ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY 98 99
Wittgenstein’s language-games
we play a different game in analyze language to reveal its MEANING IS USE
which “art” means something essential structure is misguided
like “discipline” or “profession.” because language has no essential According to Wittgenstein, the
structure. As Wittgenstein ability to understand words is not a
Indeed, we also use words to admitted, this reversed the view matter of knowing exact rules and
flatter, scold, or influence people, that he expressed in his earlier definitions, but rather of being able
using phrases that have little or work, the Tractatus Logico- to use them in relevant contexts.
no literal meaning. Wittgenstein’s Philosophicus (see pp.90–91). There is no ultimate foundation
point was that any attempt to for this activity: the meanings of
words are defined by the ways in
“… think of the whole process which we use them, and not the
of using words … as one of those other way around. As Wittgenstein
games by means of which children said: “If I have exhausted the
learn their native language.” justifications, I have reached
bedrock, and my spade is turned.
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (1953) Then I am inclined to say, ‘This is
simply what I do.’”
Science and
falsification
The philosopher of science Karl Popper challenged one of
our oldest ideas—namely, that scientists should construct
theories and then show that they are true.
Science and pseudoscience Popper noted that if one man not a scientific hypothesis.
drowns a child and a second Popper contrasted this with
According to Popper (1902–94), man dies to save a child, both, Einstein’s theory of general
a theory should only be called according to Adler, may be relativity, which was scientific
“scientific” if it is falsifiable—that motivated by inferiority precisely because it was open
is, if there are conditions under complexes—the first empowering to being falsified by observation.
which it can be shown to be false. himself by committing a crime, So far, however, the theory has
This undermines the idea that the second doing so by being yet to be refuted.
scientists should make theories selfless. Popper claimed that he
and then demonstrate that they could think of no human behavior By claiming that science is a
are true—a process that, Popper that could not be interpreted in process of conjecture, Popper
argued, gives credibility to all terms of Adler’s theory, and that, avoided the “problem of induction”
kinds of “pseudoscience.” far from proving the truth of the (see p.65), which states that
theory, this showed that it was scientific theories are unjustified
For Popper, an example of not a theory at all—or at least, because they cannot be proven
pseudoscience was Alfred Adler’s to be true.
theory of “individual psychology.”
FALSIFICATION AND VERIFICATION The problem-solving
pursuit
Popper considered the statement “All A BLACK SWAN falsifies the theory
swans are white.” “All swans” describes that all swans are white. Popper argued that science attempts
an infinite set of objects, so no matter to solve the practical problems of the
how many white swans we observe, world and does so by formulating
we can never prove the claim that all theories and then performing
swans are white. However, we need experiments to test and falsify
only see a single nonwhite swan in those theories. He believed
order to falsify it. Falsification, then, that the growth of scientific
has the merit of being achievable, knowledge is thus the
whereas verification (proving a theory constant reformulation of
to be true) does not. Moreover, theories that have been
falsification reminds us of what disproven by falsification.
science should be about—namely, The best theories survive
disproving our provisional theories, attempts at falsification,
rather than encouraging belief in but this does not guarantee
things that cannot be proved. that they, too, will not be
For Popper, the Marxist theory falsified in the future.
of history (see pp.74–75) and Freud’s
theory of the unconscious are in this
sense unscientific.
100 101ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
Science and falsification
1 Potential scientific theories
For Popper, if a theory is falsifiable and supported
by the evidence, then it can be accepted as
the truth. However, since it may be falsified
in the future, its truth is provisional. A theory
that cannot be falsified is pseudoscience.
2 Scientific theories
Newton’s law of gravity was scientific precisely
because it could be tested or shown to be
false. The same is true of Einstein’s theory
of general relativity, which amended
Newton’s law.
3 Pseudoscience
Theories that cannot be falsified are
pseudoscience. For Popper, these included
Freud’s theory of the unconscious, Adler’s
theory of individual psychology, and
the Marxist theory of history.
The nature of
scientific truth
US philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine was critical of the idea
that philosophers should limit themselves to analyzing language.
Instead, he proposed that philosophy is a branch of science.
Philosophy as science For Quine, philosophy is effectively checked. However, Quine argued
a branch of science, rather than a that the same is not true of
Willard Quine (1908–2000) was separate discipline that gives scientific statements, which are
a fierce critic of logical positivism science its theoretical foundation. related to numerous other
(see pp.92–93), particularly its As he wrote, “it is within science statements that make up an
claim that philosophers should itself, and not in some prior entire body of knowledge. In
limit themselves to analyzing philosophy, that reality is to other words, scientific claims
language. However, he was also be identified and described.” cannot be checked against
against the idea that philosophers experience in isolation of the
should speculate about the nature Quine’s definition of “science” theories that they belong to.
of the world, or that philosophical was broad and included history, Quine noted that this means that
knowledge is in any way different psychology, and sociology, which scientific statements cannot be
from scientific knowledge. he saw as extensions of “common accepted or rejected on the basis
sense.” However, he considered of evidence alone. Rather, they
ANALYTIC TRUTHS physics to be the model for all are judged according to their
knowledge: ultimately, everything contribution to the strengths of a
In Two Dogmas of Empiricism (1951), can be understood in terms of theory as a whole. Pragmatic
Quine attacked the positivists’ physical processes. considerations therefore play a
reliance on the distinction between pivotal role in how we assess
analytic and synthetic statements Interconnected beliefs scientific claims—such as how
(see pp.68–69). According to this simple they are and how well they
distinction, analytic statements are According to Quine, human can be used to make predictions.
true by definition, while synthetic knowledge is an interconnected
statements are true or false “web of belief.” Simple statements Among other things, Quine’s
depending on the facts. of observation, such as “it is argument showed that the
snowing outside,” lie at the positivists’ claim that sentences
Quine argued that even the edge of this web, where they can be meaningful on their
statement “All bachelors are are formulated according to own, independently of
unmarried men” (an apparently experience. The truth or falsehood theory, is incoherent.
analytic statement) is only true of such statements is easily
because humans have had
experience of what it is to be The web of belief
married. In other words, the word
“bachelor” only has meaning in For Quine, knowledge is a web of interconnected beliefs.
connection to a wider body of Logic and mathematics lie at the center of the web, while
knowledge. Quine argued that observational statements lie on the periphery. Between
positivists ignore this connection these lie the theories that we construct to account for our
when they claim that analytic experience. According to Quine, each statement depends
statements are true independently on the entire web for its coherence.
of facts, and so can serve as the
fundamental units of thought.
102 103ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
The nature of scientific truth
Observational
knowledge
Theoretical
knowledge
Mathematical
knowledge
and logic
“No statement
is immune to
revision.”
Willard Quine, Two Dogmas
of Empiricism (1951)
Words as actions
The philosopher J. L. Austin (1911–1960) argued that the meaning
of a word is not an object or state of affairs in the world, but the
effect it has on the person or people being spoken to.
Describing and influencing effective or ineffective in achieving their aims.
However, Austin went on to claim that this distinction
In How to Do Things with Words (1955), J. L. Austin was inadequate, arguing that all constative sentences
challenged the traditional view that the primary are performative in some sense. In other words,
function of language is to describe. At the time, this whenever we say anything, we are trying to influence
view was held by many positivists (see pp.90–93), the world in some way. For this reason, he redefined
who advocated Wittgenstein’s picture theory of sentences as “speech acts.”
meaning, according to which words are effectively
pictures of the world (see pp.90–91). By then, Doing things with words
Wittgenstein had disowned his earlier theory and had
argued instead that language has countless functions To develop his theory further, Austin distinguished
(see pp.96–99), such as to persuade, to entertain, and what he called the locutionary, illocutionary, and
to encourage. Austin agreed with the later Wittgenstein, perlocutionary acts of speech. The locutionary act is
but unlike Wittgenstein, he thought that the functions
of language are finite and could be classified. WHAT A
LOVELY DAY!
Austin made a preliminary distinction between
what he called “constative” and “performative”
sentences. He defined constative sentences as
descriptions of states of affairs and performative
sentences as words that are uttered to achieve a
certain goal. The former, being descriptions, are
either true or false, while the latter are either
Acts of speech Locutionary act
According to Austin, speech is an active, performative A locutionary act is the physical act of uttering
exercise: when we speak, we want to elicit responses a sentence. However, it must be spoken in a social
from others and perhaps even influence their beliefs. context to have meaning. To say “What a lovely day!”
The true meaning of a sentence is thus its intended to oneself is effectively to sigh with contentment.
social function, or what Austin called its “illocutionary
force.” He contrasted this with the locutionary and
perlocutionary aspects of sentences—that is, the physical
act of speaking and the actual effects that sentences
have on others.
“Sentences are not as such
either true or false.”
