Module 001 Doing Philosophy Part 1

This module will contain the following topics:

What is Philosophy

2. The Value of Philosophy

3. Holism

The Definition of Philosophy

The Free Dictionary has defined Philosophy as: "study of the ultimate reality,

causes, and principles underlying being and thinking. It has many

aspects and different manifestations according to the problems involved

and the method of approach and emphasis used by the individual philosopher.

Philosophy Basics has collected the following definitions of philosophy from various

sources:

At its simplest, philosophy (from the Greek piAocopia or phílosophía, meaning 'the love of

wisdom) is the study of knowledge, or "thinking about thinking"', although the breadth of

what it covers is perhaps best illustrated by a selection of other alternative definitions:

the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts

of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as

genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning

(logic) (Wikipedia)

investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values,

based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods [American Heritage

Dictionary)

the study of the ultimate nature of existence, reality, knowledge and goodness, as

discoverable by human reasoning (Penguin English Dictionary)

the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and

ethics (WordNet)

the search for knowledge and truth, especially about the nature of man and his
behaviour and beliefs (Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary)

the rational and critical inquiry into basic principles (Microsoft Encarta

Encyclopedia)

the study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with

which we think: mind, matter, reason, proof, truth, etc. (Oxford Dictionary of

Philosophy)

careful thought about the fundamental nature of the world, the grounds for human

knowledge, and the evaluation of human conduct (The Philosophy Pages)

As used originally by the ancient Greeks, the term "philosophy" meant the pursuit of

knowledge for its own sake, and comprised ALL areas of speculative thought,

including the arts, sciences and religion.

Philosophical questions (unlike those of the sciences) are

usually foundational and abstract in nature. Philosophy is done primarily

through reflection and does not tend to rely on experiment, although the methods used to

study it may be analogous to those used in the study of the natural sciences.

In common usage, it sometimes carries the sense of unproductive or frivolous musings, but

over the centuries it has produced some of the most important original thought, and its

contribution to politics, sociology, mathematics, science and literature has been

inestimable. Although the study of philosophy may not yield "the meaning of life, the

universe and everything', many philosophers believe that it is important that each of us

examines such questions and even that an unexamined life is not worth living. It also

provides a good way of learning to think more clearly abouta wide range of issues, and

its methods of analyzing arguments can be useful in a variety of situations in other areas

of life.

The Value of Philosophy

The Value of Philosophy by Russell has been summarized by Spark Notes:

The aim of philosophy is the achievement of knowledge through criticism, "which gives
unity and system to the body of sciences." However, philosophy does not maintaina

substantial body of definite knowledge in the sense that history, mathematics, or the

physical sciences do. Part of the reason why philosophy does not bear such a body of

evidence is because when definite knowledge on a subject becomes possible, it splits off

forming another discipline. Study of the heavens, of natural sciences, and the human mind

originated in philosophic investigation and now assume the figures of astronomy, physics,

and psychology. Thus, with respect to definite answers, "the uncertainty of philosophy is

more apparent than real."

Yet, part of the uncertainty in philosophy derives from the very nature of the questions that

it undertakes to answer. These questions address most profound human interests: "Has the

universe any unity of plan or purpose, or is it a fortuitous concourse of atoms? Is

consciousness a permanent part of the universe, giving hope of indefinite growth in

wisdom, or is it a transitory accident on a small planet on which life must ultimately

become impossible? Are good an evil of importance to the universe or only to man?"

Besides the magnitude of these questions, the various answers which philosophy suggests

are usually not "demonstrably true." Still, the pursuit of philosophy is not merely to suggest

answers to these questions but to make us sensitive to their importance and to keep us

conscious of a "speculative interest in the universe," which we might otherwise forget.

Even though some philosophers have developed programs of thought that do offer a

definite set of conclusions about religious belief, human knowledge, and other issues,

Russell urges that such attempts are usually unwise dogmatic declarations. Consistent with

the thought of his other chapters, he claims that we cannot hope for definite answers or

even high degrees of certainty.

In fact, he theorizes, the value of philosophy appears in its very uncertainty. He

persuasively writes, "the man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life

imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his

age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation of
consent of his deliberate reason." This way of thinking is closed to speculation

or theory about possibility. Philosophizing, on the other hand, allows us to see even the
most ordinary things in unfamiliar light. Though such consideration diminishes our faulty

certainty about the world, it suggests numerous possibilities "which enlarge our thoughts

and free them from the tyranny of custom." Though we lose a little of our confidence as to

what things are, we gain knowledge of what they may be. Philosophy banishes "arrogant

dogmatism" and liberates "our sense of wonder."

Philosophic thought also has a value by virtue of the things it contemplates and the

distinctness of those things from "personal aims" and "private interests." Philosophy lets in

the outside world and enlarges out interest. Russell writes, "in one way or another, if our

life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison" of our private world. Russel's belief

is that everything that depends on the private world "distorts the object" of contemplation

and prevents the union of the object and the intellect. Philosophic contemplation sponsors

this escape by enlarging the Self. Russell holds that the primary value of philosophy is not

in any kind of definite answer, but exists in the questions themselves. He concludes that,

through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is

rendered great."

Holism

Philosophy Basics' article on holism stated the following:

"Holism in general terms (whether in science, sociology, economics, linguistics or

philosophy) is the idea that all the properties of a given system cannot be determined or

explained by its component parts alone, but the system as a whole determines in an

important way how the parts behave.

