Kant's writings are largely a response to Hume, discuss

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher that sought to reject the epistemology of Hume. He rejected Hume's idea that people were irrational and thought it was essential that humans should be rational, so that they could be moral and free. Hume is a very important philosopher to know in journalism; he's interesting and fearless.

Hume speaks about perceptions which is any content of the mind. Perceptions can be impressions or ideas. They can be anything you see, hear, feel or think. Beliefs can be separated into either relations of ideas or matters of fact. A relation of ideas is a priori bond between ideas. For instance, 5+5=10 or all bachelors are unmarried. Matters of fact are to do with experience, a posteriori. We know these through a process of cause and effect. This does, however, rely on a belief in causation and induction. Hume believes that all matters of fact are fundamentally non-rational.

Kant believe he had a stronger form of Hume's a priori knowledge, named synthetic a priori; knowledge that can be gained independently of experience. For example, if there was 1,000 living people in a football stadium and this is fact, you could also derive from that knowledge the minimum capacity of the stadium must be at least 1,000 people, you would also know the stadium could support human life and that time elapsing.

Through this, Kant has established the existence of both space and time. An object cannot possibly exist outside of time and space, they are the pre-conditions of all experience.

Kant supposedly saves science and metaphysics from scepticism, such as Hume's, in observing that every change has a cause and effect to nature. 

He rejects previous ideas that things exist if they are perceived, claiming they have to exist in order to perceive them; existence is a predicate of perception. Although Kant suggests reality is shaped by our perception, his theory is not solipsist as he believes the universe exists independently of the mind.

Kant believes we perceive the world by processing raw data into 12 innate categories; unity, plurality (or not), totality (or not), reality, negation, extension (substance), cause and effect, community (likeness to other objects), possibility (or impossibility), existence (or non-existence) and necessity (or contingency).

Anything in the world that is observed fits into at least one of the above categories. Kant argues that our perceptions only exist in our minds as phenomena. Phenomena are real objects in the mind as we perceive them whereas noumena is the object itself, rather than as it is perceived.

Any object has a dual nature; the way it is naturally and the way it is when we perceive it. We can never know the noumena as once an object it is perceived by us, it is the phenomena.

Kant's moral philosophy was called the Categorical Imperative. It was a set of maxims that should be lived by, regardless of the situation. Any action could only be justifiable moral if it could be universalised without contradiction. For example, stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family may seem justifiable, but stealing a car is not. However, as stealing is not acceptable in every situation, you have a contradiction, so in Kant's view, it would never be acceptable to steal.

HCJ: Karl Marx

Karl Marx

Karl Marx is someone everyone will know, he's a bit of a cliche. He's known as the nation's favourite philosopher. The Daily Mail even ran a double page spread titled 'Marx: The monster' and went on to tell how he was the most dangerous person to ever live.

He wrote the Communist Manifesto which is known as one of the most important documents ever written and is said to be the most dangerous thing that has ever been written down. It was 1848 when the Communist Manifesto was written and it was enough to get him kicked out of any country in Europe.

Marx is pretty different from any other philsopher, he wanted to change the world. He's a physcial and sensual philosopher. He concerns himself with the physcial being and real things; he's called the materialist.

Key Points

He was living in an age of revolution, right across Europe there was revolution and revolt everywhere. Marx felt as if the world was changing and it'd never be the same again. He was strongly influenced by Hegel; everything is in a state of flux, everything is changing. He was also influenced by the dialectic. History was heading somewhere; teliology.

Marx believed everything was economically determined, meaning you're driven by money in a way. For example, if you're going town, it would be pointless if you didn't have any money, therefore, the only reason to go into town would be if you had money. This has been reflected in recent politics when Bill Clinton used the phrase "it's the economy, stupid". Marx believes we think we are happy but we're not really happy. Imagine you go to the country where you cannot speak the language, you cant communicate to people, you can't read the signs. People can appear to be free but are in fact in chains. We don't understand why we're unhappy but the capitalist would say you may have a menial job but you can go and buy something that will make you happy.

However, Communism was around before Marx, he didn't even invent Marxism. It was an idea he developed, but certainly not one he discovered. This became the solution to the problem.

Historical Context

Marx was born to Jewish parents that converted to Christianity. He was alienated in his own country due to the political state at the time in Germany in 1818. The mid 19th to the 20th century is seen as the German century. Hegel believed Germany was the instigator of change, it was the best nation on Earth and it was bringing the zeitgeist to it's eventual destination.