J. L. Austin, Sense and Sensibilia (1962)
104 105ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
Words as actions
the simple, physical act of uttering a sentence. ORDINARY LANGUAGE PHILOSOPHY
However, the locutionary act is also an illocutionary
act, which is the intended effect of speaking a Austin belonged to a school of thought known as
sentence—such as to warn, to apologize, or to “ordinary language philosophy.” Ordinary language
instruct. A locutionary act is therefore an act of saying philosophers argue that the meaning of a word is
something, whereas an illocutionary act is an act the meaning it has in everyday language and that
performed by saying something. Austin’s third philosophical problems arise when words are taken
category, the perlocutionary act, is the intended or out of their natural contexts. For example, in ordinary
unintended consequence of the illocutionary act on language, we say that we “understand” something when
the person or people being spoken to. A warning, for it is clear to us what something means. However, it is
example, can have the perlocutionary effect of being less obvious what philosophers mean when they talk
a hostile gesture, when no such effect was intended. about understanding. The philosophical use of the
word is abstract and suggests that there is a “process”
In Austin’s view, to understand a sentence is to or “faculty” of understanding, which raises the question
understand all three performative aspects about it. of what sort of process or faculty it is—for example,
He argued that words are effectively tools whose is it “mental” or “physical”? Neither of these questions
meanings are the effects they have on the world, arises from our ordinary use of the word.
rather than pictures designed to represent it.
WHAT A A LOVELY
LOVELY DAY! DAY INDEED!
Illocutionary force Perlocutionary effect
If someone says “What a lovely day!” in a social For Austin, the meaning of a sentence is also the
context, they may be doing so to foster a effect it has on other people. If someone is greeted
friendship. Their words have meaning because by someone else, they may respond romantically,
of their intended consequences. whether the effect was expected or not.
Scientific
revolutions
US philosopher and historian Thomas Kuhn challenged the dominant
views of how the physical sciences work and transformed our
understanding of the philosophical framework of scientific practice.
Paradigm shifts For Kuhn, a “paradigm” is a view an agreed-upon view of the world.
of the world that a scientific theory Newtonian physics, for example,
Kuhn (1922–1996) believed that presupposes. A paradigm shift was a paradigm that existed
is therefore a change in our view from the 17th century until the
science does not always progress of the world, as opposed to an early 20th century, and because of
extension of our existing ideas. it, scientists had a framework
in a linear and gradual way. In fact, of shared assumptions. One of
According to Kuhn, “normal those assumptions was that time
in The Structure of Scientific science” is what goes on between is absolute, or that it passes at
Revolutions (1962), he argued that revolutions, when scientists have
the most significant advances in
science take the form of revolutions,
which he called “paradigm shifts.”
Avenues of knowledge “TRUE” ROUTE
For Kuhn, while science has progressed along one particular route,
there are many other routes it could have taken. A “true” route is
one that solves the most important problems of the day.
Aristotle in crisis
Aristotelian physics was a
paradigm until the 17th century,
when scientists showed that it
failed to account for gravity.
Newton’s world
In the 17th century,
Aristotle’s ideas
were replaced by
Newtonian physics.
106 107ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
Scientific revolutions
the same rate wherever one is In all likelihood, one day Einstein’s NEED TO KNOW
in the universe. In 1905, however, ideas may be replaced. Instead,
Albert Einstein showed that time Kuhn claimed that science, in any ❯❯A paradigm shift occurs
is in fact relative, or passes at age, enables us to do certain things, when a paradigm is thrown into
different rates depending on one’s and that it is the things that we can crisis—when scientific research
perspective. This idea completely do today (build computers, make encounters too many anomalies.
undermined Newtonian physics vaccines, and so on) that make
and forced scientists to adopt a our science seem “true.” ❯❯The process of building a
new, Einsteinian, paradigm. new paradigm is what Kuhn
For Kuhn, paradigm shifts are called “revolutionary science.”
Truth and progress not stages in our progress toward
the truth—they are more like ❯❯The scientific community
However, Kuhn argued that milestones in our evolution or in returns to its regular problem-
although Newton may have been our ability to adapt to the world. solving activities once a general
wrong about the nature of time, the Scientific truth is thus a matter of consensus over the new
difference between Newton and consensus, so it is always subject to paradigm is reached. Normal
Einstein is not that Einstein’s change, both between different science is resumed until new
theory is “truer” than Newton’s. cultures and at different times. anomalies are encountered.
Einstein’s world
In the 20th century, Newtonian physics
was replaced by Einstein’s theories
of relativity. However, the day will
come when Einstein, too, is replaced.
“TRUE” ROUTE
Points of view
A number philosophers have argued that it is impossible to think
objectively or without being influenced by one’s viewpoint. However,
Thomas Nagel (1937–) claims that objectivity is possible within limits.
Points of view and objectivity experiences, or points of view, are wholly unlike
our own. All we can do is speculate about the
The idea of objective thinking suggests that there is nature of their experience, in the same way that
a way of looking at the world that is not influenced someone who is blind can only speculate about
by our particular, subjective viewpoints, which are the experience of sight.
shaped by our cultural and biological conditioning. To
look at ourselves objectively is to see ourselves “from For Nagel, knowledge is “a set of concentric
the outside” and to understand which of our beliefs spheres, progressively revealed as we detach
are subjective and which are true regardless of who gradually from the contingencies of the self.”
we are. Over a series of books and articles, Thomas By thinking objectively, we leave our particular
Nagel discusses the extent to which this is possible. perspectives behind, but our objectivity is limited:
it gives us an outside view of a world that is filled
For Nagel, the physical sciences are models of with other perspectives, each of which has its
objectivity: they provide us with knowledge about own unique sense of its own existence.
the world and give us ways of testing that knowledge.
In describing human beings, science tells us that we The view from nowhere
are creatures that have particular kinds of bodies and
that these give us our human point of view. According to Nagel, thinking objectively
means thinking outside the boundaries of
However, Nagel argues that there is only so much our subjective perspectives. The further we
that science can reveal. For example, science can tell leave these perspectives behind, the more
us all sorts of things about bats, such as what they objective our thinking becomes. The end goal
eat and how they communicate, but not what it is of this process is to reach a vantage point that
like to be a bat. In other words, it can tell us what least depends on our biological and cultural
bats are like from our perspective (from the outside), perspectives—a view that Nagel calls “the view
but not what they are like from their perspective (from from nowhere.” The physical sciences, for example,
the inside). Nagel’s point is that science shows that operate in this “nowhere”: they describe things that
there are numerous creatures in the world whose are true for everyone, and not just for the scientists
themselves. In Points of View (1997), the philosopher
THE NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS A. W. Moore calls the representations that are produced
from no point of view “absolute representations,” for
In 1974, Nagel published a paper titled What is it like to be they describe the world with “complete detachment.”
a bat? In it, he argued that if something is conscious, then
there is something that it is like to be that thing: in other “What is wanted is some
words, that to be conscious is to have a perspective. His way of making the most
argument relies on the idea that to be conscious is always objective standpoint the
to be conscious of something, and that the character basis of action.”
of what we perceive depends on our senses. For these
reasons, creatures with different senses perceive the Thomas Nagel, The View From Nowhere (1986)
world in different ways, so being a bat is very different
from being a shark or a dog. Nagel’s argument is a criticism
of the materialists’ claim that consciousness can be fully
explained by describing a creature’s brain (see pp.152–153).
108 109ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
Points of view
Differing views
Nagel argues that no matter how much we
study a bat, we can never know what it is like
to be a bat. Likewise, a bat could never
understand what it is like to be a human.
However, if bats understood science, they
could reach their own “views from nowhere.”
They could formulate scientific theories and
still be aware of the limits of objectivity.
SELF
CULTURE
PHYSICAL SCIENCES
Feminist
epistemology
In studying the theory of knowledge (epistemology) from a feminist
perspective, feminist epistemologists seek to identify and challenge
harmful gender biases that prevail in many areas of knowledge.
A feminist view of knowledge View
from above
Feminist philosophers of epistemology and science
have identified gender biases at the core of theoretical What a wonderful, clear
knowledge in disciplines such as physics, medicine, view I have from the top
and law. They argue that women continue to be of the mountain! Here
marginalized in most areas of knowledge as a result
of the fact that dominant models of knowledge and I am, master of the
the methods used to acquire knowledge both conceal objective view! I see
and reinforce sexist biases. Stereotypically “feminine” everything clearly.
modes of knowing (for example, practical forms of
knowledge, such as how to look after children or the
elderly) are underestimated and devalued.
As a consequence, women often lack self-confidence
and authority in their chosen discipline and may be
assumed to be less capable scientists, researchers,
or academics than their male counterparts. Feminist
philosophers argue that cognitive and scientific
practices need to be assessed and reformed in order
to ensure that women are fairly treated in these
traditionally “masculine” fields.