In philosophy, the principle of Holism (which comes from the Greek "holos" meaning "al

or "total") was concisely summarized by Aristotle in his "Metaphysics": "The whole is more

than the sum of its parts". However, the term "holism" was only introduced into the

language by the South African statesman Jan Smuts as recently as 1926.

Holism has significance for Epistemology and the Philosophy of Language in particular. It is

contrasted to Epistemological Reductionism (the position that a complex system can be

explained by reduction to its fundamental parts) or of Atomism (insofar as it relates

to Philosophy of Language, this is the position that sentences have meaning or

content completely independently of their relations to other sentences or beliefs)."

Types of Holism

Epistemological Holism (or Confirmation Holism) is the claim that a single scientific

theory cannot be tested in isolation, because a test of one theory

always depends on other theories and hypotheses. One aspect of this is that the

interpretation of observation is "theory-laden" (dependent on theory); another

aspect is that evidence alone is insufficient to determine which theory is correct.

Semantic Holism is a doctrine in the Philosophy of Language to the effect that

a certain part of language (e.g. a term or a complete sentence) can only

be understood through its relations to a (previously understood) larger segment of language, possibly
the entire language. Up until the end of the 19th Century, it was

always assumed that a word gets its meaning in isolation, independently from all

the rest of the words in a language. In 1884, Gottlob Frege formulated his

influential Context Principle, according to which it is only within the context of a

proposition or sentence that a word acquires its meaning

In the 1950's and 1960's, philosophers such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, W.V.O.

Quine and Donald Davidson broadened this principle still further to arrive at the

position that a sentence (and therefore a word) has meaning only in the context of

a whole language. However, problems arise with the theory because, given

the limits of our cognitive abilities, we will never be able to master the whole of any

language, and it also fails to explain how two speakers can mean the same

thing when using the same linguistic expression (and how communication is

even possible between them).

Confirmation Holism and Semantic Holism are inextricably linked, and yet, although

Confirmation Holism is widely accepted among philosophers, Semantic Holism is

much less so. The question remains as to how the two holisms can be distinguished,

and how the undesirable consequences of "unbuttoned holism" can be limited.

Moderate Holism (or Semantic Molecularism) is a compromise position, which holds

that the meanings of words depend on some subset of the language (not the entire

language). The argument then arises as to which parts of a language

are "constitutive" of the meaning of an expression.

Module 001 Doing Philosophy Part 1

This module will contain the following topics:

What is Philosophy

2. The Value of Philosophy

3. Holism

The Definition of Philosophy

The Free Dictionary has defined Philosophy as: "study of the ultimate reality,

causes, and principles underlying being and thinking. It has many

aspects and different manifestations according to the problems involved

and the method of approach and emphasis used by the individual philosopher.

Philosophy Basics has collected the following definitions of philosophy from various

sources:

At its simplest, philosophy (from the Greek piAocopia or phílosophía, meaning 'the love of

wisdom) is the study of knowledge, or "thinking about thinking"', although the breadth of

what it covers is perhaps best illustrated by a selection of other alternative definitions:

the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts

of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as

genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning

(logic) (Wikipedia)

investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values,

based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods [American Heritage

Dictionary)
the study of the ultimate nature of existence, reality, knowledge and goodness, as

discoverable by human reasoning (Penguin English Dictionary)

the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and

ethics (WordNet)

the search for knowledge and truth, especially about the nature of man and his

behaviour and beliefs (Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary)

the rational and critical inquiry into basic principles (Microsoft Encarta

Encyclopedia)

the study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with

which we think: mind, matter, reason, proof, truth, etc. (Oxford Dictionary of

Philosophy)

careful thought about the fundamental nature of the world, the grounds for human

knowledge, and the evaluation of human conduct (The Philosophy Pages)

As used originally by the ancient Greeks, the term "philosophy" meant the pursuit of

knowledge for its own sake, and comprised ALL areas of speculative thought,

including the arts, sciences and religion.

Philosophical questions (unlike those of the sciences) are

usually foundational and abstract in nature. Philosophy is done primarily

through reflection and does not tend to rely on experiment, although the methods used to

study it may be analogous to those used in the study of the natural sciences.

In common usage, it sometimes carries the sense of unproductive or frivolous musings, but

over the centuries it has produced some of the most important original thought, and its

contribution to politics, sociology, mathematics, science and literature has been

inestimable. Although the study of philosophy may not yield "the meaning of life, the

universe and everything', many philosophers believe that it is important that each of us

examines such questions and even that an unexamined life is not worth living. It also

provides a good way of learning to think more clearly abouta wide range of issues, and

its methods of analyzing arguments can be useful in a variety of situations in other areas
of life.

The Value of Philosophy

The Value of Philosophy by Russell has been summarized by Spark Notes:

The aim of philosophy is the achievement of knowledge through criticism, "which gives

unity and system to the body of sciences." However, philosophy does not maintaina

substantial body of definite knowledge in the sense that history, mathematics, or the

physical sciences do. Part of the reason why philosophy does not bear such a body of

evidence is because when definite knowledge on a subject becomes possible, it splits off

forming another discipline. Study of the heavens, of natural sciences, and the human mind

originated in philosophic investigation and now assume the figures of astronomy, physics,

and psychology. Thus, with respect to definite answers, "the uncertainty of philosophy is

more apparent than real."

