Leibniz Explains How to Become Happy

Human beings are never at rest, not even in sleep, according to Gottfried Leibniz. We are constantly bombarded by small perceptions, most of which we are unaware of, which incline us to certain actions. Because our nature wants to be more at ease, these small perceptions give rise to small impulses to overcome small obstacles. This overcoming gives us small joys, which can translate into a larger happiness if we use our experience and our reason to guide us in deciding which small impulses to allow and which to forbid.

Leibniz’s Solution to the Mind-Body Problem

The aim of philosophy, according to Leibniz, is to explain how God does things, “how things are brought about by the Divine Wisdom in conformity with the particular concept of the subject.”[1] In his Discourse on Metaphysics, he already establishes that each substance’s nature already contains all the predicates[2] and is like a “mirror” of all that is in the universe.[3] Leibniz explicitly assumes that God is the creator of all things and the universe – He is the “architect of the machine of the universe,”[4] and being omniscient, knows all the predicates contained in each thing including the future, which is hence predetermined.

Image by John Hain from Pixabay

Each substance is acting in its own “sphere”[5] but yet there seems to be an “appearance”[6] of communication between things. For instance, when ball A hits ball B on a billiard table, it seems to cause ball B to move, even though based on Leibniz’s metaphysics, both balls are independent, each doing what it does because it is already predetermined in its nature rather than because of a causal interaction with each other. Leibniz attempts to explain how this is possible in his article, A New System of the Nature and the Communication of Substances. He then builds on this theory to explain the mind-body problem, or how can an immaterial soul and a material body of a person interact.

Leibniz’s Solution to the Problem of Evil

Leibniz believes that God is omniscient. An omniscient god would know everything about his creations including the future, which is hence predetermined. Leibniz then has to explain how evil, which is seen everywhere in the world, is possible under such a perfect God. 

 

The Myth of Science

By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42526072

Is Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment still relevant? It was written in the midst of the second world war and aiming to explain why “humanity, instead of entering a truly human state, is sinking into a new kind of barbarism.”[1] Is its prognosis of how “thought in its headlong rush into pragmatism is forfeiting its sublating character, and therefore its relation to truth”[2] still accurate?

Learning to Love the Shit-Stirrer

By London Stereoscopic Company - Hulton Archive, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30913285

The liberty to speak one’s mind is not absolute, nor is it necessarily the highest priority when it conflicts with other values. John Stuart Mill believes that free speech is valuable in creating a dynamic, creative and progressive society, even as he acknowledges the need for limits in situations such as when a society is under threat from enemies[1] or when speech can lead to harmful actions.[2] While we may seem to be able to speak more freely today than in Mill’s time, there remain threats to free speech, with the decline of the mainstream media, attacks on and detention of journalists[3], the rise of echo-chambers on social media platforms reducing the access to alternative views, and the prevalence of fake news. There are potentially also chilling effects[4] from laws putatively put in place to prevent harm but may stifle free speech, such as hate speech laws in Europe and Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act.

Similar Premises, Different Conclusions

Can two philosophers with similar presuppositions and argumentation end up with vastly different conclusions? Locke in Two Treatises of Government and Hobbes in Leviathan present their accounts of the State of Nature (SON). While they ground their theories on rather similar presuppositions and argumentation, they come to diametrically different conclusions on what the ideal government is. This reflects the differing historical circumstances shaping their thinking, but it also demonstrates the continuing value of studying both thinkers, as different societies may require different solutions.

Multi-Dimensional Man

By Copy of Silanion, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7831217

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.[1] Even though The Republic was written by Plato 2,400 years ago, a modern reader will sympathise with the everyman notions of justice presented by Socrates’s interlocutors in Book I who believe that:

1) Justice is “to speak the truth and to pay your debts.”[2]

2) Justice is “giving to each man what is proper to him.”[3]

3) Justice serves the “interest of the stronger.”[4]

This essay will focus on the third idea of ‘might makes right,’ Socrates’s argument against it, and formulate an alternative response of the multi-dimensional man, which Socrates may find hard to resist.

Lakatos Rationalises Kuhn

By Library of the London School of Economics and Political Science - Professor Imre Lakatos, c1960sUploaded by Fæ, No restrictions, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15336126

Both Lakatos and Kuhn recognise that history and sociology are needed to understand the scientific enterprise.[1] However, Kuhn interprets changes in paradigms as sudden and irrational in contrast to Lakatos who, examining the same history, sees instead a dynamic of progressive and degenerating research programmes (RP) while continuing to accept Kuhn’s idea of scientific revolution. This paper examines how Lakatos rationalises Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution.

Is Artificial Consciousness Possible?

Image by Comfreak from Pixabay

Can machines become conscious or is artificial consciousness (AC) an impossible dream? If AC is possible, would we want to create it? This paper will attempt to answer the first question using Hartmann’s framework developed in New Ways of Ontology, where he carries out an ontological investigation into the structure of the world. I will contrast his four ontological strata with potentially fruitful approaches in the development of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and consider what is needed to remain on the right track. The answer to the second question depends on the first – to aim for AC or to avoid it, we need to understand whether and how it can happen.

