure your general statement is certain though! – is it here?

A deductive argument is valid if the truth of the conclusion actually does follow logically.

Illustrate-

1) all men are mortal

2) Soc rates is a man

3) Therefore Socrates is mortal

Induction

Applying previous experiences to a general rule.

Observation è Pattern è Hypothesis èRule.

When a group of people bear a similar trait, it would be inductive to suggest that the next person you meet from that group will have that trait.

For example; all swans I have seen are white, therefore the next swan I see will probably be white.

Explain: Starting with a set of premise (eg this crow is black) you form a conclusion (eg all crows are black).

An induction is falsifiable – you can check if it’s right or wrong (eg you can look at different crows to see if they’re all black or not).

Illustration: This bachelor is happy therefore all bachelors are happy

In short you work from the PARTICULAR (this bachelor) to the GENERAL (all bachelors)

Necessary Truth

Necessary Truth is a truth that HAS to be true. It cannot be false. It is true in itself

Logical and mathematical truths are generally regarded as typical examples of necessary truths. For rationalism, necessary truth is truth of reason and is based on the insight into real connections between facts. For empiricism, knowledge of the world must be based on perception.

In Leibniz's phrase, a necessary truth is true in all possible worlds. If these are all the worlds that accord with the principles of logic, however different they may be otherwise, then the truth is a logically necessary truth. If they cover all the worlds whose metaphysics is possible, then the proposition is metaphysically necessary.

Example: "Squares have four sides."

Descartes would say that God existing is a necessary truth because of the Ontological Argument - (God is perfect, therefore he must exist because he is perfect and because he is perfect he must exist!!!)

Contingent Truth

EXPLAINATION:
A contingent truth is one that could be true, but it could also be false – it completely depends - however it cannot be both true AND false.

A contingent truth is an idea that suggests that some objects exist and are true but do not always have to be i.e. in a different world a pen could not exist, but in our world it does.

EXAMPLE:
I could exist but only because my parents existed but I do not HAVE to exist, as suggested by necessary truths.

We all enjoy a good contingent truth at times. Basically, to put it simply, it means that it is a statement thatcould have been false even though it happens to be true.

Since that’s a bit crazy, let’s make it simple.

‘Cats have claws.’

Maybe they do – maybe they don’t

It’s all to do with essential and accidental qualities. Being a mammal, for example, is part of a cat’s essence. However, the claws are not necessarily so.

If you’re still confused, then think of it this way; a contingent truth is one that could logically be true or false. For example, Hume treats God as a contingent truth.

‘It is logical to reason that God does exist, but at the same time, it is logical to reason that he doesn’t.’

Maybe he does – maybe he doesn’t – it’d depend upon something – some sort of evidence

A contingent truth is something that could logically be true or false. Contingent truths, otherwise known as falsehoods, happen to be true (or false), but might have been otherwise. For example:

"Squares have four sides." is necessary.

BUT

"Stop signs are hexagonal." is contingent.

So, for it to be contingent, it can be true and also happen to be false at the same time. Also, If a statement happens to be true in our world, but is false in some other worlds, then it is a contingent truth.

A posteriori knowledge

- knowledge that is derived from experience. This knowledge is based on sensations and empirical evidence. For example, ‘it is raining outside’ isa posterior knowledge, because it is based on sensory experiences, and couldn’t be known without first having had this experience. This kind of knowledge is based more on empiricist views, who believe that all knowledge is derived from sensation.

A Priori knowledge

is knowledge before experience. You just know it. Examples are those such as God, Maths and Ethics. Plato claims that we have a priori knowledge of maths, and example to support this is Socrates and the slave in the market place. The slave, who would have had no prior teaching showed an understanding of the shapes. Therefore, it is claimed he must have had a priori knowledge of geometry.