Yet, part of the uncertainty in philosophy derives from the very nature of the questions that

it undertakes to answer. These questions address most profound human interests: "Has the

universe any unity of plan or purpose, or is it a fortuitous concourse of atoms? Is

consciousness a permanent part of the universe, giving hope of indefinite growth in

wisdom, or is it a transitory accident on a small planet on which life must ultimately

become impossible? Are good an evil of importance to the universe or only to man?"

Besides the magnitude of these questions, the various answers which philosophy suggests

are usually not "demonstrably true." Still, the pursuit of philosophy is not merely to suggest

answers to these questions but to make us sensitive to their importance and to keep us

conscious of a "speculative interest in the universe," which we might otherwise forget.

Even though some philosophers have developed programs of thought that do offer a

definite set of conclusions about religious belief, human knowledge, and other issues,

Russell urges that such attempts are usually unwise dogmatic declarations. Consistent with

the thought of his other chapters, he claims that we cannot hope for definite answers or

even high degrees of certainty.

In fact, he theorizes, the value of philosophy appears in its very uncertainty. He

persuasively writes, "the man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life

imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his

age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation of
consent of his deliberate reason." This way of thinking is closed to speculation

or theory about possibility. Philosophizing, on the other hand, allows us to see even the

most ordinary things in unfamiliar light. Though such consideration diminishes our faulty

certainty about the world, it suggests numerous possibilities "which enlarge our thoughts

and free them from the tyranny of custom." Though we lose a little of our confidence as to

what things are, we gain knowledge of what they may be. Philosophy banishes "arrogant

dogmatism" and liberates "our sense of wonder."

Philosophic thought also has a value by virtue of the things it contemplates and the

distinctness of those things from "personal aims" and "private interests." Philosophy lets in

the outside world and enlarges out interest. Russell writes, "in one way or another, if our

life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison" of our private world. Russel's belief

is that everything that depends on the private world "distorts the object" of contemplation

and prevents the union of the object and the intellect. Philosophic contemplation sponsors

this escape by enlarging the Self. Russell holds that the primary value of philosophy is not

in any kind of definite answer, but exists in the questions themselves. He concludes that,

through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is

rendered great."

Holism

Philosophy Basics' article on holism stated the following:

"Holism in general terms (whether in science, sociology, economics, linguistics or

philosophy) is the idea that all the properties of a given system cannot be determined or

explained by its component parts alone, but the system as a whole determines in an

important way how the parts behave.

In philosophy, the principle of Holism (which comes from the Greek "holos" meaning "al
or "total") was concisely summarized by Aristotle in his "Metaphysics": "The whole is more

than the sum of its parts". However, the term "holism" was only introduced into the

language by the South African statesman Jan Smuts as recently as 1926.

Holism has significance for Epistemology and the Philosophy of Language in particular. It is

contrasted to Epistemological Reductionism (the position that a complex system can be

explained by reduction to its fundamental parts) or of Atomism (insofar as it relates

to Philosophy of Language, this is the position that sentences have meaning or

content completely independently of their relations to other sentences or beliefs)."

Types of Holism

Epistemological Holism (or Confirmation Holism) is the claim that a single scientific

theory cannot be tested in isolation, because a test of one theory

always depends on other theories and hypotheses. One aspect of this is that the

interpretation of observation is "theory-laden" (dependent on theory); another

aspect is that evidence alone is insufficient to determine which theory is correct.

Semantic Holism is a doctrine in the Philosophy of Language to the effect that

a certain part of language (e.g. a term or a complete sentence) can only

be understood through its relations to a (previously understood) larger segment of language, possibly
the entire language. Up until the end of the 19th Century, it was

always assumed that a word gets its meaning in isolation, independently from all

the rest of the words in a language. In 1884, Gottlob Frege formulated his

influential Context Principle, according to which it is only within the context of a

proposition or sentence that a word acquires its meaning

In the 1950's and 1960's, philosophers such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, W.V.O.

Quine and Donald Davidson broadened this principle still further to arrive at the

position that a sentence (and therefore a word) has meaning only in the context of

a whole language. However, problems arise with the theory because, given

the limits of our cognitive abilities, we will never be able to master the whole of any

language, and it also fails to explain how two speakers can mean the same

thing when using the same linguistic expression (and how communication is
even possible between them).

Confirmation Holism and Semantic Holism are inextricably linked, and yet, although

Confirmation Holism is widely accepted among philosophers, Semantic Holism is

much less so. The question remains as to how the two holisms can be distinguished,

and how the undesirable consequences of "unbuttoned holism" can be limited.

Moderate Holism (or Semantic Molecularism) is a compromise position, which holds

that the meanings of words depend on some subset of the language (not the entire

language). The argument then arises as to which parts of a language

are "constitutive" of the meaning of an expression.

Module 002 - Doing Philosophy (Part 2)

This module will contain the following topics:

1. Reflective practice

2. Models of reflective practice

Reflective Practice

Reflective activity is simply defined as "the ability to think about or reflect on what you do."

Its aim is to engage in a process of continuous learning. Gillie said that it involves "paying

critical attention to the practical values and theories which inform everyday actions, by

examining practice reflectively and reflexively. This leads to developmental insight." Mere

experience is not enough to lead to learning. It still requires the presence of deliberate

reflection on these experiences, as well.

Someone who reflects does not simply look back on the past actions and events in his or

her life. It is through conscious looking at emotional experiences, actions, and responses

and using this information to add to his or her existing knowledge could make a person

reach a higher level of understanding.