He met Fredrich Engles in Paris in 1844; Marx got kicked out of everywhere and eventually moved to London until his death in 1883.  Engles became Marx's benefactor. He lived longer and could interpret his writing. 

"Philosophers have only interpreted the world - the point is to change it." Marx didn't want people to be passive, he wanted them to be active.

"The theory of communism may be summed up in one sentence; abolish all property"; recalled Locke in Life, Liberty and Property.

For Aristotle man is the rational animal, for Plato the political animal, for Kant the moral animal, for Hegel the historic animal. For Marx man is the productive animal. Mankind creates the environment it inhabits – ‘not a figure in the landscape, but the shaper of the landscape’.

According to Engels, Marx achieved a fusion of Hegelian philosophy, British empiricism and French revolutionary politics, in particular socialist politics.

He was scientific, he liked raw and proper data; figures and facts. He came to the conclusion that the capitalist system was amazing, but in this was the seeds of it's own downfall because inevitably, it couldn't be maintained. There would be a moment when everyone would have money, then no one would and it would happen again and again and eventually the system would collapse. He believed that for the first time in history, the poor were organised in factories, working for the capitalist system.

The real dialectic idealism was based in the real world.

HCJ: Schopenhauer

Arthur Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer is known as a more contemporary Hegel. Both were students of Kant but disagreed with each other's philosophies; Hegel's ideas were more influential and recognised whereas Schopenhauer's ideas were more similar to Kant. 

He is an immaterialist; he believes that the world doesn't exist independently of perception but does believe that their must have be something to start the world; an uncaused cause or a formless matter. He agrees with Kant's philosophy of the dual nature of objects; the phenomena and the noumena. However, he doesn't agree everything can be seen as a thing in itself, the only actual thing that can be perceived as a thing in itself is existence. He describes this as the will.

The will, however, isn't God or a purpose. Schopenhauer believed there was no purpose for life and everything was arbitrary. The will was just the driving force of the universe which he believed was a curse; the constant need for fulfilment. He thought life was nothing but misery, pain and eventually death. In fact, he even thought suicide was the best thing a person could do in life. You could fight against the will but you could never win as he believed the will was evil. There was temporary eases of the pain such as drugs or music but they didn't last long, and suicide was the easiest and most permanent escape.

HCJ: Hegel

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

"Everything happens for a reason" is a phrase we all know, as essentially comes from Hegelian beliefs. He was teleologist, he believed the world was moving to an end and everything in it had a purpose that was willed by The Geist; the Absolute.

It is hard to define what Hegel means by the Geist; it is never referred to as God but more of a ghost or spirit. He believes everything is connected as one whole but reject pantheist beliefs, that the world is one simple being, but sees everything in the world as part of one complex system.

One of Hegel's key ideas was the dialectical thesis. It backs up his view the world is moving towards an end.  The idea combines a thesis and it's anti-thesis in order to create a synthesis. For example, combining the rise of Greece, being the thesis, followed by the dark ages, being the anti-thesis, and finally being followed by the enlightenment, being the synthesis. In very basic terms, it's combining an idea with the opposite of the idea to reach to compromise in between the two.

Hegel believes knowledge as a whole is also a tripartite system; first it starts with sense perception, secondly there is raw data gathered is subjected to sceptical criticism in our minds and finally there is self knowledge.

He says war in necessary, he doesnt say he supports it in any way but he think it will naturally happen and is a fan of Machiavelli. His views on seem to be human nature are similar. However, unlike Machiavelli, he was the only philosopher that believed America was going to be very important. Hegel also thinks time is part of alienation and not knowing the true meaning of things.

HCJ: Kant

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher that sought to reject the epistemology of Hume. He rejected Hume's idea that people were irrational and thought it was essential that humans should be rational, so that they could be moral and free.

Kant believe he had a stronger form of Hume's a priori knowledge, named synthetic a priori; knowledge that can be gained independently of experience. For example, if there was 1,000 living people in a football stadium and this is fact, you could also derive from that knowledge the minimum capacity of the stadium must be at least 1,000 people, you would also know the stadium could support human life and that time elapsing.

Through this, Kant has established the existence of both space and time. An object cannot possibly exist outside of time and space, they are the pre-conditions of all experience.

