What is a Theory of Human Nature? Philosophy 224 What is a Theory of Human Nature?

Philosophical Anthropology Our work this semester will be concentrated in a particular region of philosophy. Our first task then is to specify the nature of philosophy in general. Then we can think about the particular set of philosophical concerns that we are going to address.

What is Philosophy? Philosophy is the attempt to address some general, fundamental questions, about the the world and our place in it. Three main branches: Metaphysics - Studies what sorts of things in general exist, and what sort of world this is. Examples: existence of God, free will vs. determinism. Epistemology - Studies the nature of knowledge, what we know and how we can know it. Ethics - Studies the prescriptive and evaluative dimensions of experience. Examples: Is lying wrong? What is the good life?

How does Philosophy do it? There are a number of different schools and methods of philosophical inquiry, but common to them all is a reliance on arguments to justify claims or assertions. An argument in the philosophical sense is a set of statements, some of which (the premises) provide reasons or justification for another (the conclusion). Logic, a sub-discipline of philosophy, studies arguments and provides us with tools for evaluating them.

An Example This is a famous example from Aristotle. Imagine a wooden ship sailing for a decade around the Mediterranean. Over the course of the voyage, every plank in the ship wears out and must be replaced. Is it the same ship that docks at the end of the voyage that left port 10 years before? Notice some things about this question: Not empirical, it can’t be answered just by considering what our senses tell us (‘sameness’ is not a sensible quality). Far-reaching implications (identity of composite objects over time). Puzzling. Compelling arguments for incompatible positions

Why do Philosophers do it? The Cardinal Rule of Philosophy: Truth comes first. When doing philosophy, we are trying to identify what is true. That comes before personalities, feelings, and desires. How is the dependence on argument reflective of this rule?

Cardinal Rules of Philosophy Philosophers question. Question the claims of others. Question their own beliefs. Philosophy is impersonal. The philosopher does not choose beliefs based on his personality or feelings. The philosopher does not take criticism of ideas personally. The philosopher does not accept or reject philosophical claims based on who says them. The philosopher does not go along with ideas because of personal or social consequences.

Cardinal Rules of Philosophy Philosophers are guided by reason. The philosopher has reasons for his beliefs. The philosopher asks for the reasons for others’ beliefs. The philosopher is moved by good reasons presented to him. Philosophers are open-minded and critical. Our ideas and arguments are open to criticism. The philosopher looks for objections to her beliefs. The ideas and arguments of others are also open to criticism.

What about human nature? Given this account of philosophy, what sort of conclusions should we draw about the attempt to provide a philosophical account of human nature? One thing we should note is that though philosophical anthropology shares some of the concerns of social scientific anthropology, it works with different methods and at a different level. Methods? SSA is a descriptive, inductive discipline; as we’ve seen, PA is a rational, deductive activity with normative/prescriptive implications. Levels? SSA focuses our attention on the heterogeneity of human activities and forms of life; PA is the attempt to specify the essence of humanity (that which makes it what it is).

Structural Elements Review of a range of theories of human nature reveal some common structural elements. Metaphysical Assumptions: claims about the basic nature of reality, about how the world works. Ontological Assumptions: claims about where human beings fit into reality. Diagnosis: an explanation of the problematic character of human experience, of why it is so commonly the case that our ‘fit’ is not comfortable. Solution: an attempt to resolve the problematic character of experience.

Evaluating THNs Given the common structural elements of THNs, we can readily identify some questions relevant to the evaluation of competing THNs. Is the metaphysics acceptable? Does the ontology adequately account for our experience of ourselves and others? Does the diagnosis capture the relevant concerns? Does it offer practical and effective solutions. All of these questions address extra-theoretical relationship between the theory and the world. We should also be concerned with some intra-theoretical standards. Is the theory internally consistent? Is the theory open to verification/falsification? Is the theory consistent with other well established theories we hold?