In the 20th century, John Dewey wrote about reflective practice, exploring experience,

interaction and reflection. After that, Kurt Lewin and Jean Piaget developed theories

relevant to human learning and development. Later on, Donald Schön's book, The

Reflective Practitioner, published in 1983 introduced the concepts of reflection-on-action

and reflection-in-action.

David Boud, an adult education professor explained that reflection is an essential human

activity which people recapture their experience, explore it and evaluate it. It is said that

when a person is experiencing something, he or she may be implicitly learning. However, it

can be difficult to put emotions, events and thoughts into a coherent sequence.

Models of reflective practice

Borton (1970)

Terry Borton's 1970 book Reach, Touch, and Teach popularized a simple learning

cycle inspired by Gestalt therapy composed of three questions which ask the

practitioner: What, So what, and Now what? Through this analysis, a description of a

situation is given which then leads into the scrutiny of the situation and the

construction of knowledge that has been learnt through the experience.

Subsequently, practitioners reflect on ways in which they can personally improve

and the consequences of their response to the experience. Borton's model was later

adapted by practitioners outside the field of education, such as the field of nursing

and the helping professions. (Borton, 1970; Rolfe, et.al, 2001)

Kolb and Fry (1975)

Learning theorist David A. Kolb was highly influenced by the earlier research

conducted by John Dewey and Jean Piaget. Kolb's reflective model highlights the

concept of experiential learning and is centered on the transformation of information

into knowledge. This takes place after a situation has occurred, and entailsa

practitioner reflecting on the experience, gaining a general understanding of the

concepts encountered during the experience, and then testing these general

understandings in a new situation. In this way, the knowledge that is formed from a

situation is continuously applied and reapplied, building on a practitioner's prior

experiences and knowledge. (Kolb and Fry, 1975)

Argyris and Schön 1978

Management researchers Chris Argyris and Donald Schön pioneered the idea

Module 003 Opinion vs Truth: Wisdom and

Truth Through Philosophy

This module will contain the following topics:

1. Wisdom

2. Truth through Philosophy

Wisdom

The word wisdom or sapience is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience,

understanding, common sense and insight. Wisdom has many definitions attached to it,

including several subtypes. Two key subtypes of wisdom that are worth noting are

phronesis and sophia.

Phronesis refers to practical knowledge, or the seeking of knowledge to apply to the given

circumstance such as an understanding of people, objects, events, situations, and the

willingness as well as the ability to apply perception, judgment, and action in keeping with

the understanding of what is the optimal course of action. Sophia on the other hand refers

to "transcendent wisdom" or the "ultimate nature of reality."

The Oxford English Dictionary defines wisdom as "Capacity of judging rightly in matters

relating to life and conduct; soundness of judgment in the choice of means and ends;

sometimes, less strictly, sound sense, esp. in practical affairs: opp. to folly;" also

"Knowledge (esp. ofa high or abstruse kind); enlightenment, learning, erudition." Charles

Haddon Spurgeon defined wisdom as "the right use of knowledge." Robert I.

Sutton and Andrew Hargadon defined the attitude of wisdom" as "acting with knowledge

while doubting what one knows". In the psychological literature however the construct of

wisdom does not have a commonly accepted definition.

The ancient Greeks considered wisdom to be an important virtue, personified as

the goddesses Metis and Athena. Athena is said to have sprung from the head of Zeus. She

was portrayed as strong, fair, merciful, and chaste. To Socrates and Plato, philosophy was

literally the love of Wisdom (philo-sophia). This permeates Plato's dialogues, especially The

Republic, in which the leaders of his proposed utopia are to be philosopher kings, rulers

who understand the Form of the Good and possess the courage to act accordingly. Aristotle,

in his Metaphysics, defined wisdom as the understanding of causes, i.e. knovwing why things

are a certain way, which is deeper than merely knowing that things are a certain way. In

fact, it was Aristotle who first made a distinction between phronesis and sophia aspects of

wisdom.

The ancient Romans also valued wisdom. It was personified in Minerva, or Pallas. She also

represents skillful knowledge and the virtues, especially chastity. Her symbol was the owl

which is still a popular representation of wisdom, because it can see in darkness. She was

said to be born from Jupiter's forehead.

Wisdom is also important within Christianity. Jesus emphasized it. Paul the Apostle, in

his first epistle to the Corinthians, argued that there is both secular and divine wisdom,

urging Christians to pursue the latter. Prudence, which is intimately related to wisdom,

became one of the four cardinal virtues of Catholicism. The Christian philosopher Thomas

Aquinas considered wisdom to be the "father" (i.e. the cause, measure, and form) of all

virtues.

In Buddhist traditions, developing wisdom plays a central role where comprehensive

guidance on how to develop wisdom is provided. In the Inuit tradition, developing wisdom

was one of the aims of teaching. An Inuit Elder said that a person became wise when they

could see what needed to be done and do it successfully without being told what to do. In
many cultures, the name for third molars, which are the last teeth to grow, is

etymologically linked with wisdom, eg, as in the English wisdom tooth.

Religious perspectives

Ancient Egypt

Sia represents the personification or god of wisdom in the traditional mythology

adhered to in Ancient Egypt.