Seeing is Believing – Why Fake News Works

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Do you consider yourself a discerning reader of the news?

When presented with a new piece of information, about something you do not know about, what do you do? A perfectly rational being ought to suspend judgement and investigate further before deciding if the information is true or false. This was how 17th century French philosopher René Descartes thought our mental systems worked. But is this really how we deal with new information? If you find yourself nodding, think again.

Is Socrates a Sophist?

By Sting, CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3569936

Are Sophists philosophers? No. Is Socrates a philosopher? Yes. Hence, is he a Sophist? No.

Anaxagoras's Influence on Plato and Aristotle

By Eduard Lebiedzki, after a design by Carl Rahl - http://nibiryukov.narod.ru/nb_pinacoteca/nbe_pinacoteca_artists_l.htm

While Anaxagoras’s theory on the nature of things ultimately led to disappointment for Plato and Aristotle, it played a role in the formulation of Platonic Ideas and Aristotle’s four causes.

The Myth of Certainty

Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay

Do you feel that there is one correct way for you to lead your life and if only you make the right decisions, you will succeed?

Are you then frustrated by the uncertainties you face, nagged by a feeling that there must be a correct way but you just do not know what way that is? Do you wish that life have the mathematical certainty of 1+1=2?

Is Surveillance Justified?

Photo by Erin Song on Unsplash

“He sees you when you’re sleeping. He knows when you’re awake. He knows if you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake!”[1] The words from the Christmas jingle reflect what most parents know – the threat of surveillance is sufficient to keep their children in line, at least for a while until Christmas is over. While adults know that there is no Santa Claus watching every move we make, the reality is no less sinister.

The Non-Neutrality Thesis and What Designers Must Do

Our lives are saturated with technologies. These technologies range from the simple, such as clothing, to the complex, such as airplanes. They may be firmly established, such as the refrigerators found in most homes. They may be new, like cryptocurrencies which are much hyped but still niche. They may belong only in the future, like nuclear fusion power plants which are currently being researched. They may only be conceptual or not even conceived yet. Nonetheless, the conduct of human life is so deeply intertwined with technological artefacts that we barely notice, though if they suddenly vanished, we would be paralysed.

The proof of this is how our lives grind to a halt during a power outage. Things we take for granted to work, such as the television or the lights, cease to do so, and we turn to earlier technologies such as matches and candles to light our way. In this way, technology is integral to our way of life and its effect on the human condition is profound. This paper will consider the moral status of technology given its deep relation to the human condition. I will argue against the neutrality thesis, after which I will outline what more must designers of technologies do, given the moral status of technologies.

Justifying Knowledge: Coherentism vs Foundationalism

How do we justify our true beliefs so that they can become knowledge? The classical account of knowledge considers knowledge to be justified true belief (JTB): to have knowledge, one believes something that is true and can justify that belief. Post-Gettier, the three conditions of justification, truth and belief are considered necessary but not sufficient for knowledge.[1] The condition of truth belongs to the domain of metaphysics while the nature of belief is in the domain of the philosophy of mind. The condition of justification belongs to epistemology. Epistemological theories to justify true beliefs include infinitism, coherentism and foundationalism.[2] Given a true belief, such as ‘Brussels is the capital of Belgium,’ how can we justify it?

Kant’s Solution to Hume’s Problem

Kant aims to put metaphysics on a firm footing to make it a science in his Critique of Pure Reason. However, Hume’s attack on cause and effect suggests metaphysics is not possible. Hence Kant needs to solve the Humean challenge.

Walking Crosswise to Reality - A Zen Buddhist Perspective

If speaking of aims and achievement is appropriate, the aim of the practitioners of Buddhism is to achieve satori. Though considered an ineffable concept, satori has been explained or expressed as enlightenment, awakening, realisation, non-dependence[1] and liberation from suffering,[2] a complete reordering of the individual in his relation to the world.[3] According to Hakuin, “Buddha means ‘one who is awakened.’”[4] Various branches of Buddhism have their own methods for attaining satori, including deep study of the sutras and its commentaries, and meditation. Reacting against these traditions, the Rinzai school of Zen Buddhism presents a radical take on how satori can be gained. The Rinzai school is one of two major sects in Zen Buddhism in Japan. This paper will examine the ‘crazy’ practices of the Rinzai school, which aims to disrupt the minds of its adherents, sometimes literally shocking them into a sudden awakening.

What they do realise or are awakened to is that there is after all no-thing. They will then be able to see, experience and live the true reality beyond the phenomena that we are ordinarily confronted with. I will contrast this notion of true reality with Kant’s transcendental idealism, which definitively explains why it is not possible to go beyond the phenomenal realm to the noumenal, and why Rinzai Zen Buddhism’s radical shift might suggest a way to do so.

Are Intermediaries Needed in Cognition?