Before and completely independent of experience, rationalist held concept of knowledge, veins in marble, schema for using, and understanding any knowledge found a posterior, through or after experience, are known a priori, before any experience of them, a priori knowledge include:- ratios, ethics, God, and the good, these are concepts, or knowledge, that is known a priori, and before any form of experience.

Also, other types of a priori knowledge are that of

Reason: you work out the answer via general knowledge through maths or scientific concepts, for example the size and constancy of the sun, even though via experience, it appears both small, and to ‘wax and wane’ we know, through reason, that the sun is huge and of a constant size.

Intuition: This is the so called natural feelings, for example, the way something feels, if something is stated, your na5tural feeling about it, whether the statement feels good, or bad, is known as intuition, this again is known before experience, and thus, is a prori.

Innate: knowledge that we are born with, rationalists state that, although they agree we are born a blank slate, we are not born without any forms of understanding knowledge, these, were known as ‘veins in marble’ this was put forward by Leibniz, stating that we are a tabula rasa with underlying veins in that marble.

These concepts aren’t held by empiricists so much, as they believe we have nothing in our head when we are born, and simply soak up the world.

A synthetic proposition

is a proposition that is capable of being true or untrue based on facts about the world - in contrast to an analytic proposition which is true by definition.

For example, "Mary had a little lamb" is a synthetic proposition - since its truth depends on whether or not she in fact had a little lamb.

The truth or falsity of synthetic propositions is possible but not certain - their truth depends on what the universe is like. (Is there a ‘Mary’s Lamb’ in it or not?)

Analytic proposition

Analytic propositions are those which are true simply by virtue of their meaning. They are true by definition, they cannot be falsified, they are undeniably true.

.Examples:

Analytic Proposition: All bachelors are male, all triangles have three sides – examples Kant used.

An Analytic Truth is one which contains its predicate concept in its subject, for example Triangle = 3 sides – no need to state once you know that particular information.

And as such with the other example – The concept bachelor contains the concept “unmarried”; and it is also part of the definition, likewise the same for the triangle.

They are tautologies: a statement which is useless repetition, from which we learn nothing.

Truth In Art

Think about different levels: (Representation, universal , epiphanic - see link)

Think about propaganda too.

Van Dyck's Triple Portrait of Charles I

link

Primarily, to serve its purpose, this painting must be representative of a physical object (Charles I). Hence, it retains a literal truth. Universally, it is a prime example of the narcissism of Renaissance nobility, and so perhaps says something of Charles’ character. Otherwise, I do not believe there is any other truth, certainly no epiphany. In terms of propaganda, it could be perceived as a means of displaying the King in a sensitive, well-mannered style.

Antony Van Dyck’s triple portrait of Charles I portrays a representational truth, it looks like the thing it is portraying. The portrait shows physical properties of Charles I. This means that the portrait has physical truth in it.

The portrait also has a deeper level of truth to it. There is a purpose to this piece of art, which is to portray King Charles I in a particular way. The portrait shows the sensible more gentle side to monarchy by simply showing what there is with no fanciful colours or background.

Due to the simple yet accurate way this portrait has been created it has a sense of beauty to it. Beauty because of the way it so clearly shows you what it is supposed to be, there are not too many hidden messages to this artwork, and so people can appreciate it for what it is.

Michelangelo's David

Michelangelo’s David – sculpted for the hegemonic Medici family in order to display outside the governmental seat in Florence. Stylistically, it is a cultural combination of Italian Renaissance art, which in this instance is a re-emergence of antiquated Greek art, on the subject of a Jewish religious legend even further back in time.

It is highly unlikely this has a literal representative truth, as the story of David and Goliath is a Biblical legend. Supposedly, it retains a metaphorical truth. This depiction of a calm, reflective David before the battle with Goliath symbolizes the confidence and measured power of the Medici’s Republic of Florence. In this sense, it is more propaganda, as it is used to assert a political statement, not a universal truth or epiphany that holds significant spiritual or transcendental meaning to individuals – though it could be perceived as a testament to the arrogant extravagance of the Medici household.