Buddhismn

Developing wisdom is of central importance in Buddhist traditions, where the

ultimate aim is often presented as "seeing things as they are" or as gaining a

"penetrative understanding of all phenomena," which in turn is described as

ultimately leading to the "complete freedom from suffering." In Buddhism,

developing wisdom is accomplished through an understanding of what are known as

the Four Noble Truths and by following the Noble Eightfold Path. This path

lists mindfulness as one of eight required components for cultivating wisdom.

Buddhist scriptures teach that a wise person is endov Iwith good bodily luct,

good verbal conduct, and good mental conduct. (AN 3:2) A wise person does actions

that are unpleasant to do but give good results, and doesn't do actions that are

pleasant to do but give bad results (AN 4:115). Wisdom is the antidote to the self-

chosen poison of ignorance. The Buddha has much to say on the subject of wisdom

including

He who arbitrates a case by force does not thereby become just (established

in Dhamma). But the wise man is he who carefully discriminates between right

and wrong.

He who leads others by nonviolence, righteously and equitably, is indeed a

guardian ofjustice, wise and righteous.

One is not wise merely because he talks much. But he who is calm, free from

hatred and fear, is verily called a wise man.

By quietude alone one does not become a sage (muni) if he is foolish and

ignorant. But he who, as if holding a pair of scales, takes the good and shuns the

evil, is a wise man; he is indeed a muni by that very reason. He who understands

both good and evil as they really are, is called a true sage.

To recover the original supremne wisdom of self-nature covered by the self-imposed

three dusty poisons (greed, anger, ignorance) Buddha taught to his students the

threefold training by turning greed into generosity and discipline, anger into

kindness and meditation, ignorance into wisdom. As the Sixth Patriarch of Chán

Buddhism, Huineng, said in his Platform Sutra, "Mind without dispute is self-nature

discipline, mind without disturbance is self-nature meditation, mind without

ignorance is self-nature wisdom."

Christianity

In Christian theology, "wisdom" describes an aspect of God, or

the theological concept regarding the wisdom of God.

There is an oppositional element in Christian thought between secular wisdom and

Godly wisdom. Paul the Apostle states that worldly wisdom thinks the claims

of Christ to be foolishness. However, to those wh0 are "on the path to salvation"

Christ represents the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:17-31) Also, Wisdom is one of

the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit according to Anglican, Catholic, and Lutheran

belief. 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 gives an alternate list of nine virtues, among which

wisdom is one.

The book of Proverbs in the Bible primarily focuses on wisdom, and was primarily

written by one of the wisest kings according to Jewish history, King Solomon.

Proverbs is found in the Old Testament section of the Bible and is written in a sort of

poetic way, giving direction on how to handle various aspects of life; one's

relationship with God, marriage, dealing with finances, work, friendships and

persevering in difficult situations faced in life.

According to King Solomon, wisdom is gained from God, "For the Lord gives wisdom;
from His mouth come knowledge and understanding" Proverbs 2:6. And through

God's wise aide, one can have a better life: "He holds success in store for the upright,

he is a shield to those whose walk is blanmeless, for he guards the course of the just

and protects the way of his faithful ones" Proverbs 2:7-8. "Trust in the LORD with all

your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him,

and he will make your paths straight" Proverbs 3:5-6. Solomon basically states that

with the wisdom one receives from God, one will be able to find success and

happiness in life.

There are various verses in Proverbs that contain parallels of what God loves, which

is wise, and what God does not love, which is foolish. For example, in the area of good

and bad behavior Proverbs states, "The way of the wicked is an abomination to the

Lord, But He loves him who pursues righteousness (Proverbs 15:9). In relation to

fairness and business it is stated that, "A false balance is an abomination to the Lord,

But a just weight is His delight" (Proverbs 11:1; cf. 20:10,23). On the truth it is said,

"Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal faithfully are His

delight" (12:22; cf. 6:17,19). These are a few examples of what, according to Solomon,

are good and wise in the eyes of God, or bad and foolish, and in doing these good and

wise things, one becomes closer to God by living in an honorable and kind manner.

King Solomon continues his teachings of wisdom in the book of Ecclesiastes, which is

considered one of the most depressing books of the Bible. Solomon discusses his

exploration of the meaning of life and fulfillment, as he speaks of life's pleasures,

work, and materialism, yet concludes that it is all meaningless. "Meaningless!

Meaningless!" says the Teacher [Solomon]. Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless'...For with
much wisdom comes much sorrow, the more knowledge, the

more grief" (Ecclesiastes 1:2,18) Solomon concludes that all life's pleasures and

riches, and even wisdom, mean nothing if there is no relationship with God.

The book of James, written by the apostle James, is said to be the New Testament

version of the book of Proverbs, in that it is another book that discusses wisdom. It

reiterates Proverbs message of wisdom coming from God by stating, "If any of you
lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding

and it will be given to you." James 1:5. James also explains how wisdom helps one

acquire other forms of virtue, "But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all

pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit,

impartial and sincere." James 3:17. In addition, James focuses on using this God-given

wisdom to perform acts of service to the less fortunate.

A part from Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and James, other main books of wisdom in the

Bible are Job, Psalms, and 1 and 2 Corinthians, which give lessons on gaining and

using wisdom through difficult situations. But wisdom is not limited to only these

books in the Bible, no matter the book, words of wisdom can be found. Through

devotional time or meditation through the reading and reflection of the Bible and

other readings that analyze the Bible, one can gain wisdom in order to help

Christians become more aware, insightful and happy in life.