Kant supposedly saves science and metaphysics from scepticism, such as Hume's, in observing that every change has a cause and effect to nature. 

He rejects previous ideas that things exist if they are perceived, claiming they have to exist in order to perceive them; existence is a predicate of perception. Although Kant suggests reality is shaped by our perception, his theory is not solipsist as he believes the universe exists independently of the mind.

Kant believes we perceive the world by processing raw data into 12 innate categories; unity, plurality (or not), totality (or not), reality, negation, extension (substance), cause and effect, community (likeness to other objects), possibility (or impossibility), existence (or non-existence) and necessity (or contingency).

Anything in the world that is observed fits into at least one of the above categories. Kant argues that our perceptions only exist in our minds as phenomena.

Phenomena; real objects in the mind as we perceive them.

Noumena; the object itself, rather than as it is perceived.

Any object has a dual nature; the way it is naturally and the way it is when we perceive it. We can never know the noumena as once an object it is perceived by us, it is the phenomena.

Kant's moral philosophy was called the Categorical Imperative. It was a set of maxims that should be lived by, regardless of the situation. Any action could only be justifiable moral if it could be universalised without contradiction. For example, stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family may seem justifiable, but stealing a car is not. However, as stealing is not acceptable in every situation, you have a contradiction, so in Kant's view, it would never be acceptable to steal.

HCJ: Empiricism - Locke to Hume

Hume is a very important philosopher to know in journalism; he's interesting and fearless. Locke fits in nicely with this as Hume based his ideas on those of Locke.

Empiricism is the complete opposite of rationalism. A rationalist believes he can gain knowledge about the world simply by thinking about it, Descartes being an example, whereas an empiricist believes knowledge comes from experience, Locke being an example.

A prior is knowledge from reason, a posteriori is knowledge from experience.

John Locke

He is considered as one of the first Empiricists. He believes knowledge is derived from experience.

Locke is against the concept of innate ideas; he believes that at birth our minds were simply blank slates. The concept of innate ideas wasn't needed anyway, as God gave us the ability to discover knowledge and morality known as "God given faculties". 

David Hume

Hume was known as 'The Great Infidel' due to his attacks on religion.

Although his ideas were based on Locke's, he disagrees with Locke's idea of God given faculties. He believes experience is processed into thoughts naturally.

Hume has been criticised and called an anti-rationalist due to his skepticism about the pretensions of reason, however, he is pro-science and anti-superstition.

Locke mainly speaks about ideas, which is sensory data acted on by reason, and Hume speaks about perceptions, which is any content of the mind. This refines Locke's ideas.

Perceptions can be impressions or ideas. They can be anything you see, hear, feel or think. Beliefs can be separated into either relations of ideas or matters of fact. A relation of ideas is a priori bond between ideas. For instance, 5+5=10 or all bachelors are unmarried. Matters of fact are to do with experience, a posteriori. We know these through a process of cause and effect. This does, however, rely on a belief in causation and induction. Hume believes that all matters of fact are fundamentally non-rational.

Logic

There are two different types of logic.

Deductive; this is when if all the premises are true, it means the conclusion must be true also. For instance; all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.

Inductive; this is when a conclusion is established which is presumed to be true with some degree of probability.

Induction
As a general, it is considered that what has happened in the past will happen again in the future. For instance, the sun rose yesterday morning, therefore it shall rise again this morning, and tomorrow morning, which is what the whole of science is basically based on.

However, the question is raised of how can we know history will repeat itself... and so begins the search for natural laws.

The scientific method for finding the natural laws is to carry our experiments, make observations and from this information, build up general laws using induction. It is then that induction becomes the demarcation between science and non-science. Hume argued a problem with induction as it is not reliable and cannot be definitively proved but it is human nature to presume what happened in the past with happen again in the future. You can not observe what will happen in the future, as you can not observe the future.

This presumption isn't secure, however it is what we base our entire lives on. It is custom and habit that set out our decisions and ideas for the future. Hume doesn't want us to abandon this but simple states that it is our confidence in the uniformity of nature that might let us down.

HCJ: Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz

Before we get started, there are two important words that must be known.

Metaphysics; meaning trying to figure out what reality really is.

Epistemology; meaning the theory of knowledge and how we know what we know.

Now on to Descartes; people look at Descartes as the beginning of modern philosophy. He follows from the scholastic/medieval period, where learning was simply about Aristotle and the Bible.