In this sculpture, there is some representational truth to be found, despite some of the inaccurate proportions. The hands are too big, as is the head, and it is unlikely that the real David looked anything like this interpretation. However, despite these imperfections, it is still a relatively accurate piece of a healthy man. The main truths found in this art are much deeper than the superficial surface. It was commissioned by the Medici family of Florence, and was likely to be a piece of propaganda. It is unsurprising therefore that this sculpture is inaccurate, as propaganda so often is. As it shows the wealth of the family, and the muscular, chiselled torso of David is representational to the strength that the family possessed.

This statue is sculptured by Michelangelo and is suppose to represent King David in the nude. It was inspired by the story of the young shepherd boy who chose to fight a far stronger adversary in order to save his people from invasion. He wore no armour, with a sling as his only weapon. David defeats Goliath using superior skill and courage.

The sculpture is said to represent the King just before his fight with Goliath: thinking about what is to come. It shows him holding the sling-shot in which he killed the giant with over his left shoulder and shows him looking rather tense but confidently ready to approach Goliath. It is said to depict the moment where he thinks about the forth-coming event however, many believe it depicts the moment after the battle where David reflects upon his victory. There can be said to be many truths behind this sculpture in that it represents masculinity and power but also suggests deliberation and deep thought concerning one’s actions. If you are to look in detail at the sculpture, you will notice that the proportions of the body are slightly out of place and do not fully represent the human body in its natural form; the head and hands are both much larger than the body. It had been argued that this is because originally, the statue was suppose to have been place on the top of a church so therefore, when looking at it from a much lower angle, it would have looked normal. There could however, be underlying truths about the artists choice to alter the proportions of the human body. For example, making the hands and head much bigger shows that Man is powerful and clever and suggests that just because you are small in size, does not mean you cannot conquer any ambition you may have. As with the story behind David; the young shepherd boy was much smaller than Goliath but with skill, courage and determination, he managed to come out the ‘bigger’ person and save his people.

In my opinion, i believe the statue looks quite ‘Godly’ in that it shows David looking very comfortable in his own skin and depicts his mental superiority and strength.

How is there truth in this picture?

· On a representational level – this is clearly Michelangelo’s view of David; but on a deeper level, it also represents what Michelangelo himself described as a ‘divine perfection’ in the following quotation:

‘True art is made noble and religious by the mind producing it. ... The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection. ... A man paints with his brains and not with his hands.’ (Michelangelo)

· Could this be an insight into the mind of God – or is this religious piece of work intended to give us an idea of God, of this ‘divine perfection’? Albert Einstein felt that the most important function of art was to awaken and keep alive a religious feeling in those who were receptive to it. Could this be the ‘truth’ in David?

· Epiphanic – designed to give a sense of the noumenal; a religious sense that there is something greater than ourselves out there

Michelangelo’s statue of David from the biblical story David and Goliath does not seem to have any representation to it. There is no physical truth to this piece of art for it is certainly not what we would assume David to look like, especially from the way he is portrayed in the bible itself.

Though it must be said that Italian Michelangelo specifically created this statue in the ancient Greek style which is over 2000 years old and it is from a Jewish legend which is over 3000 years old. This means there is truth to the style of the piece and the way in which Michelangelo wanted it to look, despite not being truthful in the physical representation of David himself.

Even though it looks like something real and is quite obviously something human, it has a strange sense of being something more than just human, something Godlike and powerful. This means that it has an epiphanical truth within it.

T

his sculpture, completed by Michelangelo in 1504, was created by commission of the notorious ‘Medici’ family. The sculpture is pregnant with historical, artistic, and social background.

It denotes to us the story of King David and the giant, Goliath. The sculpture, therefore, contains truth by means of representing an important and powerful story within Christianity. Whether that truth goes any deeper than that, and can tell us anything about ourselves as humans or the world we live in, is another question.

