Final Semester 1 - Professor Jason Resnikoff Study guide for all major topics covered in first PDF

Preview

Summary

Professor Jason Resnikoff
Study guide for all major topics covered in first semester...

Description

CC – Fall 2017 Final Study Guide Thomas Aquinas, “The Summa of Theology” ● Conflict between faith and reason ● Tried to justify the unification of reason and revelation ● Saw them as compatible because they both shared the same source: God ● God created the world and everything in it, he also created reason and gave it to humans to use ● Ways we know God ○ God is the first mover who started all motion without being moved by anything ○ God is the first efficient cause, because all things are caused by something that has happened before them but the chain cannot be infinite ○ God is the thing that everything else owes its existence ○ God is the thing that is “the greatest in being” and is responsible for all the perfection/greatness that we see ● We know God better through God’s grace than through reason because human knowledge is assisted by the revelation of grace ● Women made to help man in procreation ● Intellect comes to know material things through the senses and immaterial things through intellect and consideration ● People are not equal, they differ in physicality and knowledge because of free will ● In the state of innocence there would be no slavery but there could have been lordship because in societies there has to be someone in authority ● To be perfectly happy the intellect must reach for the very essence of God and be united with God ○ True happiness cannot be attained in this life because it is not eternal in this life and there are evils in this world ● Laws should aim to the common Good ● Eternal laws: everything in the universe that happens as governed by God ● Natural laws: govern rational creatures, we have innate knowledge of what is good and what is not ● Human laws: laws among humans ● Divine laws: laws from the scriptures ● War and self-defense can be just Christine de Pizan, “The Book of the City of Ladies” ● Christine de Pizan reads a book and is disappointed to find that it is one long rant about how terrible women are ● She can’t help but feel she has been cursed by being born a women ● She is visited by three magical sisters: Lady Reason, Lady Rectitude, and Lady Justice ● Lady Reason tells Pizan that she is wrong about women and that she should build a city for all the best women to live in

● ● ●

The pattern: Pizan will bring up a common stereotype about women and the three ladies will say it’s not true and provide a list of great women who prove it wrong She constructs a city for the women and populates it with the best women throughout history and feels confident that women are just as good as men She believes that women are just as able to reason as men and are therefore not inferior as humans

Machiavelli, “The Prince” ● Written as a manual with practical applications, focus on how to maintain power, no focus on moral ideas, his concerns actually exist and are not abstract ● The ultimate goal of a leader is to gain worldly honor and glory through successful ruling ● The main focus of any ruler should be the military as that is the most important field a ruler has to excel in ● Virtu: excellence in leadership, skill, strength, and judgement ● Fortuna: chance/good fortune/luck, must take advantage of this as a good ruler, man with virtu is able to adapt in unpredictable situations ● Men are always wicked unless you give them no other alternative than to be good ● Places greater faith on the populace than on the elite as a more reliable ally to a ruler ● It is better to be feared than to be loved because fear is an emotion you can control and it is easier to make people fear you than it is to make them love you (you can’t always make them love you) ● It is ok/beneficial to use cruelty all at once as a preventative measure as a way to avoid the need for future/more cruelty ● It is very important to appear a certain way and have a certain reputation as a leader: seeming to have certain traits versus actually having them (what you seem versus what you are) ○ Seem: generous, devout, reliable, trustworthy, honest ● You should combine the qualities of the lion and the fox as a ruler ● Does recognize morality and religion but just recognizes the conflict between being more and religious and some of the decisions and actions you will have to make as a ruler ○ Trying to balance the two will lead to an unsuccessful and miserable career Machiavelli, “The Discourses” ● Focus is primarily on republics ● Republics (governed by their citizens) are more favorable than principalities (ruled by a single, strong ruler) because they allow the government to exhibit more adaptability than principalities allow ○ Because the republic are ruled by the many people, they can be more diverse and act in different ways. On the other hand principalities ruled by a single man, who is trained to act only in one way and cannot as easily change his ways when time calls for it ● The Good forms of government (which are easily corruptible) and their degenerations: ○ Principality -> tyranny ○ Aristocracy -> oligarchy