"I think, therefore, I am" is one of the most famous lines in philosophy, formed by Descartes. It forms the cogito, pronounced co-ji-toe.

Towards the end of 17th century and the beginning of 18th century a debate between was sparked between empiricists and the idealists  i.e. British empiricism and continental rationalism.

Empiricists' idea of knowledge was that 'we know what we know because we can see it'.

Locke, a famous empiricist philosophy, has no innate ideas, all his knowledge was gained through experience. He believed we only get knowledge through experience and it all comes from senses; sensory data. His philosophy insisted there are no innate ideas; when you are born, it is a blank slate, there is nothing in your mind and is absent of any ideas. He completely disagreed with Plato's metaphysics.

Rationalists'/Idealists' idea of knowledge was that 'you can learn about the world simply by thinking about it'. Sensory data is not needed for this. Logical answers can be formed in the mind;  the pre-eminence of the mind. Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza are all examples of idealists. 

Materialists' idea of knowledge is that only material exists. It is the idea that everything is either made of matter or is dependant on matter for existence. Hobbes is a well-known materialist philosopher.

Descartes

What is going on in the world outside my mind?

The issues he raised were right at the start of philosophy, at the same time as Locke, Shakespeare, Galileo. Despite being a man of God, he was very much in favour of science and was critical of the education he recieved at university such as Aristotleanism and traditional education. Artistotlean logic was circular as everything was based around two books and Descartes said: "I gained nothing but an increasing recognition of my ignorance". He felt all he knew and all his education was useless and a waste of time. 

After education, he took it back to basics and assumed everything he knew was wrong and decided to start all over again. This project was the method of doubt, known as 'Cartesian doubt'. A famous example of doubt is "If you have a barrel of apples and fear one of them is rotten, empty them all out and check if everyone one of them is rotten or not". This is what Descartes did with knowledge. He wanted to create a theory of knowledge that would stand the test of time.

You have to accept your almost certainities may be uncertain. It is at least possible your name may not be your name, your parents may not be your parents, your age may not be your age; after all, you could be hypnotised. It's very unlikely but it is possible. Senses have before deceived you, for instance, when drunk, when tired and when lost. If senses have even let you down once, you have to dismiss them, you can not trust them.

Descartes then comes to a moumental moment of accepting all may be untrue. However, he says 'I am thinking, this means that I exist'. It is from this thought the phrase cogito ergo sum was formed; I think, therefore, I am. Even if my thoughts are wrong, I am still thinking, therefore I still exist.

He identifies his thinking with his mind; the mind and the body are entirely seperate. This is Cartesian dualism. If someone was to cut off my hand, I'd still exist, therefore my existance depends on my mind, not my body, therefore, they are clearly two seperate things. He can still doubt everything except his mind.

Berkeley has a similar view to Descartes, that there was only one substance and that is mentality. Berkeley said "all we can be sure of is that my mind is telling me these things and it is real to me; it is impossible to prove anything out of this"

Decartes' epistemology sets off a tendency in European philosophy called idealism and included philosophers such as Kant and Hegel.

After getting to this point, he knows he needs to escape the Cogito. He needs to avoid collapsing into solipsism; only I exist for sure. His answer was God. He needs God to help him climb out and escape into the Cogito. In order to do this, he has to prove God exists, for which he came up with three arguments..

Trademark Argument

Descartes has the idea of God; so where did it come from? It can't have come from no where; God must have given it to him. God is a benevolent being and therefore wouldn't deceive us.

Ontological Argument

A priori argument for God's existence. God is a perfect being, so he must exist, if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be perfect.

Cosmological Argument

Everything has a cause, at some stage something must have triggered the first cause; the uncaused cause; this being God.

Spinoza

He argues that if the world is seperate from God then he has boundaries, so for God to be infinite he has to be part of the world. Therefore there was only one substance, not two like Descartes says, this was God. This was monism or pantheism; there is one thing and that thing is God - as opposed to dualism. All our thinking is embodied and has a physical manifestation.

Leibniz

Leibniz thought the world was made out of one type of thing called a Monad; a simple, non divisible, soul like entity that is everything" His philosophy cuts everything down to the minimal. As long as something still has an extension, it can still be divided. The smallest thing something can be before physical being is a Monad; it is the building block of everything. It is similar to Plato's forms.