Different perspectives Men only
Feminists argue that women face greater Many areas of theoretical
adversity than men in our male-dominated knowledge have been
society (see Standpoint theory, right), which
gives them a different understanding of a created by men for men’s
situation. A man may think he can assess purposes. As a result, they
a situation objectively, but his perspective
is skewed by patriarchal practices and may contain many
harmful assumptions. unquestioned biases.
110 111ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
Feminist epistemology
Questioning gender biases STANDPOINT THEORY
This feminist view of epistemology does not necessarily Along with feminist empiricism and postmodern
imply that all knowledge is determined by gender. approaches (see pp.140–141), standpoint theory is one of
Feminists claim, however, that types of knowledge several distinctive feminist approaches to knowledge.
that are important to women’s interests are gendered. Standpoint theorists, including Sandra Harding (1935–),
In doing so, they are not claiming that objectivity is not argue that the social position of women represents
possible or desirable, but are raising questions about a standpoint (point of view) of a disadvantaged or
objectivity, such as whether it is possible or necessary oppressed group. This standpoint allows women to
to overcome specific gendered perspectives to achieve see the shortcomings of the male-dominated practices
objectivity. They also question whether an unbiased and institutions that oppress them.
view is always desirable and ask what makes a certain
perspective or situation a privileged one, and in what Women’s standpoint is privileged because they have
sense. They also consider whether or not men can put direct knowledge of what it means to be oppressed, so
themselves in women’s shoes, and women in men’s, in they are capable of a more insightful critical reflection.
order to gain a new and valuable perspective. The oppressors—groups of powerful men—tend to
ignore harmful assumptions and the consequences
Feminist epistemology of their actions.
The adversity faced by women reveals that the The aim of standpoint theory is to achieve a collective
tools and workings of traditional knowledge are in understanding among women as a social group and to
reveal these shortcomings and harmful assumptions. On
need of critical examination because they often this basis, feminists can act politically to fight against the
produce limited and gender-biased knowledge. representation of women as objects of men’s desires
and subordination and to promote women as capable
of holding all forms of knowledge, as well as people
whose needs and interests should be properly taken
into account in every area of knowledge.
Oppressed standpoint
I must find new ways to get to
the top of the mountain, but I’ll
keep going in order to achieve
objectivity and gain knowledge
that is free of gender bias.
CONTINENTAL
PHILOSOPHY
In the 20th century, European philosophers pursued
a different approach to that of the analytic school.
They focused more on the nature of life itself—
on what it means to be human.
114 115CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
Introduction
CONTINENTAL
PHILOSOPHY
The phrase “continental philosophy” was first used philosophers should not speculate about things
in the 19th century by British philosophers who that are beyond our comprehension, but instead focus
wished to distinguish what they saw to be their own on the things that we can and that we do experience.
tradition of empiricism from the more speculative Husserl’s ideas were taken up by Martin Heidegger,
form of philosophy practiced in mainland Europe. who proposed that philosophers should study the
The label stuck, however, and provides a useful nature of experience itself. This idea of analyzing
distinction between two broad approaches to subjective experience appealed particularly to
philosophy, especially in the 20th century. French philosophers, including Jean-Paul Sartre,
the leading figure of the “existentialist” school of
The rift between the two schools widened with the thought. Philosophy was very much a part of the
establishment of analytic philosophy, which was French literary as well as academic tradition, and
inspired by the work of Bertrand Russell. At the same as such had anticipated the subjective perspective
time, philosophers in mainland Europe were coming of modern continental philosophy. Sartre and his
to terms with the legacy of a century of German partner Simone de Beauvoir also developed
idealism. The continental tradition did not have the Heidegger’s idea that we should all aim to live
empirical roots that British philosophy had, and since “authentically.” They argued that we have no
the 17th century had been steeped in rationalism essential nature and that we should each live
and idealism. Where British philosophers developed according to our own principles.
the pragmatic ideas of utilitarianism and liberalism,
a more speculative undercurrent flowed on the Other strands of philosophy also emerged from the
continent, rising from the revolutionary ideas of continental tradition. A combination of the critical
Voltaire, Rousseau, and Marx; through the German approach advocated by Kant and a reinterpretation
idealists Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer; and of Marx’s ideas gave rise to a school of critical theory
culminating in the iconoclastic Nietzsche. that tried to counter the rising tide of totalitarianism
before World War II. This process of analysis of social
In the 20th century, continental philosophers placed and political issues flourished after the war. Michel
even more emphasis on subjective experience. This Foucault, for example, identified ways in which
produced a human-centered approach to philosophy society at large exercises power over individuals.
that first appeared in the work of Edmund Husserl, His ideas greatly influenced subsequent structuralist
whose “phenomenology” was the basis of a lot of and poststructuralist thinkers, who revealed the
future continental philosophy. Husserl argued that extent to which ideas and power are interconnected.
Objects in the mind
The German philosopher Franz Brentano argued that all mental acts—such
as thoughts, emotions, and perceptions—are about something, namely
an object towards which the mind is directed.
Intentionality remember, imagine, or desire something, we direct
our minds toward that thing. For example, we might
The term “intentionality” was originally used by picture that thing in our mind, we might have an
scholastic philosophers (see pp.46–47), who argued opinion on it, or it might provoke an emotion in us.
that God exists in reality, as well as in our minds. Brentano named this directing of the mind toward
Brentano (1838–1917) reintroduced the term as part something “intentionality” and called the things
of his theory of consciousness from a first-person toward which we direct our minds “intentional
perspective and attempted to lay the foundations objects.” For Brentano, mental states are about
of a scientific psychology. intentional objects, and intentional objects exist
inside our minds whether or not they exist outside
In his book, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint our minds (as real objects in the physical world).
(1874), Brentano argued that every thought or mental
state we have is about something. When we sense,
Mental (intentional) objects Mental objects
Objects that are inside the mind (or
Intentional objects include objects of perception, recollection, “immanent”) can be representations of
or imagination and objects of desire or those toward which we real objects or nonexistent objects.
have feelings. These intentional objects exist within our mind Brentano called these representations
whether or not these things exist outside our mind. We can be
directed toward one and the same intentional object in various in the mind “presentations.”
ways: for example, by directly sensing it, remembering it,
or having a feeling toward or an opinion about it.
The real
Physical objects exist outside
the mind, independently
of us. When we sense
real objects, they
become objects
in our minds.
116 117CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
Objects in the mind
Brentano argued that there can DIFFICULTIES WITH BRENTANO’S
be no unconscious mental acts. INTENTIONALITY
This is because we are always
aware of the objects toward A major problem with Brentano’s ideas is that he never clearly defined the
which our mental acts are directed, terms he used to describe consciousness. This means that there has been
and so are always aware of the confusion about the concepts he used to describe mental objects, such as
mental acts themselves. He “presentation” and “immanent object.” It is also unclear whether his use of the
called the most basic kind of mental term “intentional object” refers to the real object or its mental representation.
phenomena “presentations,” which
we have when we picture an object THE REAL BOOK ITS MENTAL
in our minds. Other kinds of mental AS WE PERCEIVE IT REPRESENTATION
acts, such as judgments (which
involve an affirmation or denial of
the existence of objects), desires,
and emotions, are based on
and require presentations.
Experienced objects Emotions Nonexistent things
Objects that have been sensed Emotions and desires are Not all mental acts are about
also about things, since real objects. We can have a
or remembered become “presentation” of something
objects inside our minds: they they are directed
become mental representations toward an object. that has no counterpart
in the real world.
of the real.
Phenomenology
Founded by Edmund Husserl, phenomenology is concerned with
phenomena, or things that appear to us. It involves laying aside our
assumptions about whether or not external, physical objects exist.
The phenomena of consciousness and beyond the limits of our perception,
whereas phenomena are how these objects
Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) believed that a appear within our consciousness.
scientific approach to the study of consciousness
and experience from a first-person point of view Changing attitude
would give us definite answers to questions
about subjective experience that philosophers In what Husserl calls our “natural attitude” toward
had been debating for centuries. He called this things, we assume that objects and a world beyond
approach phenomenology. our own consciousness exist. We perceive, remember,
imagine, and desire what we assume are the objects
Husserl defined phenomenology as the science themselves, but we do not investigate these mental
of the phenomena of consciousness. The standard acts of perception, remembering, imagining, and
definition of a phenomenon is something that desiring. That is to say that because we assume that
appears to us—that is, what we experience, mean, the objects themselves exist, we do not examine
or intend. Husserl makes a distinction between how these objects appear as phenomena within
phenomena and objects, however. He argues our consciousness. Husserl argues that we can
that objects exist outside our consciousness
Epoché 1 Setting aside assumptions
The phenomenological method requires us to put
Science aims to give us certain
answers to questions about the aside, or “bracket out,” our assumptions and beliefs about
world, but scientific findings depend
on experience, and experience is external objects. We no longer assume that these objects
subject to assumptions and biases.