Confucianism

According to Confucius (551-479 BCE), one can learn wisdom by three methods:

reflection (the noblest)

imitation (the easiest)

experience (the bitterest)

One does not dispernse wisdorm oneself unless asked by another. This means that a

wise man never tells his wisdom unless asked person to person.

According to the Doctrine of the Mean, Confucius also said:

"Love of learning is akin to wisdom. To practice with vigor is akin to humanity. To

know to be shameful is akin to courage (zhi, ren, yong. three of Mengzi's sprouts of

virtue)

Compare this with the Confucian classic, Great Learning, which begins with: "The

Way of learning to be great consists in manifesting the clear character, loving the

people, and abiding in the highest good." One can clearly see the correlation with the

Roman virtue prudence, especially if one interprets "clear character" as "clear

Conscience."
Hinduism

Wisdom in Hinduism is considered a state of mind and soul where a person

achieves liberation.

The god of wisdom is Ganesha and the goddess of knowledge is Saraswati.

"O Lord Lead me from the unreal to the real.

Lead me from darkness to light.

Lead me from death to immortality.

May there be peace, peace, and perfect peace"

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.3.28.

Wisdom in Hinduism is knowing oneself as the truth, basis for the entire Creation,

i.e, of Shristi. In other words, wisdom simply means a person with Self-awareness as

the one who witnesses the entire creation in all its facets and forms. Further it means

realization that an individual through right conduct and right living over an

unspecified period comes to realize their true relationship with the creation and

the Paramatma who rules it.

Islam

In Islam, Wisdom is deemed as one of the greatest gifts humankind can enjoy.

The Quran states:

"He gives wisdom to whom Hle wills, and whoever has been given wisdom has

certainly been given much good. And none will remember except those of

understanding."

-Qur'an, sura 2 (Al-Baqara), ayat 269

Judaism

The word wisdom is mentioned 222 times in the Hebrew Bible. It was regarded as

one of the highest virtues among the Israelites along with kindness and justice. Both

the books of Proverbs and Psalms urge readers to obtain and to increase in wisdom.
In the Hebrew Bible, wisdom is represented by Solomon, who asks God for wisdom

in 2 Chronicles 1:10. Much of the Book of Proverbs, a book of wise sayings, is

attributed to Solomon. In Proverbs 9:10, the fear of YHWH is called the beginning of

wisdom. In Proverbs 1:20, there is also reference to wisdom personified in female

form, "Wisdom calls aloud in the streets, she raises her voice in the marketplaces."

In Proverbs 8:22-31, this personified wisdom is described as being present with God

before creation began and even taking part in creation itself.

The Talmud teaches that a wise person is a person who can foresee the

future. Nolad is the Hebrew word for "future," but also the Hebrew word for birth, so

one rabbinic interpretation of the teaching is that a wise person is one who can

foresee the consequences of his/her choices (i.e. can "see the future" that he/she

"gives birth" to).

Taoism

In Taoism, wisdom is construed as adherence to the Three Treasures (Taoism):

charity, simplicity, and humility.

Knowing others is intelligence;

knowing yourself is true wisdom.

Mastering others is strength;

mastering yourself is true power.

Tao Te Ching, 33, tr. S. Mitchell

Truth

It is difficult to define truth as it may differ in any case. Blackburn defined truth as "the aim

of belief wherein falsity is a fault." In the same article on truth, it says that truth is essential

and believing in something that is not the truth may lead to consequences.

Propositions. A common technical definition of a proposition (credited to Peter van

Inwagen) is "a non-linguistic bearer of truth value." A proposition is a representation of the

world or a way the world could possibly be and propositions are either true or false.

Propositions are different than sentences. Sentences are synmbolic, linguistic

representations of propositions.

Let's take the sentence, "The moon has craters." This is an English sentence that

supposedly states some fact about the world or reality (and specifically about the moon).

Because it's in English, we say it's "linguistic" or language-based. If we're going to get

philosophical about it, we could describe its properties as having four words and 17 letters,

it's in the English language written in 11-point font and it's black. The same sentence could

be written like this:

The moon has craters.

This sentence has different properties from the first one above. This one still has the same

number of words and letters and iť's in English. But it is in 18-point font and is written in

blue. Now let's take this sentence, "La luna tiene cráteres." This sentence has four words

but 19 letters. It's written in 11-point font and is black but it's Spanish. What do all three

sentences have in common? They all express the same idea or meaning and we could say

the same "truth." We could express the same idea in Swahili, semaphore, Morse code, or

any other symbolic system that conveys meaning.

Notice that the symbols themselves are neither true nor false. The meaning the

sentences represent is either true or false. Sentences are symbolic representations of

something else-propositions. The common property true of all sentences that express the

same truth is what philosophers call the propositional content of the sentences or"the

proposition." Now we can better understand the idea behind "non-linguistic bearer of truth

value." Propositions are non-linguistic because they aren't written or spoken in a language

They bear truth because they are the things that are true or false. This is what allows them

to be expressed or "exemplified" in a variety of different symbolic systems like language-

based sentences. When it comes to understanding truth, many philosophers believe

propositions are at the center.

Belief. Beliefs are things (at least) people have. They don't exist outside the mind. Some

philosophers say beliefs are "dispositional." That is, they incline a person to behave in a

way as if the thing they believe is true. So a belief, simply, is a proposition that a

person accepts as representing the way the world actually is. Beliefs can be about falsee

propositions and thus be "wrong' because the person accepts them as true. This is a critical

distinction. While a proposition has to be true or false, beliefs can be about true or false

propositions even though a person always accepts them as being true.