Huxley

Huxley was a believer in epiphenomenalism - the idea that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events; physical beings, closed causality, physical brains. He believed our inner lives were just the hum of the machine but doesn't move the machine; it's just a by product. He compared mental events to a steam whistle that contributes nothing to the work of a locomotive.

HCJ: Renaissance to Descartes

By Bronte Dawson and Tate Slyfield

www.tateslyfield.wordpress.com

www.onestepbronte.blogspot.com

General Characteristics

Overall, this characterised the diminishing power of the church against the increasing authority of science. The increase in scientific knowledge saw the end of the middle ages as man began to discover more and more about the Earth and why it is what it is - whatever that is.

The States began taking over the governmental body of the church, there was no order - no society or rulings were made that could maintain a stable society. Men were divided - the aristocracy and the barbarians. Those that were educated were considered greater and those that weren't were not considered as much.

During the Enlightenment began to be freed from the metaphorical chains and shackles that religion enforced upon them. This saw great progression in art and literature, particularly in Italy.

The Italian Renaissance

The Renaissance, meaning "rebirth", explored a whole new range of concepts and ideas; with the explosion of classical literature, vernacular languages, architecture, painting, art, trade and wealth. It typically began in the 14th century and it aimed to move away from the medieval period and scholastic philosophy. Despite that, the Renaissance was mostly prominent in Florence as trade entered Italy and the state flourished. The five key states in Italy at the time were Florence, Milan, Naples, Papal Domain and Venice.

However, Milan demonstrated elements of plutocracy in their state by exercising authority through wealth, with the Visconti family that ruled for 170 years. This also evokes the corruption and instability of Italy. Although the Italian Renaissance was not an era of great achievement, it absolutely thrived in Paris - but it also saw the revival of the work of intellectuality with Plato and Aristotle.

It is evident that those in power were corrupt, especially the Medici family and the Popes. Many people lost in faith in religion and severe authority, where many people started living upon Plato's philosophy, where they became independent.

Machiavelli

Machiavelli was a man of political philosophy - he thought politics was all about power. He knew how to gain power and thought man should stop at nothing to get it. His philosophy is scientific and empirical and was concerned with results - whether the means of reaching the results were good or bad/moral or immoral was irrelevant to him.

 As a Florentine man, Machiavelli saw the rise and inevitable end of Savonarola, which clearly made quite an impact of the leanings of his political philosophy. He remarks that 'all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed', placing Savonarola in the latter category. In our opinion, Machiavelli would have approved of the Reichstag fire caused by Hitler (an arson attach on a Reichstag building in Berlin in 1933) - which he proceeded to blame on Marinus van der Lubbe, an innocent communist. The Nazis then used this to persuade to the German government that the Communists were plotting against them. This acquired the Nazis more power and more favour - immoral yes, however, successful.

 A quote that really stood out with us was 'The nearer people are to the Church of Rome, which is the head of our religion, the less religious they are' which, in our opinion, could be compared to Rousseau's philosophy of 'the closer man is to society, the more corrupt man is'. This is an interesting comparison, as Rousseau is closely related to romanticism whereas Machiavelli is quite the opposite, which quite frankly is not giving a fuck how he gained power, yet it is quite a nice comparison, that the closer man is to the source of the item/belief/religion/whatever it may be - the further away they actually are. It's as if man may come up with a brilliant idea, but the more people that get involved, the more corrupt it is. It almost seems as if the human race as a whole is corrupt - if you bring everyone together - it'll do nothing but push them further away from each other.

 The Prince is one of the two famous books by Machiavelli and is essentially Power in Politics For Dummies. It goes through history and contemporary events, (at the time it was written), about how power was won, held and lost. Fifteenth century Italy produced a lot of examples; most illegitimate - despite some even being Popes. Few places of power were achieved without corruption, in some form or another.

Erasmus and Thomas More

Erasmus and Thomas More were two men who were exemplars of the northern Renaissance. Both were academics, witty and humorous, despised scholastic philosophy and were highly skilled writers.

Erasmus was born at Rotterdam and was an intellectual from the beginning. After his parents died at a young age, he knew more Latin than his guardians. He hated scholastics and despite Plato and Aristotle being high respected at that time, he had no time for them and didn't really care for their teachings.