Although the sculpture is powerful even to the point of feeling epiphanic in its religious content and aesthetic beauty, there does not seem to be any equally powerful, profound truths inside the sculpture. Even in terms of the story of King David and Goliath, the sculpture seems inaccurate. David was supposedly at the time just a humble shepherd, even though he is shown as a powerful young man, poised for battle (note the veins bulging in his right hand). Adding to this, the sculpture is even somewhat out of proportion. In terms of truth value, this sculpture seems only to contain rather superficial, traditional and historical truths rather than anything epiphanic.

To add to this, Michelangelo was an Italian, Renaissance artist, depicting a Judeo-Christian tale in an Ancient Greek style. To actually be able to represent the events (whether they happened or not, regardless) would be either a miracle in itself, or sheer fluke. It is a work of imagination and ideology and reflects this, too. Its truth value is therefore lessened in terms of accuracy to the original tale, then, also.

Holbein's "The Ambassadors"

link

link

link

This painting acts as a puzzle. Intentionally, there are subtle objects that are meant to symbolize higher meanings. For instance, the lute with a broken string, a symbol of discord, could be interpreted as a statement of the conflict between the scholarly man on the left and the holy man on the right – with a Lutheran hymnbook between them, this statement could be on the subject of ideological disparity during the Renaissance. Reformed plutocracy and Catholic aristocracy could be embodied here. Also, the anamorphic (whereby it must be viewed at a certain angle or with a special device) skull could also represent a reminder of mortality.

This painting holds many hidden truths. At first glance, it appears merely to be a double portrait of two wealthy ambassadors, and on this level of representational truth it is relatively accurate. However, at the bottom of the painting there is what at first appears to be a strange shape. This can only be deciphered by looking at the painting from a certain angle. This begins to show some of the deeper truths that are hidden in the painting behind the physical surface. This skull could merely be just a reminder of one’s morality, or have a deeper meaning. Personally, I would say that there is very little epiphanic truth in this painting. I don’t feel a sense of deeper meaning in this painting, and find it’s strange objects only puzzling, and not wondrous.

How is there truth in this picture?

· On a very simple representational level, this painting shows two people – Jean de Dinteville and Georges de Selve. We would feel led to believe that this is an accurate representation of Dinteville and Selve physically.

· Esoteric truths – there is much depth in this painting, and therefore there may be many ‘hidden truths’ – for example, is the mortality of man a hidden meaning in this painting? The smudged skull that can only be seen clearly from below could be representational of this

There is little doubt that there is a certain amount representational truth in this portrait. Both men looked like their portrait, wore those clothes and owned those instruments. Although they have been painted truthfully, it is undoubtedly one side of the truth – the truth wanted to convey by the commissioners of the painting. They have, in every way, been made to look wealthy, powerful and learned.

There is, however, a deeper truth that Holbein had put into this painting. He has filled it with esoteric truths – hidden comments on the times – for example the broken string on the lute symbolises the discord between the church and the crown.

The most obvious symbolism is the anamorphic skull at the bottom of the painting. This is supposed to convey a deeper, universal truth about our own mortality, perhaps that all the wealth, political power and knowledge in the world cannot change the fact we are all going to die.

The ambassadors painting is an esoteric truth, meaning that it is a hidden truth especially to an onlooker who isn’t in the ‘know’. It is designed for people who are particularly understanding to the mysterious meanings of this painting. For example in the very top left hand corner of the painting behind the curtain there is a person, and it looks very much like Jesus when he was nailed to the cross. I think this gives an epiphanic truth of god, showing us that the unknown is there even if we cannot see it with our own eyes. It is also showing that the death of Christ’s son is because of us and there will always be a collective guilt on our shoulders for this act and we should be grateful for Jesus sacrificing himself for the sins us as people committed.

Holbein’s ambassadors is a mysterious painting with many theories surrounding it. There may be truth is the three levels of the painting, Heaven- represented by the astrolabe and other objects on the upper shelf, Living world- which is represented by the books and musical instruments on the lower shelf, Hell- represented by the skewed skull at the bottom of the painting.