Phenomenology “brackets out” our exist. Instead, we suspend judgment about their existence.
assumptions and puts them
to one side in an “epoché.” Epoché
involves a change of attitude from
the “natural attitude” to the
“phenomenological attitude.”
In the natural attitude, we assume
the existence of external objects. In
the phenomenological attitude, we
suspend our judgment about the
existence of external objects and
instead focus on, and describe, our
inner experience of these objects.
This enables us to grasp the essence
of our experience of objects and
what makes it possible for us to
make sense of them.
118 119CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
Phenomenology
change our attitude and pass from the natural PHENOMENOLOGY VS. LOGICAL
attitude to what he calls the phenomenological POSITIVISM
attitude. This change in attitude is called
phenomenological “reduction” or “epoché.” According to logical positivism (see pp.92–93), the only
meaningful statements are logical propositions and
If we carry out the epoché, we lay aside (or “bracket statements about the physical world that can be verified
out,” as Husserl calls it) our assumption that objects by observation. Statements that express a subjective
beyond our consciousness exist. Instead, we focus on opinion or judgment are meaningless. This means
our consciousness and how these objects appear as that a logical positivist would argue that subjective
phenomena in our consciousness. For Husserl, this answers to philosophical questions are meaningless.
enables us to make a pure description of the contents
of our consciousness, free from any assumptions. For Husserl, logical positivism is flawed because it
Our consciousness is not at all empty, but full of the assumes that fundamental questions and issues about
intentional objects (see pp.116–117) toward which human existence are meaningless, and so unanswerable.
we direct our minds. Husserl argues that phenomenology can help us answer
philosophical problems with the same degree of certainty
“Experience by itself with which we can answer scientific and mathematical
is not science.” questions. By laying aside all of our assumptions, we can
build a secure foundation for knowledge of subjective
Edmund Husserl experience that will enable us to make meaningful
philosophical statements about our experience of life.
2 Objects and phenomena 3 Focusing on consciousness
This enables us to distinguish between an object If we reflect on our own perception or
(the chair) and a phenomenon (the chair as we perceive memory of a chair, this means we can focus
it). We might destroy the chair, but we can still remember on our inner experience of objects and examine
or imagine it. The phenomenon can survive the object. how they appear to us within our consciousness.
Time consciousness
Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) argued that time
consciousness, or our awareness of time, is
the most basic form of human consciousness.
Present, past, and future no longer immediately present.
Husserl calls this process of holding
To explore how humans experience onto the recent past “retention.”
time, Husserl analyzed an actual
moment of consciousness. He used Husserl argued that the past
the example of hearing a melody. of something is made up of
For Husserl, when we hear a a continuity of retentions. This
note of a melody at a precise continuity of retentions makes
moment, the sound of this note it possible for us to perceive an
creates a “primal impression,” object as one particular thing
or a new “now-moment.” This rather than as a multiplicity of
new sound pushes away the most things or just a messy chaos.
recent moment. As that most recent Every retention brings with
moment moves into the past, our it a further retention. When a
consciousness holds onto it, so present moment of time slips
that what is retained takes on the into the past, it becomes
character of being just past and connected to a retention of
The flow of time
Husserl argues that the experience of hearing a melody
brings together the primal impression of the immediate
now; the retention of the immediate past; and protention,
or the anticipation of, the future.
“All consciousness is
consciousness of
something.”
Edmund Husserl
120 121CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
Time consciousness
the past moment that immediately even anticipating—by drawing on primal impression (present),
preceded it. A chain of retentions, past retentions—the new sounds retention (past), and protention
connected with the present that are about to come. Husserl (future)—allow the immediate
moment reaches into the past like a calls this forward-looking aspect of present to be connected to the
comet’s tail. When we hear a time consciousness “protention.” past and the future as humans
melody, we are not only retaining experience, and are aware of,
past sounds but also expecting or For Husserl, the three basic the passing of time.
elements of time consciousness—
Immediate 1 Primal impression
moment The new note that is just sounding
creates a primal impression, or a
At any given
immediate new now-moment.
moment, a
new note is
sounding.
3 Protention
We expect to hear new
sounds that will occur in
the immediate future.
2 Retention
The sound from the immediate
past is no longer present, but it is
retained in our consciousness.
What is it like
to be human?
In his form of existentialist philosophy, Martin Heidegger explored
what it means to be human, and most importantly, what it is like
to exist as a human being living in the world.
Existentialist subject, or self, are inadequate existence, but should think
phenomenology because they look at human life about it through lived experience.
from the outside. He argued that in Instead of asking “What is a human
Heidegger (1889–1976) order to understand what it means being?”, we should ask “What
was influenced by Edmund to be human, we should not ask does it mean to exist as a human
Husserl’s phenomenology (see abstract questions about human being in this world?”
pp.118–119), but he transformed
the phenomenological method to What is the
address what he believed were human?
more fundamental questions about
meaning and being. While Husserl A Scientific
argued that we find meaning by Treatise on
understanding the structure of Human Nature
consciousness, Heidegger argued
that we can only find meaning by
analyzing what it is like to be
human in our day-to-day existence.
Heidegger maintained that
various attempts to define the
human being as consciousness,
What to ask
For Heidegger, we can only
understand our existence
in this world by asking
questions about our own
experience, such as “What
is it like to be human?”
Scientific questions, such
as “What is a human?”,
will not help us to reach
this understanding.
122 123CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
What is it like to be human?
Human existence or the state of “being there” in BEING-IN-THE-
the world is what defines us as WORLD
In Heidegger’s view, if we are to humans. We are not isolated
understand what it means to say subjects cut off from the world In his book Being and Time (1927),
that something is, we need to that we want to know about, but Heidegger describes the nature
understand what it means to exist rather are beings who are “always of being-in-the-world (Dasein) by
as a human being. This is because already” in the world. For Heidegger, exploring the attitudes of humans
humans are the only beings for to be in the world means to dwell who exist in this world toward the
whom the meaning of existence in a familiar environment, and various things that they encounter
and being is a question. Animals, being-in-the-world is both simpler in this world. If humans encounter
plants, and inanimate objects, for and broader than mere knowledge an object and their attitude toward
example, do not ask questions or perception. It refers to how things that object is that it is potentially
about their being and reality, but we engage with affect our existence available for them to use in order
humans do ask such questions. and how they make us feel. to achieve something, then that
Heidegger argued that “Dasein,” object is what Heidegger calls
“ready-at-hand”. If humans merely
look at or observe an object
without engaging with and using
it, then that object is “present-at-
hand”. In this way, Heidegger takes
human being as a starting point for
asking philosophical questions
about being in general.
“Dasein is ianmWhbtiehWutheaimsalnhihtwaktduanooeotrmbeeltdixesosai?isinttnga?s
in each case
mine and in
the world.”
Martin Heidegger
Life before death
Martin Heidegger argued that it is only possible for us to understand
and engage with the things that matter most to us when we live an
“authentic” existence and acknowledge our own mortality.
Being-toward-death aware of death, we reach a deeper
understanding of ourselves and
In Being and Time (see p.123), Heidegger argued what it means to exist and have
that a fundamental human anxiety is our awareness meaningful and authentic existence.
that we are not the source of ourselves, so we do not
have absolute power over our destinies. He claimed The call of conscience
that this sense of “groundlessness,” or lack of
foundation, lies at the heart of our being and that For Heidegger, having a genuine
it is connected to our awareness of our mortality. understanding of our own mortality
Heidegger called this attitude of living in the face of brings us back from our lostness in
death “being-toward-death.” the world to our own true selves.
Achieving it seems to occur
Being-toward-death is not an attitude that occurs spontaneously, but Heidegger claimed
occasionally, but is from the outset part of who we that it is prompted by the “call of
are, whether we acknowledge it or choose to ignore conscience,” which is being’s most
it. Heidegger argued that we must genuinely profound communication with itself:
understand our own mortality if we are to live conscience cuts through the surface
as our authentic selves. By acknowledging death, “chatter” of our lives and summons us
we acknowledge the outermost limits of our own into the presence of ourselves. It is a
experience. If we ignore our own mortality, we call away from the distractions that
miss this fundamental dimension of our existence shield us from the truth—that we are
and become preoccupied with banal aspects of our temporary creatures, whose fear of
day-to-day lives that are ultimately meaningless, death is relieved by facing it directly.
so our existence becomes inauthentic. If we become
THE NATURE OF ANXIETY Authentic existence
Heidegger argued that one of the ways in which the For Heidegger, existence is finite, ending with
authentic self manifests itself is through anxiety, or angst. our deaths, and belongs not just in the present,
He contrasted anxiety with fear, which he claimed was but also in the past and future, which are
always fear of something in particular, such as a snake interconnected. To understand what it means
or a spider: when the snake or spider is removed, the to exist authentically is to constantly project
fear disappears. Anxiety, on the other hand, is not a our lives on to the horizon of our death: to
fear of anything in particular; it is a feeling of alienation exist as “being-toward-death.” To be is to be
from the world. This feeling of “groundlessness” is, in time, and our being is, ultimately, a being-
for Heidegger, the birth of the authentic self—or, toward-death. But this is not a pessimistic view;
as he puts it, of Dasein (see pp.122–123), becoming instead, it enables us to make sense of the
individualized and self-aware. It is the moment in things that matter to us and to prioritize them
which, distanced from the world and other people, things over less important things.
we are free to become ourselves.