The only book still read by Erasumus is The Praise of Folly. The book is dedicated to More, who's house the book was written at. The book is spoken by Folly in her own person and she covers all parts of human life including all classes and professions. The book strongly voices Erasmus's opinions, particularly those concerned with ecclesiastical abuses. The book ends with serious suggestion that all religion is a form of folly.

Erasmus was influential within the education system and remained to be until the 20th century, with strong grounding in Greek and Latin. He also believed that Plato should be studied, but not the subject that Plato thought worth studying. He was well read and believed everyone should be literate.

Sir Thomas More, although more admirable than Erasmus, was much less influential. He started to learn Greek at Oxford University but was removed by his father and the authorities and then set to follow his father's footstep and become a lawyer. More was forcibly friends with Henry VIII but knew the friendship was solely for convenience on the King's part. After More voiced his opinions on Henry VIII being made the head of the Church of England, he was beheaded for high treason.

However, More is remember for his account of Utopia. In Utopia, as in Plato's Republic,all things are held common as it was though society could not flourish with private property. The basic idea that everything is equal, the towns are the same (except one being the capital), the houses are the same, the streets are the same and so on. It is vital that there is no sense of ownership and a lot is done to prevent this, for instance; people change house every ten years, all men wear the same clothes, all women wear the same clothes - respective of whether they are married or unmarried.

The basics of More's Utopia is everyone is equal and does what needs to be done for society to function. The importance of communism is greatly stressed. Although, in my opinion, if put into practise Utopia wouldn't work, I think More's idea is one of the greatest ideas of Utopia and would create a functioning society.

The Reformation and the Counter-Reformation

The Reformation was a religious revolution that saw the revival of Protestantism in the 16th century, with the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin were their biggest leaders. Notably, the Reformation in Germany saw Luther and Calvin wanting to diminish the power of the Church, by omitting purgatory and rejecting the doctrine of Indulgences. These cruel innovations hindered Protestant Churches from becoming powerful in other Protestant countries. Luther and Calvin were highly influenced by St. Augustine’s teaching of the relation of the soul to God, not the part which is concerned with the Church.

The Reformation in particular was sparked by Martin Luther’s 95 Theses which rejected all forms of Catholicism, especially Transubstantiation. Luther coined, Consubstantiation, where the body and blood of Christ is physically present because Christ is everywhere. The key to Luther’s ideology is that ethical and theological reform of the Church should be justified by faith and not with works. The Reformation in England saw Luther assert the prince as Protestant and to become the head of the Church. This was clearly asserted by King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth and even increased the power of royalty.

The Reformation saw the rebellion of less civilised nations against the intellectual domination of Italy. The Italians disregarded Luther and Calvin’s medieval philosophies, as they had much to do with the actual Reformation themselves, whilst the power of the Popes was rejected. Whereas the Counter – Reformation which was Spanish, saw a rebellion against the intellectual and moral freedom of Renaissance, where the power of the Pope was increased but his authority was adverse to the likes of the Borgias and Medici.

The results of the Reformation and Counter Reformation show that Protestantism was finally established as one of the major branches of Christianity, alongside Catholicism. It was a move away from medieval doctrines and introduced a number of Protestant Churches. It saw also demonstrated that, neither Protestants nor Catholics could be triumphant.

The Rise Of Science

This saw a drastic move from the Ancient Period and the Medieval Ages that the philosophers of these periods were hampered by the lack of instruments and they were unable to classify their ideas through observation and experimentation. People relied upon the authority of Church figures and the ancient world, such as Aristotle, who was considered to be the source of truth.

But there were only four influential men who coined practical science, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Isaac Newton. This increased men’s freedom to think for themselves, particularly for secular learning, mathematics and science. It was also men’s freedom to shift away from theoretical science and focus on practical science. New science evidently influenced philosophy, particularly with the work of Descartes.

Copernicus, a Polish astronomer and mathematician endorsed his work on the Earth’s daily motion around a stationary sun. He is one of the most prominent individuals who had two merits: ‘patience in observation’ and ‘framing a hypothesis’. Framing a hypothesis was the most difficult attributes for scientists to sustain their scientific theories. Aside from that, the Copernican Theory was extensively rejected particularly by German Lutherans. Luther criticised Copernicus’s work claiming in the History of Western Philosophy that, “This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” Arguably, this demonstrates the religious nature of disagreeing with everything that was produced or that made an increase of knowledge on the Earth. Despite the ongoing criticisms that many of these scientific individuals faced, Copernicus had a lack of influence in his era, which was a downcast to him, because he knew everything that existed in his time.

