eng An excellent path to philosophy|
eng An excellent path to philosophy
Fullerton's Introduction to Philosophy is an excellent path to the fascinating aspects of philosophy, still today, although first published hundred years ago. True although he says in his preface the opposite that "there cannot be said to be a beaten path in philosophy" and that he concludes his discussion of 'modern philosophy' by the admonition of his thesis 93. DO NOT HASTILY ACCEPT A DOCTRINE. But that is what philosophy is: a cavalcade of controversies.
Fullerton announces his aim in six points:
|Parametre lines at the beginning of the reader notes|
|1. Fullerton-Philosophy-ajk,$3.65# en||???|
|2. 3,4270,201,his,eng,20140601,20140614,5,Fullerton George Stuart: An Introduction to Philosophy||???|
|3. ama Link to source of purchased ebook...||???|
|4. eng Link to Ajk review at source of purchased ebook...||???|
|1||0101||CHAPTER I THE MEANING OF THE WORD "PHILOSOPHY" IN THE PAST AND IN THE PRESENT|
|1||010101||1. THE BEGINNINGS OF PHILOSOPHY.|
|9||010102||2. THE GREEK PHILOSOPHY AT ITS HEIGHT.|
|9||010103||3. PHILOSOPHY AS A GUIDE TO LIFE.|
|5||010104||4. PHILOSOPHY IN THE MIDDLE AGES.|
|8||010105||5. THE MODERN PHILOSOPHY.|
|10||010106||6. WHAT PHILOSOPHY MEANS IN OUR TIME.|
|12||0102||CHAPTER II COMMON THOUGHT, SCIENCE, AND REFLECTIVE THOUGHT|
|12||010201||7. COMMON THOUGHT.|
|13||010202||8. SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.|
|16||010204||10. THE SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY.|
|18||010205||11. REFLECTIVE THOUGHT.|
|21||02||II. PROBLEMS TOUCHING THE EXTERNAL WORLD|
|21||0201||CHAPTER III IS THERE AN EXTERNAL WORLD?|
|21||020101||12. HOW THE PLAIN MAN THINKS HE KNOWS THE WORLD.|
|23||020102||13. THE PSYCHOLOGIST AND THE EXTERNAL WORLD.|
|24||020103||14. THE "TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.|
|29||0202||CHAPTER IV SENSATIONS AND "THINGS"|
|29||020201||15. SENSE AND IMAGINATION.|
|31||020202||16. MAY WE CALL "THINGS" GROUPS OF SENSATIONS?|
|32||020203||17. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SENSATIONS AND "THINGS"|
|36||020204||18. THE EXISTENCE OF MATERIAL THINGS.|
|38||0203||CHAPTER V APPEARANCES AND REALITIES|
|38||020301||19. THINGS AND THEIR APPEARANCES.|
|39||020302||20. REAL THINGS.|
|40||020303||21. ULTIMATE REAL THINGS.|
|43||020304||22. THE BUGBEAR OF THE "UNKNOWABLE."|
|47||0204||CHAPTER VI OF SPACE|
|47||020401||23. WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT IT.|
|48||020402||24. SPACE AS NECESSARY AND SPACE AS INFINITE.|
|49||020403||25. SPACE AS INFINITELY DIVISIBLE.|
|52||020404||26. WHAT IS REAL SPACE?|
|57||0205||CHAPTER VII OF TIME|
|57||020501||27. TIME AS NECESSARY, INFINITE, AND INFINITELY DIVISIBLE.|
|58||020502||28. THE PROBLEM OF PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE.|
|60||020503||29. WHAT IS REAL TIME?|
|65||03||III. PROBLEMS TOUCHING THE MIND|
|65||0301||CHAPTER VIII WHAT IS THE MIND?|
|65||030101||30. PRIMITIVE NOTIONS OF MIND.|
|66||030102||31. THE MIND AS IMMATERIAL.|
|69||030103||32. MODERN COMMON SENSE NOTIONS OF THE MIND.|
|71||030104||33. THE PSYCHOLOGIST AND THE MIND.|
|72||030105||34. THE METAPHYSICIAN AND THE MIND.|
|75||0302||CHAPTER IX MIND AND BODY|
|75||030201||35. IS THE MIND IN THE BODY?|
|76||030202||36. THE DOCTRINE OF THE INTERACTIONIST.|
|79||030203||37. THE DOCTRINE OF THE PARALLELIST.|
|82||030204||38. IN WHAT SENSE MENTAL PHENOMENA HAVE A TIME AND PLACE.|
