What does it all mean? A very brief introduction to philosophy
What does it all mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy ( English Original Title: What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy ) is a work by the American philosopher Thomas Nagel , in which he gives a direct introduction to nine philosophical problems, whereby he explains his own understanding of these problems. However, Thomas Nagel does not want to provide answers to the various questions, but only to introduce the reader to the topics so that they can think about them on their own. These are the following philosophical topics:
- our knowledge of a world outside of our consciousness
- our knowledge of a consciousness other than our own
- the relationship between consciousness and the brain
- how language is possible
- if we have a free will have
- the foundation of morality
- what inequalities are unjust
- the essence of death
- the meaning of life
The English original was published in 1987 by Oxford University Press . It was translated into German by Michael Gebauer and has been published by Reclam-Verlag , Stuttgart, since 1990 with the permission of Oxford University Press . The book has 104 pages and is divided into 10 chapters.
content
introduction
At the beginning of his work, Thomas Nagel explains which target group he is aimed at: readers who are not yet philosophically trained. What is necessary, however, is a sense of abstract thoughts and theoretical reasoning.
Nagel gives a first outlook on the nine philosophical problems that he will deal with in his book, each of which is understandable on its own. A discussion of great philosophical writings from the past, etc. there will not be.
Furthermore, Nagel gives some general information about the character of philosophy . In contrast to the natural sciences , it is based neither on experiments nor observations, but solely on thinking, asking, arguing and trying out thoughts. In contrast to mathematics , it is not based on formal proof procedures.
The main concern of philosophy is to question general and everyday ideas such as B. of time , numbers, knowledge , language , right and wrong .
In the following, Nagel emphasizes that he reflects his own understanding of the problems. The philosopher does not want to give any answers, since there are not only two possible answers to philosophical questions, but only introduce the reader to the problems in such a way that he can think about them on his own.
How do we know something?
The second chapter deals with the question of a consciousness-independent reality , i.e. H. after an existence of the outside world outside of our consciousness .
It is impossible to argue for or against the existence of an outside world, since all arguments are based on impressions, which in turn can only be proven with impressions.
"" But how do we know if [these] things really exist? Would it be any different for us if they existed only in our consciousness - if all that we thought was the world out there were nothing but a gigantic hallucination or a dream we will never wake up from? "(P. 10 , Line 22ff.) "
The view that one's own consciousness is the only thing that exists is called solipsism .
“If I were a solipsist, I would probably not write this book because I did not believe that anyone else who could read it even existed. But on the other hand I might write it to make my inner workings more interesting, which I would enrich with impressions in this way [...]. Perhaps you are a solipsist: in which case you will view the book as a product of your own mind that begins to exist in your experience as you read it. Indeed, I cannot prove to you with anything that I really exist or that the book exists in the sense of a physical object. "(P. 13, lines 16ff.)"
The notion that there is no way of deciding whether there is an outside world or not is called skepticism . Arguments of a stronger form of skepticism are that one can rely solely on present contents of consciousness and not know whether one existed in the past, since one might as well have begun to exist with all of one's present memories a minute ago.
There is also the opinion that the skeptics' idea of an outside world that no one could ever discover is pointless. The idea of a dream that you cannot wake up from makes no sense. Impressions and appearances that are not real can only stand in opposition to reality , otherwise even the opposition between appearance and reality would be meaningless. Thus, a dream that one cannot wake up from is reality.
Nagel believes that it is practically impossible to believe in the non-existence of the outside world, since belief in it is powerful and instinctive .
“Not only do we continue to act as if other people and things exist, but we believe they exist, and we still believe so after going through the arguments that seem to show that we have no reason to believe . "(P. 19f., Line 28ff.)"
The alien psychic
The third chapter deals with a skepticism in relation to nature or with the question of the existence of a consciousness other than our own or experiences other than our own.
The only experiences a person can have are their own. When assessing the psychological life of others, one can only rely on observations of their physical condition and behavior.