Some philosophers attempt to define truth "mind-independently." That means, they want

to come up with a definition that doesn't depend on whether humans can

actually believe or know what is true. Truth is viewed as independent of our minds and they

seek a definition of it that captures this. Other philosophers have developed theories that

keep people at the center. That is, truth and belief are considered together and are

inseparable.

Knowledge. Knowledge is belief in a true proposition that a person is justified in holding as

true. The conditions under which a person is justified is complicated and there are many

theories about when the conditions are met. Theories of knowledge attempt to describe

when a person is in a right" cognitive relationship with true propositions.

of single-loop learning and double-loop learning in 1978. Their theory was built

around the recognition and correction of a perceived fault or error. Single-loop

learning is when a practitioner or organization, even after an error has occurred and

a correction is made, continues to rely on current strategies, techniques or policies

when a situation again comes to light. Double-loop learning involves the modification

of objectives, strategies or policies so that when a similar situation arises a new

framing system is employed. (Smith, 2013; Argyris, et.al, 2001)

Schön claimed ive the notions of "reflection-on-action, reflection-in-action,

responding to problematic situations, problem framing, problem solving, and the

priority of practical knowledge over abstract theory" from the writings of John

Dewey, although education professor Harvey Shapiro has argued that Dewey's

writings offer "more expansive, more integrated notions of professional growth"

than do Schön's. (Shapiro, 2010)

Schon advocated 2 types of reflective practice. Firstly, reflection-on-action, which

involves reflecting on an experience that you have already had, or an action that you

have already taken, and considering what could have been done differently, as well

as looking at the positives from that interaction. The other type of reflection Schon

notes is reflection-in-action, or reflecting on your actions as you are doing them, and

considering issues like best practice throughout the process.

For Schön, professional growth really begins when a person starts to view things

with a critical lens, by doubting his or her actions. Doubt brings about a way of

thinking that questions and frames situations as "problems". Through careful

planning and systematic elimination of other possible problems, doubt is settled, and

people are able to afirm their knowledge of the situation. Then people are able to

think about possible situations and their outcomes, and deliberate about whether

they carried out the right actions.

Gibbs 1988

Learning researcher Graham Gibbs discussed the use of structured debriefing to

facilitate the reflection involved in Kolb's experiential learning cycle. Gibbs presents

the stages of a full structured debriefing as follows (1988):

(Initial experience)

Description

"What happened? Don't make judgments yet or try to draw conclusions; simply

describe."

Feelings

"What were your reactions and feelings? Again don't move on to analyzing these
yet"

Evaluation

"What was good or bad about the experience? Make value judgments."

Analysis

"What sense can you make of the situation? Bring in ideas from outside the

experience to help you."

"What was really going on?"

"Were different people's experiences similar or different in important ways?"

Conclusions (general)

"What can be concluded, in a general sense, from these experiences and the

analyses you have undertaken?"

Conclusions (specific)

"What can be concluded about your own specific, unique, personal situation or

way of working?"

Personal action plans

"What are you going to do differently in this type of situation next time?"

"What steps are you going to take on the basis of what you have learnt?"

Gibbs' suggestions are often cited as "Gibbs' reflective cycle" or "Gibbs' model of

reflection", and simplified into the following six distinct stages to assist in

structuring reflection on learning experiences (Finlay, 2008):

Description

Feelings

Evaluation

Analysis

Conclusions

Action plan

Johns 1995

Professor of nursing Christopher Johns designed a structured mode of reflection that

provides a practitioner with a guide to gain greater understanding of his or her

practice. Johns, 2013) It is designed to be carried out through the act of sharing with

a colleague or mentor, which enables the experience to become learnt knowledge at a

faster rate than reflection alone. (Johns, 2010)

Johns highlights the importance of experienced knowledge and the ability of a

practitioner to access, understand and put into practice information that has been

acquired through empirical means. Reflection occurs though "looking in" on one's

thoughts and emotions and "looking out" at the situation experienced. Johns draws

on the work of Barbara Carper to expand on the notion of "looking out" at a situation.

(Carper, 1978) Five patterns of knowing are incorporated into the guided reflection:

the aesthetic, personal, ethical, empirical and reflexive aspects of the situation. Johns'

model is comprehensive and allows for reflection that touches on many important

elements. Johns, 1995)

Brookfield 1998

Adult education scholar Stephen Brookfield proposed that critically reflective

practitioners constantly research their assumptions by seeing practice through four

complementary lenses: the lens of their autobiography as learners of reflective

practice, the lens of other learners' eyes, the lens of colleagues' experiences, and the

lens of theoretical, philosophical and research literature. Reviewing practice through

these lenses makes us more aware of the power dynamics that infuse all practice

settings. It also helps us detect hegemonic assumptions-assumptions that we think

are in our own best interests, but actually work against us in the long run. Brookfield

argued that these four lenses will reflect back to us starkly different pictures of who

we are and what we do. (Brookfield, 1998)

Lens 1: Our autobiography as a learner. Our autobiography is an important source

of insight into practice. As we talk to each other about critical events in our

practice, we start to realize that individual crises are usually collectively

experienced dilemmas. Analysing our autobiographies allows us to draw insight

and meanings for practice on a deep visceral emotional level.