● ● ● ●

● ● ●

○ Democracy -> anarchy Cyclical view of history: inevitable decline with existing forms of government To address this he proposes a new form that mixes the best elements of many systems It doesn’t matter if men are good or bad, it is politically wise to assume they will behave poorly and make political decisions based on that The clash conflict between the majority and the upper class is beneficial, the tension is good because it shows the state is alive because both sides are active instead of one surprising the other Rejects hereditary rule because it leads to the degeneration of societies Religion is politically useful and has good worldly effects, it can be used to legitimize rule, makes new laws seem appropriate and promotes social cohesion Need to have a balanced struggle between the parts of society in order to constrain individuals/groups and prevent them from acting out of self-interest in a way that endangers the common good

Sepulveda, “Democrats Alter” ● Based much of his argument on Aristotelian thought ● Argued that indigenous Americans were natural slaves and so it was appropriate to force them into labor in the service of their colonizers ● Democrates says that divine laws are not binding or obligatory, they are more advice or suggestions ● Sees natural laws as the main source of laws, especially Aristotle’s idea of natural slavery ● Says that the conquest and war are just if waged against those who are natural slaves, those who by natural condition must obey others ● Spanish are best suited to rule and native Americans best suited to be slaves because the Spanish are intellectually and morally superior ● The native Americans also lack private property de las Casa, “Apologetic History of the Indies” ● Contends that native Americans are naturally good and should not be subject to forcible conquest ● Disagrees with Sepulveda and says that indigenous Americans are not natural slaves ○ Says that the native Americans select gods to worship that are virtuous, versus Romans and Greeks who worship sinful ones ○ They have good laws, customs, and infrastructure ○ They are able to form their own governments and can receive the gospel ● Different definitions for Barbarian: ○ A lack of written language ○ Are not able to live in a political community, lack reason, justice, and good customs ○ Those who are unbelievers Poma de Ayala, “Appeal Concerning the Priests”

● ●

● ●

Presented the struggles of the native Andeans during the Spanish colonization under the hands of certain priests The priests had a responsibility to the natives to show integrity, honesty and love as servants and messengers of Gods but there actions contradicted these ideals as they abused the natives and took advantage of them Also praised those priests who did act correctly Ancient Andean priests acted devoutly and were Christian in everything except the focus of their idolatry, versus the hypnotical priests who said to be Christian but did not act it

Martin Luther, “The Freedom of a Christian” ● Gaining salvation is more than just repentance, it is a turning of the soul towards God ● Man has a twofold nature, a spiritual one and a bodily one (flesh vs. spirit) ● Outer, fleshly nature is imperfect and wastes away as we age ● Inner, spiritual nature is constantly being renewed ● Desires of the flesh are contrary to those of the spirit, the two are opposed ● The spiritual is the only one that has significance in our freedom ● Rejects bodily pleasures like Augustine, because they do nothing for our souls ● A Christian is both a perfectly free lord to all, subject to none (spiritual) and a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all (physical) ○ The freedom of a Christian is the freedom of the soul, not the body ● To love God is to become a priest which is better than being a king ● Only thing needed for a Christian life of freedom is the word of God and faith in him ○ Faith alone: we don’t need works, only faith to be justified by God and be pious Christians ○ Nonbelievers can do good deeds so it is not a measure of our faith ● Christian’s are free from human/earthly laws because they have no need for works and therefore no need for these laws ○ Despite this they should still obey the laws, not to gain salvation but to show obedience ● Should still do earthly works because we have to live our lives on Earth before we can be with God and we need to do so in a way that is in accordance with Christ’s teachings so the flesh doesn’t corrupt the spirit ● We are good or bad before our acts, that is what determines how we act John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion” ● Stresses predestination: all are not created equally as some are predestined to salvation and others to destruction ● Pious deeds and Christian acts are outward signs that one has been chosen by God ● Predestination does not remove responsibility from humans, because even though perdition depends on the predestination of God the cause and matter of it is still on the humans, they fall but they fall by their own fault ● Wisdom is knowing God and knowing oneself ● Knowledge is a gift from God so that humans may use it to come to understand him, it leads to pure religion