124 125CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
Life before death
Death “Death is the
limit to our
Finding lov possibilities.”
Martin Heidegger
Building a hom
eBirth
AST Learning to reP
e self”
FUTURE
Becoming “th ad
e
T
PRESEN
Meaning through action and choice
By engaging in plans and tasks that project us toward the future,
we make sense of ourselves and the world. Awareness
of death as the outermost limit of our possibilities makes us
project ourselves toward a future that matters to us. Pastimes
and future projects give our life sense and meaning;
the authentic self is mindful of the limit that is death,
while the inauthentic self would try to ignore it.
Freedom and identity
Jean-Paul Sartre argued that freedom is one of the fundamental things
that makes us human, but that we attempt to deny the existence of
this freedom by deceiving ourselves and assuming fixed identities.
Being-in-itself and being-for-itself and act. Sartre claimed that humans are distinctive
for having both kinds of nature. We have freedom,
One of the most important contributors to but, at the same time, our existence is defined by
existentialism (the analysis of human existence in the situations and identities that we simply accept,
world), Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) was influenced like personal history, age, gender, race, class, or
by and critically engaged with the works of leading professional status. Sartre believed that freedom
phenomenologists such as Edmund Husserl (see is, however, inescapable. We may seek to flee the
pp.118–121) and Martin Heidegger (see pp.122–125). choices and decisions that come with freedom
because we do not want to take responsibility
In his seminal work Being and Nothingness: An for our actions, but we are “condemned
Essay on Phenomenological Ontology (1943), Sartre to be free”: to
distinguished between different ways of existing. be constantly
“Being-in-itself” characterizes the being of inanimate faced with these
objects or animals, which are as they are made to be choices and
and lack consciousness and freedom to make choices. decisions.
By contrast, “being-for-itself” is a mode of existence
that has consciousness and freedom to choose I am the perfect
waiter, but I am free
Playing a role
to leave my job.
Sartre illustrates the distinction between
existence and essence with the example Ah, Jacques! He
of a café waiter, who excels in his really is the perfect
professional role. Being a waiter seems
to be part of his essence—the purpose waiter—so polite
and identity that are imposed on him— and efficient.
and he seeks to perform the ideal role of
a café waiter. Sartre says that the waiter
is trying to imprison himself in this role,
but this is in principle impossible. This
is because humans cannot escape their
freedom. The waiter is not just a waiter.
His existence—a state of being in which
he is free to act as he chooses—is
characterized by possibility. For Sartre,
a person’s identity cannot be reduced
to the roles that that person plays
in everyday life. Our existence as
conscious, free beings is more
important than the roles that
we perform, or our essence.
126 127CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
Freedom and identity
Bad faith EXISTENCE AND ESSENCE
Sartre identified a fundamental kind of self-denial of For Sartre, existence is the fact of being, while essence is
consciousness and freedom, which he called bad faith. its purpose, function, and definition. For everything in
Bad faith is a kind of self-deceit about our freedom to the world created by human beings, essence precedes
transcend the identities we impose on ourselves. existence, but for humanity itself, the reverse is true.
Bad faith is not, however, lying. In the case of lying, Sartre illustrates the distinction between existence and
the deceiver and the deceived are two parties. The liar essence with a paper knife. The knife would not have
is aware of his intention to lie and does not seek to been created if no need for it existed. Therefore, the
hide it from himself. In contrast, with bad faith, the knife’s essence must have preceded the knife itself.
deceiver and the deceived are the same person. The
deceiver knows the truth, which he conceals from As an atheist, Sartre did not believe that a creator
himself, choosing instead to imprison himself in his god had given humanity an essence. He argued instead
role. Sartre thought that bad faith is a deep paradox of that there is no human nature beyond that which
consciousness: we deny our freedom, but if we were we actively define for ourselves.
not free, we would not be able to carry out this denial.
“Existence
precedes
essence.”
Jean-Paul Sartre
No more
bad faith!
TFfhrreeeheewidstaooidimtreeenrjteiisctyt.
The “other”
According to Jean-Paul Sartre (see pp.126–127), we cannot view ourselves
as separate from other people, or other minds, because we can only
become self-aware when we are aware that someone else is watching us.
The problem of other Sartre’s perspective, arguments a lived (immediate, first-personal)
minds that attempt to prove or disprove experience of them as subjects in
the existence of other minds fail concrete life situations rather than
Many philosophers have viewed for a number of reasons, the main as objects of knowledge. He says
our relation to other people in terms reason being that they share a that once we realize that other
of the “problem of other minds”: view of the “self” as separate from people view us as an object—
how can we know that other people others and a view of other people and label us in any way they choose
have minds and think and feel like as objects of knowledge for us. (see box)—we become aware of
we do? These philosophers seek to ourselves and see ourselves as
prove that other minds exist, and Sartre challenges these objects of the other’s gaze.
thus solve the problem of solipsism assumptions, arguing that the self
(the view that I am the only mind is inseparable from others and that In Sartre’s view, the existence of
that I can know to exist). From our main relation to other people is others cannot be proven, but we
The other’s look Objectifying others
In Sartre’s view, when we are aware For Sartre, we become aware of conscious states such as shame when we are
that another person (“the other”) confronted with the gaze of another. To illustrate this, he imagined himself
might see us, we do not just notice peeping through a keyhole. In this similar example, a man is spying on his
two eyes directed at us. An open partner, who is having an affair with another man. As he watches, he is totally
window or the movement of a curtain absorbed in what he is doing—he is not explicitly aware of himself. But his
or door can be manifestations of the look objectifies his partner and the other man.
other’s look. When we are looked at,
we become aware of ourselves as CHEATER
vulnerable. This awareness is not LIAR
some sort of knowledge; it is a lived TRAITOR
experience of another person—the
experience of feeling vulnerable or
ashamed that arises from being seen
by that person. We become aware
of our own self, as an object, only in
relation to the other person. The self
therefore has its foundation in the
other’s look. Being seen by another
is “an irreducible fact” of our being.
Sartre concludes that our relation to
other people (and their “mind”) is
an internal relation rather than a
relation between two separated
entities: it is a direct, lived relationship
rather than a mediated form of
objective knowledge.
128 129CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
The “other”
can and do resist solipsism because we rely on our OUR UNEASY RELATION TO OTHERS
lived experience of others (how we experience them)
to make us aware of ourselves and of how other people According to Sartre, we cannot control the way in
view and label us. As we become aware of the labels which we are seen by someone else. How other people
that other people attach to us, we might apply these categorize us—as, for example, “nice” or “funny”—is
labels to ourselves and lose awareness of our freedom unpredictable, as they can see us as they want to. The
(see box). But if we reassert ourselves and our freedom, other person’s freedom is, as Sartre says, “the limit of
we gain greater self-awareness. [our] freedom.” Other people can attach, in their mind,
certain labels to us and our “outside” objective appearance.
“Through the revelation
of my being-as-object for By objectifying us in this way, other people rob us of
the Other … I apprehend our inherent freedom (our existence as a being-for-itself)
his being-as-subject.” and instead turn us into a being-in-itself (see pp.126–127).
We see ourselves as vulnerable. This alienates us from
Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness (1943) ourselves and our possibilities in the world because we
lose awareness of our freedom and become restricted
by the labels that other people attach to us. We regain
our freedom by opposing objectification by others.
Being objectified Finding freedom
Suddenly, the man realizes that another person is Under the gaze of the other person, the man’s self
watching him. He becomes aware of himself as an eventually reasserts itself and opposes the other
object for someone else and of their objectifying person’s objectification; it seeks to regain and affirm
gaze. As he has negatively labeled his partner and freedom. As the self becomes aware of its freedom,
the other man, so, in turn, the person who has the other becomes an object for the self. The self
caught him spying labels him. no longer feels ashamed.
SPY BUSYBODY
VOYEUR MEDDLER
CREEP TROUBLEMAKER
Gender identity
The activist and intellectual Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986) had a
huge influence on contemporary philosophy and feminist theory. Her
ideas on the framing of woman as man’s “Other” were groundbreaking.