"" How do we know, to take a simple example, whether the chocolate ice cream we share with a friend tastes the same for him as it does for us? […] There is […] no possibility of directly comparing the two taste sensations. [...] Why is it not just as compatible with all available data that chocolate ice cream tastes the same to him as vanilla ice cream tastes to us, and vice versa? "(P. 22f, line 27ff.)"
The assumption that, for example, taste or color sensations in every human being is in constant correlation with physical irritation of the sensory organs is also meaningless for the skeptic, since no evidence of this can be put forward. The interaction between stimulus and experience may not be exactly the same (harmless skepticism). However, there could also be absolutely no similarity between one's own experiences and those of another person (drastic skepticism).
"" How do I know he has a sensation of the type I would call a taste when he puts something in his mouth? For all I know, it could be something that I would call a tone - or possibly something completely different that I have never experienced and cannot even imagine. ”(P. 25, lines 17ff .) "
The most radical skepticism with regard to the alien psychic asks whether there is any consciousness other than one's own: Even if other people had no experiences of their own and no inner psychic life, i.e. were merely very complex biological machines , they would still not appear different to one. There is no evidence that the external behavior of others is also linked to internal experiences.
However, the instinctive belief of humans is that other human beings are also conscious, such as mammals and birds . It is more doubtful whether insects or even single-celled organisms are conscious and almost nobody believes that stones , cars or handkerchiefs have conscious experiences. Proof of this could only be provided by joint observation of experiences and external expressions. However, this is impossible as there is only the possibility of observing one's own experiences.
"Is it possible that there is far less conscious life than one assumes (none other than one's own), or rather the other way round (even with things that we assume are unconscious) far more?" (P. 29, line 12ff.) "
The psychophysical problem
The fourth chapter deals with the relationship between consciousness and the brain . Every process in consciousness depends on a corresponding process in the brain, i. H. complex relationships exist between physical processes in the brain and processes in consciousness or spirit. The question, however, is whether the mind, although connected to the brain, is different from it, or whether the mind is the brain.
“Are our thoughts, feelings, perceptions, sensations and desires events that are added to the physical processes in our brain, or do they in turn constitute a subset of these physical processes?” (P. 31, lines 19ff.) "
There are generally three views on this: The first is dualism . It says that there has to be a soul that is bound to a body in such a way that both can interact. The human being consists of a complex physical organism and a purely mental soul in which the psychic life takes place. The second view, that man consists only of physical matter and that psychological states are also physical states of the brain, is called physicalism or materialism . The third view is the double aspect theory. It states that the brain is the place of consciousness, but that the conscious states of the brain are not just physical states. Psychic life takes place in the brain, but experiences, feelings, thoughts and desires are not physical processes in the brain. H. the brain is not a purely physical object.
“» It's called that because it says that when I bite into a chocolate bar, my brain creates a state or process with two aspects: a physical aspect, which includes the various chemical and electrical reactions, and a psychological aspect - the taste sensation of chocolate. [...] If this view is correct, then the brain itself would have an interior that would not be accessible to an external observer even if he penetrated it. "(P. 37, lines 12ff.)"
The meaning of words
The fifth chapter deals with the question of how words - whether only the sound or the written letters - can have a meaning . Words are used in speaking and writing , and their meaning in itself adds to the meaning of an entire sentence or statement. Words can be defined, but definitions are not the foundation of the meaning, as each word of a definition can only be defined again. However, one would have to get to words that have a direct meaning.
“Let's look at the word tobacco, which seems like a simple example. […] You and I, who have never met and who have dealt with different occurrences of tobacco, use this word with the same meaning. […] Furthermore, a Chinese […] can [use] a Chinese expression with the same meaning. Whatever relation the word "tobacco" has to the substance itself, it can also have other words. "(P. 42, lines 4f., P. 43, lines 14ff.)"
The word must therefore apply to something general, so that other speakers can mean the same thing with other words in other languages. This general component could be something that everyone has in their minds as they use the word. It could be an idea of the concept in consciousness, but such an idea is always an individual idea and by no means the same for all people.