|83||030205||39. OBJECTIONS TO PARALLELISM.|
|87||0303||CHAPTER X HOW WE KNOW THERE ARE OTHER MINDS|
|87||030301||40. IS IT CERTAIN THAT WE KNOW IT?|
|89||030302||41. THE ARGUMENT FOR OTHER MINDS.|
|92||030303||42. WHAT OTHER MINDS ARE THERE?|
|94||030304||43. THE DOCTRINE OF MIND-STUFF.|
|97||0304||CHAPTER XI OTHER PROBLEMS OF WORLD AND MIND|
|97||030401||44. IS THE MATERIAL WORLD A MECHANISM?|
|99||030402||45. THE PLACE OF MIND IN NATURE.|
|101||030403||46. THE ORDER OF NATURE AND "FREE-WILL."|
|104||030404||47. THE PHYSICAL WORLD AND THE MORAL WORLD.|
|109||04||IV. SOME TYPES OF PHILOSOPHICAL THEORY|
|109||0401||CHAPTER XII THEIR HISTORICAL BACKGROUND|
|109||040101||48. THE DOCTRINE OF REPRESENTATIVE PERCEPTION.|
|111||040102||49. THE STEP TO IDEALISM.|
|113||040103||50. THE REVOLT OF "COMMON SENSE."|
|115||040104||51. THE CRITICAL PHILOSOPHY.|
|120||0402||CHAPTER XIII REALISM AND IDEALISM|
|129||0403||CHAPTER XIV MONISM AND DUALISM|
|129||040301||54. THE MEANING OF THE WORDS.|
|132||040304||57. THE DOCTRINE OF THE ONE SUBSTANCE.|
|136||040306||59. SINGULARISM AND PLURALISM.|
|137||0404||CHAPTER XV RATIONALISM, EMPIRICISM, CRITICISM, AND CRITICAL EMPIRICISM|
|145||040403||63. CRITICAL EMPIRICISM.|
|150||05||V. THE PHILOSOPHICAL SGENCES|
|150||0501||CHAPTER XVI LOGIC|
|150||050101||65. INTRODUCTORY: THE PHILOSOPHICAL SCIENCES.|
|150||050102||66. THE TRADITIONAL LOGIC.|
|151||050103||67. THE "MODERN LOGIC"|
|151||050104||68. LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY.|
|155||0502||CHAPTER XVII PSYCHOLOGY|
|155||050201||69. PSYCHOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY.|
|157||050202||70. THE DOUBLE AFFILIATION OF PSYCHOLOGY.|
|159||0503||CHAPTER XVIII ETHICS AND AESTHETICS|
|159||050301||71. COMMON SENSE ETHICS.|
|162||050302||72. ETHICS AND PHILOSOPHY.|
|165||0504||CHAPTER XIX METAPHYSICS|
|165||050401||74. WHAT IS METAPHYSICS?|
|169||0505||CHAPTER XX THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION|
|169||050501||76. RELIGION AND REFLECTION.|
|170||050502||77. THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.|
|172||0506||CHAPTER XXI PHILOSOPHY AND THE OTHER SGENCES|
|172||050601||78. THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND NON-PHILOSOPHICAL SOENCES.|
|172||050602||79. THE STUDY OF SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND METHODS.|
|175||06||VI. ON THE STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY|
|175||0601||CHAPTER XXII THE VALUE OF THE STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY|
|175||060101||80. THE QUESTION OF PRACTICAL UTILITY.|
|176||060102||81. WHY PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES ARE USEFUL.|
|180||060103||82. METAPHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.|
|183||0602||CHAPTER XXIII WHY WE SHOULD STUDY THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY|
|183||060201||83. THE PROMINENCE GIVEN TO THE SUBJECT.|
|183||060202||84. THE ESPECIAL IMPORTANCE OF HISTORICAL STUDIES TO REFLECTIVE THOUGHT.|
|183||060203||85. THE VALUE OF DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW.|
|188||060204||86. PHILOSOPHY AS POETRY, AND PHILOSOPHY AS SCIENCE.|
|189||060205||87. HOWTO READ THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY.|
|192||0603||CHAPTER XXIV SOME PRACTICAL ADMONITIONS|
|192||060301||88. BE PREPARED TO ENTER UPON A NEW WAY OF LOOKING AT THINGS.|