●

● ● ● ●

With a certain knowledge based on evidence and attended by religion we can gain a proper sense of God, but the only way that one can truly understand the divine is by illumination from God (teachings from the Bible) Criticizes those who look at creation and do not see its creator, nature should not replace God, nature should direct us to God Man must be justified by his faiths, not his works Church has the power to make and introduce laws, and good laws and customs are based in the scripture Rulers should be obeyed because they were put in authority positions by God

Galileo, “Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine” ● Many church officials refused to accept Galileo’s evidence that the universe is heliocentric (sun-centered) because of a literal reading of passages from the Bible ● Agrees that the Bible cannot tell things that aren’t true, but it is obscure in some parts ● Because God has given humans the ability to reason and make scientific discovery it is only appropriate that they use those capabilities ● If one understands the Scriptures fully they will see there is no conflict between faith and reason, they both come from God and lead to an understanding of him ● Reason should be used first to understand natural things Descartes, “Principles of Philosophy” ● Philosophy is the study of wisdom and the knowledge of all things that a man can know for the direction of his life ● Four common degrees of knowledge: 1) clear and evident notions that don’t require any meditation 2) all that is learned by the senses 3) what is learned by talking to other men 4) what we can learn from the writings of capable men ● Higher wisdom consists of the search for the first cause ● Senses may mislead us but no one has expressed that the truth cannot be based on the senses ● Can prove with certainty that I exist

Hobbes, “Leviathan” ● Fear is central to Hobbe’s philosophies ● People should aim for self-preservation/avoidance of violent death ● Man are naturally war-like and will take advantage of each other ● Men are all naturally equal ● State of nature: ○ A state of perpetual threat of war ○ Because people can all desire whatever they want, they are all equal but will come in conflict when more than one person desires the same thing ○ Because they are equal, they will both want what they desire ○ Everyone acts in self-interest ● When joining a society, we give up the right of nature (the right to do whatever we need to do to achieve self-preservation) and take on the law of nature (a set of principles discovered through reason that tell us what we need to do to coexist with others and avoid what is destructive to life) ● When a group is willing they give up their right of nature in favor of their acceptance of the soveirgn and the law of nature ● There must be a common power to enforce covenants ● Covenants are useless unless they can be enforced through violence ● Justice comes out of covenants, without them everyone has the right to do whatever they want ● To break a covenant is unjust ● The sovereign must instill fear in subjects to ensure their obedience ● The sovereign’s is the literal manifestation of the body politic, his decisions are supposed to be literally the will of the majority so they cannot be contested ● Once you have selected your sovereign, you have entered the covenant and cannot change your government unless the sovereign allows you to ● The sovereign can do no wrong to his subjects because whatever he does is the will of his subjects, his rule can only come to an end if he fails to hold up his end of the covenant Locke, “Second Treatise of Government” ● The justification of the state comes from the decision of the citizens to grant power to some centralized institution that will serve the citizen’s ends ● Social contract: you consent to give up some kinds of freedom that you’d have in the state of nature, in order to live in civil society and have its protection and enjoy its comforts

● ● ●

●

●

●

●

Contrary to Hobbes who saw a ruler with complete authority, says rulers need to be held accountable for their actions and need to serve their public interest We can’t submit ourselves completely to some other figure such as absolute rule because we are property of God The state of nature has “a law to govern it”: reason ○ So unlike Hobbes, Locke says we do have access to the law of nature in the state of nature—it’s just that we can’t reliably assume that others will always observe it, so we exist in an insecure state, and this is undesirable ○ Instead of no one having executive power to enforce the laws of nature, everyone has them and this can still be dangerous Natural law ○ Murderers have “declared war against all mankind” and should be killed, accordingly ○ Thieves we also have a right to kill – if they have already compromised our liberty, they’ve given us no reason to believe they wouldn’t also take our lives Property rights – right to “life, liberty and estate”—which together comprise “property”— deeply important for Locke ○ Self-possession is crucial for Locke – to a certain extent, it’s our ownership of ourselves that is key to our ownership of all other things – yet our ownership of ourselves is not absolute, because ultimately it’s God who owns us ○ Our self-possession is what entitles us to other goods – we take ownership of goods by mixing our labor with them in order to make products that are our own The state is legitimate because the people have consented to it; the people consent because they expect certain kinds of benefits and protections; when the benefits and protections are not provided, they have a right to rebel against the existing state and fashion one that can deliver what they have expected Separation of church and state...