“The mysterious thing about meaning is that it doesn't seem to be located anywhere - neither in the world, nor in consciousness, nor in a detached term or idea that hovers between the world, consciousness and the objects we are talking about . "(P. 46, line 6ff.)"
Words are generally used simply as tools for understanding and communication . Language is a system of signals and reactions, because language is a social phenomenon . It is not learned for one's own purpose, but with learning the person is connected to an already existing system.
The problem of explaining the meaning of words still exists. Meaning enables people to grasp the world, to think up and explain things, but how to do that is to find out.
Free will
The sixth chapter deals with the problem of free will of man. There are also different views on this: The view that it is never possible to do anything other than what one actually does, that is, that the circumstances that exist before the action, determine the action itself and make it inevitable, is called determinism .
“» The sum of all experiences, desires and insights of a person as well as their genetic makeup , the social conditions and the character of the decision with which they are confronted, interact with other factors, which may be unknown to us, and make a certain action among the inevitable given the circumstances. "(p. 54, lines 6ff.)"
The consequence of this is that a person can no longer be reasonably held responsible for their actions . From this the question arises whether a person z. B. can be convicted as guilty for a crime at all . There are two views on this: the first is that a person cannot be praised for good deeds or reprimanded for bad deeds; the second is that it makes sense because one is still trying to influence the person's future behavior .
The opposite of determinism is that humans have free will and are responsible for their actions. There is always an open possibility to choose between different things. The question arises to what extent the act is really the act of the respective person if it is not predetermined by desires, convictions and character and just happens without explanation. One possible answer is that there is no answer because free action is a fundamental part of the world and cannot be further analyzed. From this it can be concluded, however, that even then the person could not be held responsible for his act, since the act simply happens and is not determined by the person in advance.
There is a special view from determinism on this: causal determinism. It is not necessary that an act be predetermined, but it can be. An action has to come about in a person in order for it to really be that person's action, because a person does something, it doesn't just happen. So there must always be an explanation for such an act.
“For example, when you chose the chocolate cake, it was something you did (and not something that just happened) because you wanted the chocolate cake more than you wanted a peach. Because their appetite for cake was stronger at this point than your desire to avoid gaining weight, the result was that they chose the cake. "(P. 60, lines 9ff.)"
Without such an explanation, the act is not your own. That would mean that the action at that moment is predetermined by the respective explanation. However, this causal determinism is in no way a threat to human freedom , since free action only presupposes that the explanation or cause of the action is of the person's usual psychological nature.
Right and wrong
The seventh chapter deals with the question of why something is right or wrong and what makes something right or wrong. If something is wrong, it does not simply mean breaking the rules, there can also be bad rules that forbid what is not wrong. Because of this, the idea of right and wrong does not conform to the idea of rule violation or compliance.
When considering what is right and what is wrong, it is about the effect of the action and not only about the effect on the person acting, but above all about the effect on other people. This leads to the question of why one has to be considerate of others. The easiest answer to this is the goal of equal treatment and phrases like, "Would you like it if someone else did this to you?" However, this requires that the treatment of others has an impact on how these others treat us. However, it does not seem to bother a person what they are doing to the other at the time of their act, since they are not treated the same way at the same time.
"" It's just a matter of sheer consistency and consistency . If you admit that someone else would have a reason not to harm you in a similar situation, and if you admit that this reason would be a very general one and not only concern you or him, you must consequently admit that it is also for It gives the same reason in the current situation to omit the act. "(P. 69, lines 18ff.)"
Thus most people are of the opinion that their own interests and disadvantages are not only important to themselves but also to others and give them a reason to take them seriously. The basis of ethics , however, is not only a direct interest in other people, but also the belief that good and bad are good and bad from a general point of view that any thinking person can understand. So everyone has reason to consider the impact of their actions on the well-being or suffering of everyone else. However, this is only a rough view of the basis of ethics. It does not yet say how a person should be considerate, how he should weigh effects, what is right and wrong in particular. An important question of ethical thinking is how much impartiality, i. H. Selflessness one should strive for. To do this, however, it must first be determined whether the answer to this question is the same for each person or whether it varies from person to person. This raises another big question: whether right and wrong are the same for everyone.