|193||060302||89. BE WILLING TO CONSIDER POSSIBILITIES WHICH AT FIRST STRIKE ONE AS ABSURD.|
|194||060303||90. DO NOT HAVE TOO MUCH RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY.|
|197||060304||91. REMEMBER THAT ORDINARY RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLY.|
|198||060305||92. AIM AT CLEARNESS AND SIMPUQTY.|
|199||060306||93. DO NOT HASTILY ACCEPT A DOCTRINE.|
practical admonitions on spirit and method. Had these admonitions been impressed upon me at a time when I was in especial need of guidance, I feel that they would have spared me no little anxiety and confusion of mind. For this reason, I recommend them to the attention of the reader.
The same thoughts can be set forth in plain language, and their significance illustrated by a constant reference to experiences which we all have -- experiences which must serve as the foundation to every theory of the mind and the world worthy of seri...
GEORGE STUART FULLERTON. New York, 1906. CONTENTS PART I
PHILOSOPHY.--The Greek historian Herodotus (484-424 B.C.) appears to have been the first to use the verb "to philosophize."
"philosopher" (etymologically, a lover of wisdom), a certain somewhat unreliable tradition traces it back to Pythagoras (about 582-500 B.C.). As told by Cicero,
At any rate, both the words "philosopher" and "philosophy" are freely used in the writings of the disciples of Socrates (470-399 B.C.), and it is possible that he was the first to make use of them.
Heraclitus, who was so impressed by the constant flux of things that he summed up his view of nature in the words: "Everything flows"; of Empedocles,
Socrates, that greatest of teachers,
In the works of Socrates' disciple Plato (428-347 B.C.) and in those of Plato's disciple Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), abundant justice is done to these fields of human activity. These two, the greatest among the Greek philosophers, differ from each other in many things, but it is worthy of remark that they both seem to regard the whole sphere of human knowledge as their province.
As for Aristotle, that wonderful man seems to have found it possible to represent worthily every science known to his time, and to have marked out several new fields for his successors to cultivate. His philosophy covers physics, cosmology, zoölogy, logic, metaphysics, ethics, psychology, politics and economics, rhetoric and poetics.
Stoic emphasizes the necessity of living "according to nature," and dwells upon the character of the wise man; the Epicurean furnishes certain selfish maxims for getting through life as pleasantly as possible; the Skeptic counsels apathy, an indifference to all things,--blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall not be disappointed.
Stoic tells us of what the world consists; what was the beginning and what will be the end of things; what is the relation of the system of things to God. He
Epicurean informs us that the world originated in a rain of atoms through space; he examines into the foundations of human knowledge; and he proceeds to make himself comfortable in a world from which he has removed those disturbing elements, the gods...
Skeptic decides that there is no such thing as truth, before he enunciates the dogma that it is not worth while to worry about anything. The philosophy of each school includes a view of the system of things as a whole. The philosopher still regarded the universe of knowledge as his province.