Truth can be found in the skull, in that it is a reminder of mortality to great men such as the ambassadors pictured. It may be skewed to give the impression that death is not always obvious but is lurking in the background of our lives. The objects can all be linked together in different ways. One way we can find truth is through linking the skull, scientific instruments and clergymen.

This could be interpreted as the decline of importance in the medieval churches ideology, being slowly replaced by science. On a different note the scientific instruments and clergyman could be combined to show the new emphasis placed on looking for answers to our world, also looking towards the heavens for god and more knowledge.

Kirk's Star Wars Corner

R2 Translator

Star Wars Asciimation Version

Art?

Nietzsche - God Is Dead

In Nietzsche’s book ‘The Gay Science’ the character of ‘the madman’ declares that “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him”, however this is not meant in the literal sense. It’s the idea that the Judaeo-christianic notion of ‘God’ is dead as it had become unbelievable. His nihilistic declaration illustrates how science, philosophy and politics had removed a need for the traditional ‘god’ figure that was once an explanation for the anomalies of our knowledge. Nietzsche values ‘God’ as a projection of our mundane physiological processes, representing a reverence for our dead ancestors or a desire to assuage our bad conscious. God is a historical phenomenon and a remnant of a redundant ‘slave morality’ and a repressed revenge fantasy of slaves. Nietzsche however did not see them fitting with the changing morals and society that were emerging towards the end of the nineteenth century.

‘God is dead’ (‘Gott ist tot’) is an intentionally provocative and nihilistic statement to express Nietzsche’s view that God is simply a projection of our own mundane psychological processes. This statement is first seen in The Gay Science, which was first published in 1882. The full paragraph, as found in the parable of ‘The Madman’ is as follows:

‘God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?’

We should not, of course, take the statement, ‘God is dead’ literally – it does not mean that Nietzsche ever believed in a God. Instead, it means that God is no longer a feasible foundation of wisdom; we should discard the idea of God and look for meanings and values deeper than those found in Christianity.

Nietzsche feels that we must cast of the idea of God and religion, for God is simply born out of our sense of unworthiness and fear. According to Nietzsche, God represents:

· A revenge fantasy of slaves – the desire of a repressed people
· A reverence for the dead- God is a symbolic representation of dead elders, and worshipping God is really just worshipping our ancestors
· A desire to assuage bad conscience – we are disappointed in our selves, we view ourself in terms of a narrative. There could be redemption, it could all mean something, but it would require an historical observer to make it all mean something

God is a historical phenomenon or remnant of a redundant ‘slave morality’ which we can, should, and would cast off – this he is ‘dead’. Although this has not yet happened, Nietzsche felt that this would happen in the future – and this is revealed in section 125 of The Gay Science:

‘This prodigious event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves.’

It could be argued that Freud’s ideas regarding the idea of God are perhaps similar to those put forward by Nietzsche, albeit less controversial. Freud also claimed that God is a projection of our mundane internal psychological processes. These processes are unconscious (we are not aware of them), and as a result of this, God is simply fuelled by a neurotic anxiety.

Tests for Tuesday 19th January

Block - C

Test on attempts to explain how the idea of ‘God’ is merely a human construction and projection that emerges from mundane social or psychological processes.

Block - E

Test on "How much do we contribute to the way the world appears to us as experience?"

or

"How could mere conglomerates of sensation yield the principles we use to judge anything? Perhaps these guiding principles are not derived from, but known independently of, experience."

Some things to think about whilst snowbound:

Block E have a test to prepare for (next Tuesday) - need to be able to discuss the implications of Kant's work on categories - as well as know what Whorf discovered about language / thought in Hopi Indians

Block E can do some reading on Marx and religion here - need to click on the blue links towards the bottom of the article to get the full text.

See you next week!