"» [...] if the fact that something is wrong is supposed to provide a reason against the act, and if your reasons for your actions depend on your motives and people's motives can differ drastically, then it looks like this as if there could be no universally valid right and wrong for every individual. "(p. 73, lines 8ff.)"
So it could be that there would be no general standard of behavior to which people would have to adapt. There are three possible views: 1. The same things are right and wrong for people, but only people with right moral motives have a reason to do right and not do wrong. The ethics are therefore generally applicable, but are not binding. 2. Everyone has reason to do what is right and reason not to do what is wrong. However, these reasons do not depend on people's motives. There are reasons that should possibly change people's motives if they are not the right ones. 3. Morality is not universal. The reason for doing something depends on how much the person is interested in others in general; H. how strong or weak the moral motives are. The question of the general validity of morality also arises when the behavioral standards of different societies in different epochs are compared.
“Much that will probably appear to you to be an injustice has been accepted as morally correct by large groups of people in the past: slavery , serfdom , human sacrifice , racial segregation , denial of religious and political freedom , hereditary caste systems . And future societies will probably consider some of what is morally correct for you today to be wrong. "(P. 75, lines 6ff.)"
It must therefore be discussed whether it makes more sense to assume that there is a single truth , even if one can never be sure of what it consists of, or to assume that right and wrong are limited to a specific time, place and social Background can be obtained. Whenever it seems possible to criticize accepted moral standards and hold them wrong, however, one must invoke a more objective standard, an idea of what is really right and what is wrong.
Another objection to the idea of morality is the view that any act in which one person sacrifices their own interests for another is in reality only motivated by self-interest, as only a feeling of personal well-being is supposed to arise. However, this does not mean that such a feeling is the motive of the act, but rather the result of the motives that produce the action and, as a result, the feeling.
The aim of ethical considerations is fundamentally to appeal against human egoism to the ability, which should be present in every human being, to act out of selfless motivation.
justice
“Is it unfair that some people are born rich and others poor? And if it is unfair, should something be done about it? "(P. 79. lines 1-3)"
The eighth chapter deals with the problem of inequalities between people and the countermeasures to reduce or eliminate inequality. Obviously it is luck in which social and economic class and in which country a person is born. The person is not responsible for it. Conversely, there are also inequalities that are deliberately applied to people, such as discrimination based on race and gender . However, justice requires equality of opportunity; H. All possibilities should be equally open to all people .
Just as coincidental as the differences in the socio-economic classes into which people are born, so are the differences in people's natural innate abilities and talents for sought-after tasks that bring different benefits to people and thus an important factor in determining income and the position of a person within a competitive society.
“People try to care for their children and give them a good education, and some of them may spend more money on this than others. People pay for the products, services and work they want, and some artists or manufacturers get richer than others [...]. Companies and organizations of all kinds are trying to hire employees who do their job well, and they will pay higher wages to employees with unusual skills. "(P. 81, lines 18ff.)"
The causes of such inequalities, however, are only decisions and actions that are not in themselves wrong. Thus, two important questions must be asked: what kinds of causes of inequality are unjust, and what methods of intervening in inequality are legitimate? With intended inequality through z. B. Discrimination is clear that the cause is wrong, since the discriminator is doing wrong and the intervention or countermeasure would be to prevent that person from discriminating. However, undeserved inequalities that arise from the way society and the economy work depend on causes in which no one is involved who has done wrong; they depend on innocuous decisions made by many people. The countermeasure in these cases would be to intervene in people's economic lives. In today's societies, this is taxation , which aims to reduce large inequalities in wealth by taking more money from richer people than from poor people and thereby affording public welfare measures. A countermeasure for inequalities due to different talents can only be the abolition of the competitive economy due to constant competition . The only alternative would then be a centrally controlled planned economy , which in turn would severely restrict freedom and efficiency . Further countermeasures without abolishing the competitive economy could include even higher taxation, free services and a " negative income tax ", i. H. Be cash payments . In any case, the inequalities could not be completely overcome.