The “Other” used by men to make women their man.” At best, women have been
“Other” and to justify traditional regarded as a “mystery” in order to
In The Second Sex (1949), Simone views of women as inferior. Men justify their secondary, alienated
de Beauvoir examined human and masculine features are seen status as a “second sex.”
consciousness from a first-person, as the absolute ideal of the human,
phenomenological perspective, using whereas women have been The lived body
existential ideas about freedom (see characterized as deviant, imperfect,
pp.126–127) to address the question and the inessential “Other.” At De Beauvoir argued that historically
of the difference between women worst, the female body has been men have used sexual difference
and men. She draws a distinction regarded as weaker than, or inferior as a way of oppressing women—in
between sex, which is biologically to, a man’s—Freud, for example, particular, by requiring them to be
determined, and gender, which is a described a woman as a “mutilated passive, caring, and concerned with
social construct. Gender has been their appearance. Her argument was
Becoming a woman “One is not born but becomes
woman.”
De Beauvoir rejected the traditional
view that biology determines what Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (1949)
we are and that it is a woman’s
destiny, for example, to become a Infancy Early socialization
mother. She argued that such ideas De Beauvoir observed that However, as female infants get
were invented by men, chiefly for baby girls do not behave
the purpose of subjugating women. differently from baby boys older, they are socialized in
Instead, she restated the existential ways that make them behave
claim that “existence precedes and that they are not like “girls,” doing the things that
essence,” arguing that we are not expected to do so.
born with any particular gender “girls” stereotypically do.
identities and that women are not
born women, but only become
women through social conditioning.
In other words, women’s nature is
not fixed, but is constantly changing
and developing. Furthermore, since
women have freedom, they have the
ability to liberate themselves from the
demands that men have traditionally
made of them. Her point was not that
there are no gender differences, but
rather that whatever differences there
are should not be used as excuses for
treating women as inferior.
130 131CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
Gender identity
not that women should be like men, WHO IS TO BLAME?
or that sexual differences should be
eliminated, but that differences, Although women cannot be said to be A WOMAN must assert her own identity
whatever they are, should not be to blame for their domination by men, to avoid compromising her freedom.
used to subordinate women. de Beauvoir claimed that women are
sometimes complicit in compromising
De Beauvoir saw sex and gender their freedom. She identified three
as essential aspects of human life. kinds of women who show what Sartre
She argued that our existence is called “bad faith”—that is, who turn
characterized by “being-in-the- their back on their own essential
world” (see pp.122–123) and shaped freedom (see pp.126–127). The
by our physical forms: women and Narcissist denies her freedom by seeing
men exist as embodied individuals herself as an object of beauty; the
engaged with the world. Her major Woman in Love does so by submerging
idea was that embodied existence— herself in the love of a man; and the
and, in particular, the “lived body” Mystic does so by devoting herself
(see pp.132–133)—is essentially to an absolute idea, such as God.
gendered and sexed.
Feminization Potential for liberation
As the years pass, girls are By the time they are adults, women have been
feminized further in taught to be mothers and effectively the
accordance with social inferiors of men. De Beauvoir argued that
expectations. Typically, they women should see through this conditioning
are expected to be passive. and embrace their own destinies instead.
The lived body
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, influenced by Martin Heidegger’s account of
being-in-the-world (see pp.122–123), argued that the way we perceive
the world is not purely intellectual but is also shaped by our bodies.
Phenomenology of the lived body obstacles or become ill, or are injured. Empiricism,
meanwhile, sees the body as a thing of the natural
Merleau-Ponty criticized traditional understandings of world but neglects its distinctive intentionality—
the human body, namely the “intellectualist” approach that is, its conscious engagement with the world.
and the “empiricist” approach. Intellectualism views
the body in terms of our mental representations of it Merleau-Ponty argued that a person’s body is not just
and neglects its material existence, ignoring the fact an object that responds to external stimuli. Instead,
that the body is made up of matter. This fact becomes he said, it should be thought about in terms of that
obvious when, for example, people encounter physical person’s engagement with the world and their ability
Perception as background Perceiving without thinking
Our perception of things involves an
Merleau-Ponty took Heidegger’s concept of being-in-the- awareness of objects as a whole, including
world—the idea that to understand existence, we must first parts we cannot see, such as the interior of
consider our own existence within the world we live a house. This precedes our focusing on
in (see pp.122–123)—and added to it a new idea about the
human body and perception. particular details.
In Phenomenology of Perception (1945), Merleau-Ponty
challenges traditional beliefs about perception, arguing
that it cannot be properly explained in terms of how
sensory data is received and processed (as empiricists
claim), nor in terms of thinking about objects and their
sensory properties (as intellectualists propose). In his view,
perception is a fundamental openness, a background that
enables us to discern specific sensory features and that
is “prereflective.” For example, we can identify the ringing
sound of a phone and reach for it only because we already
have a (background) perception of the thing that is a
phone; we do not need to reflect on it in order to reach
for it, but instead act automatically.
In everyday life, we are neither mere spectators to the
world’s “show” nor armchair thinkers; we are actively
engaged in specific environments. Perception is connected
to action and movement. It is not simply produced—by
either the physical body or the mind—but instead stems
from an entanglement of the lived body and consciousness.
For example, a swimmer perceives the water and interacts
with it without thinking about it; her body has a
consciousness that enables her to swim without reflecting
on her movements and how they interact with the water.
132 133CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
The lived body
to act with purpose. The “lived body” (a term first used is neither merely the result of neural connections
by Husserl to describe the body as we experience it nor of purely mental processes. The empiricist
from a first-personal point of view) is not accessible explanation of the body is insufficient here, for given
to us like an object that we can see and touch from all that the limb is no longer present, it cannot receive
sides, but is always present for us and enables us to stimuli. Also, different patients tend to have different
access the world. The lived body is not a mere object, experiences of the condition. The intellectualist
but is involved in all aspects of our existence. explanation also fails because the limb is vividly felt
as present—far too vividly for it to have been generated
The phantom limb by a mental representation such as a memory. Rather,
Merleau-Ponty argued, the phantom limb has its
To illustrate this view, Merleau-Ponty used the source in the person’s habitual ways of being and
phenomenon of the phantom limb (where someone acting in the world. For this reason, the intention
who has lost a limb still feels the limb as part of their is still present, even though the limb is not.
body). Merleau-Ponty argued that this phenomenon
“The body is our general
medium for having a world.”
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception (1945)
Perceiving a phantom limb
In Merleau-Ponty’s view, the phantom limb phenomenon
arises when a habitual way of being-in-the-world conflicts
with a change in a person’s circumstances. The phantom limb
keeps alive an area of the person’s embodied life and
openness to the world. Merleau-Ponty did not say that
physiological conditions or psychic factors (memories,
emotions, and so on) are irrelevant to the experience of the
phantom limb. Instead, he said that such facts should not be
conceived in isolation from each other; they “gear into each
other” within the framework of being-in-the-world.
Bodily intention
Reaching out with a phantom
limb emerges from a habitual
way of being involved in the
world through one’s body.
Critical theory
Developed as a response to the rise of 20th-century
capitalist society, critical theory aimed to free individuals
from ideological, cultural, and political forms of domination.
Emancipation Discursive rationality “The limited
Led by a group of scholars based in More recently, Jürgen Habermas
Frankfurt, Germany, in the 1930s,
critical theorists examined modern freedom of(1929–) argued for a more discursive,
capitalist society, seeking to
identify and expose its limitations— collaborative approach to rationality,
in particular, the norms and framing it as a social enterprise to
institutions that define society
and that can exert power over the bourgeoisbe carried out within the public
individuals. Critical theory sphere. He believed that assessing
attempted to uncover not only
sources of domination, but also individual putsethical and political norms cannot
possibilities for social change, on the illusorybe the result of detached “armchair”
with the eventual practical aim thinking, but can only occur form of perfect
of human emancipation. A “real through public discussion, which
democracy,” according to Max
Horkheimer (1895–1973), leader freedom.”should be open to all those affected
of the Frankfurt School, is one in
which “all conditions of social life by an issue. This approach
that are controllable by human emphasizes social diversity and
beings depend on real consensus.” complexity and enables people Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory (1972)
to be seen as individuals existing
independently in their own socio-
historical circumstances.
Liberation from liberalism
Instrumental rationality Critical theorists argued that liberal rationality no longer
sets us free, but has instead turned into a new form
Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno of enslavement. They seek to overturn various forms of
(1903–1969) were critical of social, economic, and political control over individuals.
liberalism and the “instrumental
rationality” that seeks to identify
efficient means for specific ends,
and thus control and manipulate
relevant factors in order to reach set
goals. They argued that the liberal,
capitalist ideologies that are used
to promote social, economic, or
political progress—resulting, for
example, in mass production and
rampant consumerism—have led to
the decline of the individual. The
rationality of liberalism, therefore,
needs to be reconsidered for the
genuine pursuit of social freedom.