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,[1] the Bible tells us in the opening verse of the first book of Genesis, which narrates the literal genesis of the universe. In another book of the Bible, the Gospel of John, written thousands of years later to chronicle the epochal event of the Christian faith, the life of Jesus, a similar phrase was used, no less poetic and awe-inspiring but somewhat more opaque: In the beginning was the Word.[2] What was the relationship between God, his Son and the Word? Augustine of Hippo answers this question in De Trinitate. According to Panaccio, Augustine’s main idea is that in order to understand the Trinity, the human mind needs to be examined since human beings are made in God’s image,[3] and hence the “spiritual part of man must be the best image there is among all creatures of the Divine essence.”[4] For Augustine, the relation between God and his Son is like the relation of the mind and the mental word. The mental word is expressed externally by the spoken word, just like how the God is expressed to the world by an incarnation which is Jesus. [5]

To Give or Not to Give, There is No Question: Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

Even the most fortunate among us are no strangers to misery. In “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, Peter Singer sings an empathic ditty, throwing down the gauntlet for anyone better off than the worst off to give, and to keep giving till it (almost) hurts. While he uses the 1971 East Bengal famine as his ‘call to arms’, his arguments can be extended to any form of desperate need such as disaster-relief, extreme poverty, or any number of the miserable conditions afflicting our fellow men. His clarion call may sound a little too shrill for most in 1972 to stomach, but his arguments remain unfortunately relevant today, perhaps even more so, considering the desperation of refugees fleeing terrible conditions only to face unwelcoming host countries and the increased tempo of natural disasters such as tsunamis, earthquakes and volcano eruptions afflicting first and third world nations alike.

Of Bats and Men: What Does Subjectivity Mean for the Study of Consciousness?

 How does the mind relate to the body, given that the mind is mental while the body is physical? What is the connection between mental and physical properties?[1] In his article “What is it Like to be a Bat?”, Thomas Nagel makes clear from the first sentence that his aim is to address the mind-body problem with a focus on the mind part of the problem: “Consciousness is what makes the mind-body problem really intractable.”[2] The human body, as a physical entity, is arguably easier to understand than that of the mind. Biology is a well-established science, with a firm grasp on the functioning of the body down to the cellular and molecular level (i.e. DNA), while our understanding of the mental phenomena of the mind is by contrast still in its adolescent phase, studied in a series of fledgling disciplines such as cognitive science, neurology and psychology.

The Nature of the Atman

What is the nature of reality, according to Indian philosophy? To answer this question, I turned to the Upanisads, which is considered the source of Indian philosophies and religions. According to Radhakrishnan, the aim of the Upanisads is “not so much to reach philosophical truth as to bring peace and freedom to the anxious human spirit [...] express[ing] the restlessness and striving of the human mind to grasp the true nature of reality.”[1] To investigate the nature of reality, the Upanisads philosophically analyse the nature of the self or Atman in Sanskrit, which means breath or vital essence in the Rg Veda. It could also be understood as the Self, with a capital S – the ultimate and true Self, or Soul.[2]

Man's Need for Freedom, Individuality and Agency

The core of our humanity lies at the intersection of our freedom, individuality and agency. The first section of this essay examines human freedom by studying Mill’s On Liberty and Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. The second section examines individuality and agency using both texts and Kierkegaard’s Either/Or, II.

Mill examines the freedom of man in relation first to the tyranny of rulers and then society, arriving at three liberties he considers necessary for a truly free society. Kant’s moral law, the categorical imperative, complements the freedom Mill envisions. It is not derived from nature, society or god but from reason, which allows man the freedom to act morally, though as rational beings, they may seem to only be able to choose the ‘right’ path. With freedom as the foundation, man can then pursue his individuality and exercise his agency. Mill argues that freedom comes with responsibility and argues for diversity in people’s ways of life, while Kierkegaard’s ethical man exercises his agency through making choices and taking responsibilities. The Kantian notion of duty is criticised by Kierkegaard, though both will agree that we need to internalise our morality. Mill asserts that human individuality, when free to manifest, is not antagonistic to society but elevates it.

Is There Hope for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim?

Immanuel Kant in his essay “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim” presents nine intriguing propositions on how a philosophical history of man can be achieved. All animals have a purpose, and man’s purpose is to use his reason. We struggle to live with ourselves and with others in a society, but society is the means by which humanity can reach its fullest potential. Extending his idea of a society of men to a society of nations, such a federation of states will ultimately lead to a universal cosmopolitan condition, though setbacks are inevitable. This is the universal world history Kant envisions, which is according to a “plan of nature that aims at the perfect civil union of the human species.” However, when he published this essay in 1784, he could not have foreseen the twin threats of climate change and nuclear apocalypse that might drive mankind to extinction if we are not careful. Frightening as they are, these threats could be the opportunity we need to finally unite as one species, to overcome our joint difficulties and reach the cosmopolitan aim Kant dreams of.[1]

Does Everything Have a Reason?

Do you agree that everything has a reason? That there are no brute, unexplainable facts? Then you believe in the Principle of Sufficient Reason or PSR.