Redistributive taxation would be relevant to solve this problem . The government would intervene here in what people do not only when it is wrong, but also because it contributes to effects that are apparently unfair. A rejection of this is justified by the fact that a government should not harm people as long as they are not doing anything wrong, and that the economic activities that cause inequalities are not wrong and therefore the people are completely innocent. Overall, then, it is a controversial political problem.
The death
The ninth chapter deals with the questions of what death is, whether there is life after death, and what attitude one should have towards one's own death. Generally there are two views: one is that man survives the death of his body and lives on in some way and the second view is that with death man ceases to exist and the person is annihilated.
The question of life after death is related to the psychophysical problem. A "life after death" means a life without the old body. If the dualism is true and the soul of a person could exist alone, even if it no longer led a psychic life of action and sensual perception, as this would only be possible in connection with a physical body, life after death could be possible . However, if the dualism is not true and life consists solely of psychological processes in the brain , i.e. biological functions of the brain and the organism, life after death might not be possible.
"" How should one face the prospect of death: with horror, with worry, with indifference or with relief? [...] the difficult and philosophically most interesting question is about our attitude towards death, if death is the end. Is it bad not to exist anymore? "(P. 93, line 31, p. 94, line 1f., 6ff.)"
There are again three opinions on this: 1. Non-existence cannot be either good or bad for the dead. 2. Non-existence is the worst of all evils. 3. Non-existence is a blessing.
If death is either a good or a bad thing, it is either a negative evil (lack of good things in life) or a negative good (lack of unpleasant things in life). However, an evil or good must happen to someone . But if that someone no longer exists, then death should have no positive or negative value. But that someone was also a person who lived, and so one can judge whether bad or good happened to this person through death.
Humans accept that there was a time before their own existence and should therefore also accept that there is a time after their own existence. So nonexistence should not frighten man because man should not be afraid of something that does not exist. He might just be afraid of what will happen to him if he survives death.
The sense of life
The tenth chapter deals with the question of the meaning of life . In a person's life there may be justifications and explanations for most acts. But these by no means immediately indicate the meaning of life as a whole.
"" When we think about the whole thing, it doesn't seem to make any sense. From the outside it wouldn't matter if we hadn't existed at all. And if we no longer exist, it will not matter that we existed. "(P. 99, lines 11ff.)"
One possibility would be that life makes sense in relation to something bigger. However, in order to have a meaning for itself, this greater must in turn be related to something greater. It is questionable whether this is possible and useful. If it is not possible and the meaninglessness of the greater, of which life is a part, is accepted, then life should already be accepted as meaningless.
The meaning of life is to be understood differently in a religious context, in which life would be a preparation for eternity in contact with God . Here God is supposed to be something that itself has meaning and purpose and is the idea of something that can explain everything, but cannot itself be explained. So the idea is that God gives meaning to everything because God includes everything. The question of the meaning or purpose of God could not be asked from outside at all, since there would be no outside.
On the other hand, it may not be a problem that human life as a whole is meaningless. Man only needs to focus on justifications within his life and that of others, since the fact that he exists would be the only significant thing here. However, man by nature wants to mean something to himself from the outside, and all his services and efforts in his life are based on a feeling of desire for meaning in a larger sense.
“If life doesn't matter, if life is not serious and the grave is its end, then maybe it is ridiculous that we take ourselves so seriously. On the other hand, if we can't help but take ourselves so seriously, then we may end up having to come to terms with being ridiculous. Life is then perhaps not only meaningless, but absurd. "(P. 104, lines 1ff.)"
expenditure
- Thomas Nagel: What does it all mean? A very brief introduction to philosophy. Reclam, Stuttgart, 2008, ISBN 3-15-010682-6 .
- Thomas Nagel: What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford University Press, New York, 1987, ISBN 0-19-505292-7 .