134 135CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
Critical theory
Freedom THE RISE OF CRITICAL
THEORY
Critical theory aims to
expose the institutions The first critical theorists were
and norms that dominate influenced by Karl Marx’s critique
society, with the aim of of society and the economy (see
freeing individuals from pp.218–219). The critical theory
their capitalist chains. movement centers on the
Frankfurt School, whose members
include Max Horkheimer, Theodor
Adorno, Erich Fromm, Jürgen
Habermas, and Herbert Marcuse.
Technological advances in the
early 20th century allowed ideas
to be quickly reproduced and
circulated to huge numbers of
people. This, critical theorists
argue, enabled certain ideologies
and cultural forces to dominate
and suppressed individuals’ desires
to seek answers for themselves.
Critical theory has, since its
foundation, extended in numerous
directions, including feminism,
postcolonial and race theories,
and gender theory.
Power plays
Michel Foucault (1926–1984) was a prominent social theorist,
historian of ideas, and philosopher associated with postmodernism
(see pp.138–139). His work challenged traditional ideas about power.
Disciplinary power this modern “disciplinary power” Punishment
replaces the “sovereign power” (of, Close surveillance is a more
Foucault’s philosophy challenged for example, kings or judges) found efficient and less severe form
both traditional philosophers and in feudal social structures. of control than previous systems
important thinkers of his own time, based on physical punishment.
such as Jean-Paul Sartre (see pp. Conforming individuals
126–127). He was influenced to Diverse workforce
some extent by existentialism and Disciplinary power achieves The capitalist economy requires
phenomenology, as well as the work control over individuals by making vast numbers of individuals from
of Friedrich Nietzsche (see pp.78–79). them conform voluntarily to the
norms and standards of society. It a variety of backgrounds to
Foucault regarded power and brings about the “normalization” work in industry.
knowledge as being intimately of individuals (especially “deviant”
interconnected and being used to persons) by requiring them to Entering education
control and dominate individuals. fit into existing systems such Education appears to open up
In Discipline and Punish (1975), he as education. The process is new opportunities for students
considered new forms of control also intended to produce with a wide range of potential
and punishment at work in the efficient workers.
modern prison. He identified what skills and abilities.
he calls “disciplinary power,” At the same time, the
which is exerted not only in prison, infrastructure for the monitoring
but also in other institutions such and observation of individuals—
as schools, hospitals, and industry. such as the surveillance camera—
This is a mode of control that effectively controls individuals by
pervades all levels of society. identifying deviant behavior for
punishment. Foucault also applies
The tactics and techniques of his theories on the relationship
modern disciplinary power are between power and identity to
designed to sustain power sexuality, a theme developed by
structures throughout society by Judith Butler in her work on gender,
imposing self-regulation on the sex, and sexuality (see pp.140–141).
populace. Foucault thought that
Normalization
Foucault calls the crucial technique for exerting disciplinary power over
individuals “normalization.” Individuals who are observed, examined,
and judged as having failed to comply with required norms and
regulations (such as those in industry) or to meet certain standards (of
good, “normal” behavior, for example) are considered “deviant” or
“abnormal.” The behavior of such individuals is deemed to require
correction—potentially through coercive tactics and procedures.
Techniques of disciplinary control thereby turn individuals into the
objects of scientific (or pseudoscientific) knowledge and domination.
136 137CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
Power plays
Normalization in prisons “Disciplinary
Observation and strict surveillance power [...] is
exercised
achieves normalization: inmates through its
behave as though they are invisibility.”
constantly being observed.
Michel Foucault,
Normalization in industry Discipline and Punish (1975)
Monitoring and surveillance turns
individuals into efficient and useful THE PANOPTICON
workers who are judged by their
Foucault used the example of
contribution to the economy. Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon
prison, which Bentham designed in
the late 18th century, to illustrate
his idea of modern disciplinary
power. The architectural model of
the prison includes individual cells
encircling a central observation
tower, from which each of the
inmates could be watched. The
idea was that because the inmates
could be observed at any time,
they would behave as though they
were constantly under inspection.
Foucault considered this technique
to be a prototypical example of
using disciplinary power to exert
control over the individual.
Normalization in education
Education aligned with norms
and standards controls students,
rendering them employable and
therefore useful to society.
The Panopticon was never built, but
this 1928 prison in Crest Hill, Illinois,
followed Bentham’s original design.
Deconstruction
Jacques Derrida was an influential postmodern thinker whose thesis
of “deconstruction” laid down a detailed linguistic challenge to both
the prevailing views of the day and accepted philosophical tradition.
Dismantling philosophies Not only is this theoretically inadequate, but it can be
ethically or politically dangerous, potentially resulting
The idea of “Deconstruction” proposed by Derrida in violence or injustice against the things represented
(1930–2004) owed much to Martin Heidegger’s earlier by the “inferior” item in each pair.
notion of “Destruktion,” which itself challenged the
Western metaphysical tradition—the branch of As a philosophical approach, deconstruction
philosophy concerned with the nature of reality and investigates these binary oppositions and exposes the
our perception of it. Derrida continued Heidegger’s biases that underlie them. It does not seek to reconcile
critique of metaphysics and, in particular, its the terms of opposition, but aims to destabilize and
“logocentrism”—the idea that truth exists as a separate rethink the differences between traditional opposites.
entity to the language (“logos”) used to describe it.
Derrida famously declared “There is no outside-text,” Différance
meaning we cannot grasp what is beyond the
language used to discuss philosophical concepts. Derrida further explored the meaning of words with
his idea of “différance,” a play on words that implies
Derrida argued that the meaning of a word is not a both difference and a deferral of meaning. He argued
representation of some “truth” that exists “out there.” that meaning comes from differences between words,
Instead, words draw their meaning from their links but that arriving at meaning is deferred because of the
and oppositions to other terms. In traditional way we use language—terms are qualified, explained,
metaphysical thinking, binary oppositions such as and contextualized by the other words surrounding
essence/appearance, speech/writing, mind/body, them. For Derrida, différance means that when we
being/nothingness, and male/female have gained examine “truths,” theories, and ideas, we must
acceptance. Derrida points out that these oppositions deconstruct the words used to refer to them,
involve a biased prioritization of one term over the remaining alert to the fact that meaning is never
other in a hierarchical relationship decided arbitrarily. as straightforward or explicit as it may seem.
POSTMODERNISM Questioning meaning
Postmodernists argue that the world as we know it is Meaning is created by the “play” of differences
“discursively constructed”—that there is no fixed or between words, which can be limitless and
stable relationship between individuals and the world, indefinite. Rather than perceiving concepts
and that difference is at the heart of all things. as existing in paired opposites, Derrida
Postmodernists endorse multiple viewpoints and encourages us to question the basis of our
emphasize the “contingency”—reliance on other factors— understanding, actively deconstructing
of scientific and other rational attempts to make sense the meaning of a text by challenging
of things. They challenge the authority of reason and implicit hierarchies, breaking traditional
objectivity and argue that choosing one theory over binary pairings, and looking for
another is a result of individual decisions rather than gaps—which Derrida termed
of rational, objective justification. “aporias” (Ancient Greek for
“puzzles” or “contradictions”)—
in meaning.
138 139CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
Deconstruction
TRADITIONAL DISCOURSE
ESSENCE BODY
SPEECH MALE
MIND NOTHINGNESS
FEMALE
APPEARANCE
BEING
WRITING
Feminist
postmodernism
Third-wave feminists, influenced by postmodernism (see pp.138–139),
question the idea that sex and gender are biologically determined.
They aim to overturn dominant “feminine” and “masculine” ideals.
Gender as a performance and enable dominant groups to Against essentialism
exercise power over others. Butler
In Gender Trouble (1990), Judith argues that we must contest these Essentialism, simply defined, is the
Butler argues that gender is a norms in order to destabilize the view that all women across cultures
sort of performance. Acted out view of a gender binary and and time share essential features or
repeatedly, gendered performances compulsory heterosexuality. experiences. An essentialist might,
have solidified in time and created for example, say that sex is defined
the illusion that gender has an
essential nature, which is either Sex and gender are both socially constructed
male or female. Third-wave feminists, including Butler, argue not only
that gender is socially constructed, but that sex (having
Such performances, Butler claims, a “male” or “female” body) is, too, through language.
reinforce dominant norms and They question the biological foundations of gender.
ideals relating to the traditional
gender binary (feminine and
masculine) and (hetero)sexuality,
and marginalize and oppress
those who do not conform, such
as gay or transgender people.