Kepler, another astronomer in the seventeenth century had his 3 key laws of planetary motion. It is arguable that much of his work was largely accepted by society and was demonstrated alongside cosmogony and he followed Plato’s work, “TImaeus” which identified cosmic significance.

One of the greatest founders of modern science was Galileo. He discovered that the earth was not at the centre of the universe, but it revolved around the sun. Galileo’s astronomical discoveries and investigations confirmed the Copernican theory. Galileo also adopted Kepler’s work and accepted his discoveries, particularly the heliocentric system which stated that the earth and planets rotated around the sun.

Isaac Newton basically achieved the works of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. But he theoretically kept his work a secret as he was afraid of religious persecution and the destruction of his theories. He fully established the methods of acceleration, gravity and the three laws of motion. In Newton’s Principia he stressed the importance of supplementing mathematical analysis with observation. He also confirmed the basic essence of modern science that all nature is governed by laws.

The significance of modern science which was deemed as the new philosophy started to make an impact on peoples’ lives, where it revolutionised peoples’ view of their own purposes. The rise of science evidently provided routes of scientific success and progression. Perhaps to a large extent medieval philosophy can be seen as a mere guidance tool for people to follow, rather than attempting to change the world.

Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes’s philosophy aimed to prevent disagreements from the aspects of human nature, society and a proper government. It focused on ending the conditions of war.

Leviathan is just a metaphor for the state and is described as an artificial person, whose body is made up of all bodies of its citizens who are solid members of the Leviathan body. The head of the Leviathan would be the sovereign. Communities are subjected to a social contract or covenant, alike Plato’s Republic. When a covenant is agreed the government is decided by the majority and once the government is chosen, citizens lose their rights and their political power ends. Even touching upon Plato and Aristotle, their forms of society demonstrate which could make the world a better place whilst preventing war. This is clearly seen with Hobbes who aimed for the perfect government, but Russell claims it’s an explanatory myth as it did not go into force or reality. Consequently, Leviathan argues that civil peace and social unity are likely achieved by the establishment of a commonwealth through a social contract.

Russell argues that it would be difficult to place Hobbes as one of the top philosophers, but I certainly would as he established political philosophy. Upon my reading, it was intriguing to find that despotism is better than anarchy - being ruled by an absolute dictator or not being ruled by a recognisable government. This stems from the English Civil War (1642 – 1651); the Royalists, King Charles I and II were against the Parliamentarians, Oliver Cromwell. According to Hobbes, who survived the war, it led to an increased fear of anarchy because in such a state, people generally fear things and so to avoid it, by means to obtain a social contract and establish a civil society. Hobbes came to the conclusion that sharing power is not the best way to govern a society, but a monarchy is. It’s arguable that Hobbes favoured a monarchy because it concentrated on private interests rather than public interests.

Hobbes was clearly a controversial character as Leviathan, published in 1651, did not receive positive reviews. The aim of the book was to diminish democracy and focus on Royalism. It is evident that Hobbes aimed to create controversy for many reasons. For instance, in politics and science he wanted to challenge the government and even philosophy itself. Hobbes was so controversial, he was even accused of being an atheist. This stems from Hobbes being a determinist, where he did not believe in souls, spirits, ghosts and the devil. He thought God was the ‘first cause’ of a chain of events. However, his profound Leviathan society suggested that it could put an end to controversy, war and possibly fear.

Descartes

Descartes was a French philosopher whom lived in the 1600s. He is considered the founder of modern philosophy, being the first man of high philosophic capacity who's outlook is profoundly affected by the rise of science. He was a scientist and a mathematician, and surprisingly, a man of God.

He adopted the cogito and wanted to learn how to doubt the universe (Cartesian doubt). He used the analytical method, which supposes a problem solved and examines the consequences of the supposition.

He believed ideas were in three sorts; those that are innate, those that are foreign and come from without, and those that are invented by me. Descartes asked himself 'How can I believe that what I'm seeing is true?' and his answer was the senses. He tries to disassociate himself from everything and asks 'How can I trust me senses?' to which he answers God. Many other philosophers would not recognise this answer as fact, but in Descartes views, God is good and senses are real because of this - God would not disillusion him. A famous quote by Descartes that accurately sums this up "I think, therefore, I am."