Neo-Platonism, that half Greek and half Oriental system of doctrine which arose in the third century after Christ, the first system of importance after the schools mentioned above. But I must not pass it by without pointing out that the Neo-Platonic ...
attention to Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and Rene Descartes (1596-1650), the two who are commonly regarded as heading the list of the modern philosophers, we find both of them assigning to the philosopher an almost unlimited field.
knowledge has not wholly passed away even in our day. I shall not dwell upon Spinoza (1632-1677), who believed it possible to deduce a world a priori with mathematical precision; upon Christian Wolff (1679-1754), who defined philosophy as the knowledge of the causes of what is or comes into being; upon Fichte (1762-1814), who believed that the philosopher, by mere thinking, could lay down the laws of all possible future experience; upon Schelling (1775-1854), who, without knowing anything worth mentioning about natural science, had the courage to develop a system of natural philosophy, and to condemn such investigators as Boyle and Newton;
Hegel (1770-1831), who undertakes to construct the whole system of reality out of concepts, and who, with his immediate predecessors, brought philosophy for a while into more or less disrepute with men of a scientific turn of mind. I shall come down come down quite to our own times, and consider a man whose conception of philosophy has had and still has a good deal of influence, especially with the general public--with those to whom philosophy is a thing to be taken up in moments of leisure, and cannot be the serious pursuit of a life.
partially-unified knowledge; Philosophy is completely-unified knowledge."  Science, he argues, means merely the family of the Sciences-stands for nothing more than the sum of knowledge formed of their contributions.
It savors of temerity to write down such a title as that which heads the present section. There are men living to-day to whom philosophy means little else than the doctrine of Kant, or of Hegel, or of the brothers Caird, or of Herbert Spencer, or even of St. Thomas Aquinas, for we must not forget that many of the seminaries of learning in Europe and some in America still hold to the mediaeval church philosophy.
dose relation between philosophy and religion.
philosophy was once a synonym for the whole sum of the sciences or what stood for such; gradually the several sciences have become independent and the field of the philosopher has been circumscribed. We must admit, moreover, that there is to be found in a number of the special sciences a body of accepted facts which is without its analogue in philosophy.
Spinoza modified Descartes' doctrine in that he refused to regard mind and matter as substances at all. He made them unequivocally attributes of the one and only substance, which he called God.
with Spinoza, call the one Substance God; that is, he may be a Pantheist. On the other hand, he may, with Spencer, call it the Unknowable, and be an Agnostic. Other shades of opinion are open to him, if he cares to choose them.
stands out one broad distinction, that of the physical and the mental.
man who has done no reading in the philosophers is scarcely tempted to obliterate; to him the world consists of two kinds of things widely different from each other; minds are not material things and material things are not minds. We
Pluralism, a word which is meant to cover the various doctrines which maintain that there is more than one ultimate principle or being in the universe.
Empedocles (born about 490 B.C.). This thinker made earth, water, fire, and air the four material principles or "roots” of things. He was not a monist, and we can certainly not call him a dualist.
 "The Limits of Evolution, and Other Essays," revised edition. New York, 1905. Page 137 - Note
Thus, he proves the existence of God by the following argument:- I exist, and I find if its cause must be as great as the reality it repres...-this idea I cannot be the author, for it represents something much greater than I, and
Locke, in his "Essay concerning Human Understanding,” undertakes "to inquire into the original, certainty, and extent of human knowledge, together with the grounds and degrees of belief, opinion, and assent."
The first book of the "Essay" is devoted to the proof that there are in the mind of man no "innate ideas" and no "innate principles." That is to say, Locke tries to show that one must not seek, in the "natural light" to which Descartes turned, a distinct and independent source of information,
Hume seemed to have shown, empiricism must run out into skepticism. If all our knowledge has its foundations in experience, how can we expect to find in our possession any universal or necessary truths? May not a later experience contradict an earlier? How can we be sure that what has been will be? Can we know that there is anything fixed and certain in our world?
How, then, does metaphysics differ from philosophy? The difference becomes clear to us when we realize that the word philosophy has a broader and looser signification, and that metaphysics is, so to speak, the core, the citadel, of philosophy.
That the prevailing architecture of a town is ugly can scarcely impress one who is acquainted with no other town.
Truth is truth, whether it be scientific truth or philosophical truth.
we may say that every philosophy worthy of the name is, at least, an attempt at scientific knowledge.