Butler argues that these norms
are socially constructed and
rooted in language as “regulative
discourses.” Such discourses shape
which forms of sex, gender, and
sexuality are “socially acceptable,”
Redefining gender
Many contemporary feminists believe
that universal claims about women,
gender, and sex are wrong. Such
claims, they say, obscure the diversity
of women’s situations and strengthen
male-female power hierarchies.
Butler argues that not only gender
but also sex is socially constructed
and reinforced.
140 141CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
Feminist postmodernism
by essential biological attributes THE THREE WAVES OF FEMINISM
we are born with (a view called
“biological foundationalism”). The traditional (pre-1960) view of THIRD-WAVE FEMINISTS question the
gender and sex was that they are both idea of essential female characteristics.
Butler argues that essentialism the product of biology—that is, that
is a political fiction that serves sex determined gendered behavior
existing oppressive patriarchal and roles. Second-wave feminists
regimes. In her critique of the (1960s–early 1980s) believed that sex
category “woman,” she rejects is biological, but that gender is a social
the view that the word refers to and cultural creation. Third-wave
a unified gender identity and feminists (1990s–) argue that “sex”
proposes a new understanding of and “the body” are not simply
the complexities of gender identity biological categories: differences
that intersects with other aspects between male and female bodies are,
of a woman’s identity, such as race. in part at least, socially constructed.
“Gender is a kind
of imitation for
which there is
no original.”
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (1990)
One size does not fit all Gender roles
Butler argues that an idealized Butler seems to
view of women is a dangerous liken us to actors
illusion that has an oppressive in a puppet show,
power and damaging effects. performing
gendered scripts,
and asks how we
can disrupt these
norms to promote
justice for both
women and men.
PHILOSOPHY
OF MIND
Throughout history, people have puzzled over the
nature of conscious experience. In the modern age,
the questions became more pointed: What is the
mind? How does it relate to the body?
144 145PHILOSOPHY OF MIND
Introduction
PHILOSOPHY
OF MIND
Unlike ethics and political philosophy, which So he argued that there is an immaterial world in
deal with numerous subjects, the philosophy of which the immaterial mind holds sway. This is the
mind focuses on a single problem—namely, the classic dualist position: that the mind and the body
nature of what we understand as “mind.” Its central are distinct things, and that they remain so even if
questions are: What is consciousness? What is a their interaction is a mystery. Although it fell out of
mind? How do minds relate to physical bodies? favor for many years, dualism is having a resurgence
today, largely due to the shortcomings of monist
Questions about mind are metaphysical questions, accounts of the mind.
because they concern the nature of things in the
world and their answers fall into two broad Today, most monists are “materialists,” or
categories. The first is called “dualism,” which “physicalists,” who claim that consciousness is
claims that there are two kinds of things in the simply a neurochemical function of the brain. From
universe, one of which is matter and one of which is this view, pains, joys, hopes, and intentions are all
mind. The second is called “monism,” which claims ultimately physical in nature. Some argue that ideas
that there is only one kind of thing in the universe— such as “mind” and “consciousness” are little more
either matter, mind, or something else of which than “folk psychology”—that is, part of a family of
matter and mind are attributes. concepts that we use in everyday life but are not
rooted in scientific fact. Another form of monism is
The question of how the mind relates to the body is “behaviorism,” which has its roots in the philosophy
a relatively recent one. It dates from the 17th century, of language. Behaviorists claim that words such
when René Descartes divided the world into two: into as “clever” and “kind” describe outward, bodily
the material world, which he argued is predetermined behavior, which we then mistake for internal,
and runs like clockwork, and the immaterial world, “mental” processes. Ludwig Wittgenstein made
in which the human mind is located. He made the a similar point, arguing that questions about the
distinction, because all around him, “science” was mind tend to arise when “language goes on holiday.”
taking root: Galileo and Kepler had laid Aristotle’s Wittgenstein was neither a monist nor a dualist,
cosmology to rest, meaning that a new view of the but argued instead that metaphysical questions—
universe was required. However, Descartes saw particularly those that involve distinctions between
that if the universe runs like clockwork, as scientists the “mind” and the “body” and the “inner” and
were claiming, then human freedom is impossible. “outer” realms—are the result of linguistic confusion.
Dualism
The idea that reality is dual in nature—that it is made up of
both physical and mental elements—was championed by the
17th-century French philosopher René Descartes.
Mind and body has no material substance—it is in the pineal gland of the brain, but
a pure subject of experience that was unable to say how they do so.
According to Descartes, physical goes beyond the otherwise Indeed, explaining the interaction
objects exist in space and are clockwork machinery of the world. between mind and matter is
governed by physical laws: a tree, Only humans, he believed, enjoy difficult for a dualist, for the mind
for example, has a certain height, such freedom; all other creatures (being immaterial) can never be
width, mass, and location. However, are determined by the laws of found to see how it works: it is
he argued, the same is not true of nature (see pp.54–55). always the subject of experience,
the human mind or its attributes: but never its object. And so, if ever
beliefs, pains, hopes, decisions, and Having split the world into mind a physical object, such as a brain or
plans have no such characteristics, and matter, Descartes questioned a computer, is presented as being a
so they cannot be regarded as how the two interact. He mind, a dualist knows in advance
physical. For Descartes, the mind suggested that they “commingle”
Qualia from books and television documentaries. She is then
taken out into the real world and experiences color for
Philosophers use the word “qualia” to describe the the first time. What she is introduced to are qualia—
immediate contents of experience—what it feels like to qualities that, according to dualists, cannot be explained
hear a particular sound, for instance. Frank Jackson used by materialist accounts of the mind (see pp.152–153).
this example: Mary lives in a black-and-white world, in
which she learns everything there is to know about color
A materialist may say that Mary knows everything
there is to know about color, even in her black-
and-white world, simply by studying it.
146 147PHILOSOPHY OF MIND
Dualism
that it is not. Likewise, if a that no amount of science gets us EPIPHENOMENALISM
materialist (see pp.154–155) states any closer to understanding what it
that pain is simply electrical is to be conscious—to have direct One problem faced by dualists is
activity in the brain, this only experience of colors, scents, and the possibility that the universe is
deepens the mystery, for we know sounds. According to this view, “causally complete” (see pp.152–
that that conscious awareness— science describes the world as it is 153). According to this view, human
the feeling of being stung by a “out there,” and does so from the behavior is completely explained
bee—is bound up with bodily vantage point of experience. But by bodily processes, which leaves
processes. The mystery is the the vantage point itself—the place nothing for the mind to do other
nature of that bond, and how a where experience occurs—can than to experience the body’s
physical brain can do anything never itself be seen: the subject workings. The biologist T.H. Huxley
as strange as feel. of experience can never become held this view, calling the mind an
its object. As David Chalmers, a “epiphenomenon,” or by-product,
The hard problem defender of “naturalistic dualism,” of the brain. He likened the mind
puts it: “Studying consciousness to a clock’s bell, which plays no
Today, what is called the “hard tells us more about how the world role in keeping the time.
problem of consciousness” is fundamentally strange.”
reformulates Descartes’ thought:
Mary’s entry into the world highlights “Except our own thoughts,
the dualists’ case – that color is not there is nothing absolutely
a theory, but an experience. in our power.”
René Descartes, Discourse on the Method (1637)
The limits
of language
In the 1940s, the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein raised
questions about the nature of language that cast doubt
on the very idea of a “philosophy of mind.”
Shadows of grammar with a feeling and then applying not one of “knowing” at all.
our experience to other people. A person could never say, for
In his Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein, however, argues that example, “I think I am in pain,
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) the opposite is true: we learn the but I may not be.” According to
argued that the meaning of a word word “pain” while interacting with Wittgenstein, to say “I am in pain”
is not an object it refers to, but a others, whose behavior we is not a description; it is pain-
rule that governs its use. Such rules, describe. We say that someone is behavior itself—a cry for help.
he said, must be public, shared “in pain” when they act in certain
conventions, which can change ways, just as we might say that I’m in pain!
according to context (see pp.96–97). someone is “angry” or “clever”
With this claim, he undermined according to their behavior.
Descartes’ assumption that
knowledge starts with the The crucial point is that our
individual, and that certainty can relationship with our private
be gained through direct, private feelings and sensations, far from
experience (see pp.52–53). being a bedrock of certainty, is
According to Descartes, we learn
the word “pain” by associating it
Indescribable pain WAAHHH
For Wittgenstein, language is
intersubjective—a phenomenon
established between subjects, or
people, rather than between a
subject and itself. The criteria for
saying that another person is in
pain, for example, are behavioral.
However, this is not the case when
we say that we ourselves are in pain,
because there are no criteria for
describing private sensations (see
box, right). To say “I am in pain”
is effectively a cry for help.
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search