3. How do we know?

The Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume argued that our evidence for a miracle happening could never outweigh the strength of the evidence that it had not. The evidence could be equal, but never greater. ‘How do we know? Hume’s Of Miracles’ sets out Hume’s objections to believing the eyewitness testimonies of others. Hume was asking a bigger question—what reasons there are for forming religious beliefs at all. He was aware that some extraordinary occurrences are possible because Nature does not always behave predictably, an argument which Hume pre-empted with the imaginary example of eight days of darkness, backed up by matching testimonies.

2. What should I do?

Outside Buddha, Confucius and the writers of some of the Vedas and Upanishads, Plato was one of the first philosophers to leave a substantial body of work. ‘What should I do? Plato’s Crito’ focuses on the Socratic dialogue of the same name, in which Socrates is in prison awaiting execution and debating with his friend Crito about whether to escape. The dialogue covers familiar philosophical questions. What will happen if I take a specific action? What if I don’t? What do we owe the state? What happens if we choose to disobey, and what if everyone else also chose to? The purpose of philosophy is not to simplify complex issues.

8. Freedom of the will

Do we have free will? ‘Freedom of the will’ starts by looking at Descartes, whose theology encouraged him to believe that he had free will. His thoughts may have been given by God, but he had the power to assent to them. Hegel’s metaphysics can teach us about his account of freedom. His predecessor Kant was possessed by the idea of moral obligations. Hegel argued that we are free, but that the decisions we make are the result of an idea, reason, or spirit. Finally, there is determinism—the idea that things happen because of causal chains—and compatibilism, the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible.

5. Some themes

‘Some themes’ looks in more detail at some of the topics explored by Plato, Hume, and the author of ‘Milinda’s Questions’—ethical consequentialism (what happens as a result of someone’s choices), rationalism, integrity, family, the self or no-self, and the role of the state. Could Plato and Hobbes, 2,000 years apart, really be discussing the same thing? Are we right to identify parallels between philosophers from different times and backgrounds? What do we miss when we try to extricate philosophers from their social contexts and motivations? Our understanding of philosophy is cumulative. The challenge is not in becoming familiar with these themes, but in being sensitive to their variations.

9. What’s in it for whom?

Most philosophy attempts to do something for somebody. ‘What’s in it for whom?’ looks again at Plato’s dialogues, unpacking early philosophical problems involving the individual, the state, and contract theory. Philosophy needs a large constituency to transform lives. We can see this in the example of the working classes (via Karl Marx, who was influenced by Hegel) and women (via the writings of Simone de Beauvoir). Even animals’ lives may have been affected for the better by a philosophy that promotes vegetarianism. Professional philosophers should avoid the temptation to write only puzzles for other thinkers and prioritize the issues of our time.

4. What am I?

‘What am I? An unknown Buddhist on the self: King Milinda’s chariot’ looks at a para-canonical Buddhist text, in which King Milinda questions a monk, Nagasena, who demonstrates the Buddhist concept of anatta, or no-self. The monk refers to ‘Nagasena’ as a designation, not himself. When the king asks what then wears robes, eats food, and creates karma, Nagasena asks the king whether the constituent parts of a chariot form a chariot. The king agrees there is no inherent ‘chariot’ essence that transforms the sum of its parts. Is the chariot argument fully applicable to a person, or is it more useful as an illustration of Buddhist doctrine?

1. Philosophy

If philosophy is so close to us, why do many people regard it as something outlandish? ‘Philosophy: a very short introduction’ summarizes some key questions. What is philosophy for? What should we do? Philosophy is seen as a field of study, but also means simply being reflective. Our level of comfort with a school of philosophy is often related to how closely it resembles our world-view. As civilization developed and humans became more sophisticated, philosophy has become more relevant. People have often come up with compelling philosophical arguments under duress, and these arguments and solutions have changed the course of civilization.

7. Some more high spots

‘Some more high spots: a personal selection’ focuses in detail on recommended reading from Descartes, Hegel, Darwin, and Nietzsche. Descartes and Nietzsche were keen to debunk ‘truths’—Descartes trying to explore the scientific revolution without causing trouble with the Church, and Nietzsche questioning the morals of 19th-century Christianity. Darwin looked at ‘species’ rather than humanity, and his ‘survival of the fittest’ theory is often misinterpreted as ‘survival of the strongest’ rather than ‘best suited’ or ‘most appropriate’. Moral relativism is the view that moral judgements are only true or false in relation to their political, historical, or cultural context.

6. Of ‘isms’

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge, belief, and closely related notions like reasons and justification. ‘Of ‘isms’’ explains some philosophical ‘ism’ words, which are broad terms designating a certain general type of doctrine. René Descartes was one of the most famous exponents of dualism, as he worked on proving a doctrine that pre-dated him; materialism and idealism were based on earlier concepts, giving rise later to the dialectical materialism of Karl Marx. Idealism holds that everything has a mental or spiritual basis. Rationalism and empiricism are opposed to each other. Empiricists believe everything is filtered through our perceptions rather than reality having an inherently logical structure.