Lens 2: Our learners' eyes. Seeing ourselves through learners' eyes, we may

discover that learners are interpreting our actions in the way that we mean them.

But often we are surprised by the diversity of meanings people read into our

words and actions. A cardinal principle of seeing ourselves through learners' eyes

is that of ensuring the anonymity of their critical opinions. We have to make

learners feel safe. Seeing our practice through learners' eyes helps us teach more

responsively.

Lens 3: Our colleagues' experiences. Our colleagues serve as critical mirrors

reflecting back to us images of our actions. Talking to colleagues about problems

and gaining their perspective increases Our chance of finding some information

that can help our situation.

Lens 4: Theoretical literature. Theory can help us "name" our practice by

illuminating the general elements of what we think are idiosyncratic experiences.

Module 003 Opinion vs Truth: Wisdom and

Truth Through Philosophy

This module will contain the following topics:

1. Wisdom

2. Truth through Philosophy

Wisdom

The word wisdom or sapience is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience,

understanding, common sense and insight. Wisdom has many definitions attached to it,

including several subtypes. Two key subtypes of wisdom that are worth noting are

phronesis and sophia.

Phronesis refers to practical knowledge, or the seeking of knowledge to apply to the given

circumstance such as an understanding of people, objects, events, situations, and the

willingness as well as the ability to apply perception, judgment, and action in keeping with

the understanding of what is the optimal course of action. Sophia on the other hand refers

to "transcendent wisdom" or the "ultimate nature of reality."

The Oxford English Dictionary defines wisdom as "Capacity of judging rightly in matters

relating to life and conduct; soundness of judgment in the choice of means and ends;

sometimes, less strictly, sound sense, esp. in practical affairs: opp. to folly;" also

"Knowledge (esp. ofa high or abstruse kind); enlightenment, learning, erudition." Charles

Haddon Spurgeon defined wisdom as "the right use of knowledge." Robert I.

Sutton and Andrew Hargadon defined the attitude of wisdom" as "acting with knowledge

while doubting what one knows". In the psychological literature however the construct of

wisdom does not have a commonly accepted definition.

The ancient Greeks considered wisdom to be an important virtue, personified as

the goddesses Metis and Athena. Athena is said to have sprung from the head of Zeus. She

was portrayed as strong, fair, merciful, and chaste. To Socrates and Plato, philosophy was

literally the love of Wisdom (philo-sophia). This permeates Plato's dialogues, especially The

Republic, in which the leaders of his proposed utopia are to be philosopher kings, rulers

who understand the Form of the Good and possess the courage to act accordingly. Aristotle,

in his Metaphysics, defined wisdom as the understanding of causes, i.e. knovwing why things

are a certain way, which is deeper than merely knowing that things are a certain way. In

fact, it was Aristotle who first made a distinction between phronesis and sophia aspects of

wisdom.

The ancient Romans also valued wisdom. It was personified in Minerva, or Pallas. She also

represents skillful knowledge and the virtues, especially chastity. Her symbol was the owl

which is still a popular representation of wisdom, because it can see in darkness. She was

said to be born from Jupiter's forehead.

Wisdom is also important within Christianity. Jesus emphasized it. Paul the Apostle, in
his first epistle to the Corinthians, argued that there is both secular and divine wisdom,

urging Christians to pursue the latter. Prudence, which is intimately related to wisdom,

became one of the four cardinal virtues of Catholicism. The Christian philosopher Thomas

Aquinas considered wisdom to be the "father" (i.e. the cause, measure, and form) of all

virtues.

In Buddhist traditions, developing wisdom plays a central role where comprehensive

guidance on how to develop wisdom is provided. In the Inuit tradition, developing wisdom

was one of the aims of teaching. An Inuit Elder said that a person became wise when they

could see what needed to be done and do it successfully without being told what to do. In

many cultures, the name for third molars, which are the last teeth to grow, is

etymologically linked with wisdom, eg, as in the English wisdom tooth.

Religious perspectives

Ancient Egypt

Sia represents the personification or god of wisdom in the traditional mythology

adhered to in Ancient Egypt.

Buddhismn

Developing wisdom is of central importance in Buddhist traditions, where the

ultimate aim is often presented as "seeing things as they are" or as gaining a

"penetrative understanding of all phenomena," which in turn is described as

ultimately leading to the "complete freedom from suffering." In Buddhism,

developing wisdom is accomplished through an understanding of what are known as

the Four Noble Truths and by following the Noble Eightfold Path. This path

lists mindfulness as one of eight required components for cultivating wisdom.

Buddhist scriptures teach that a wise person is endov Iwith good bodily luct,

good verbal conduct, and good mental conduct. (AN 3:2) A wise person does actions

that are unpleasant to do but give good results, and doesn't do actions that are
pleasant to do but give bad results (AN 4:115). Wisdom is the antidote to the self-

chosen poison of ignorance. The Buddha has much to say on the subject of wisdom

including

He who arbitrates a case by force does not thereby become just (established

in Dhamma). But the wise man is he who carefully discriminates between right

and wrong.

He who leads others by nonviolence, righteously and equitably, is indeed a

guardian ofjustice, wise and righteous.

One is not wise merely because he talks much. But he who is calm, free from

hatred and fear, is verily called a wise man.

By quietude alone one does not become a sage (muni) if he is foolish and

ignorant. But he who, as if holding a pair of scales, takes the good and shuns the

evil, is a wise man; he is indeed a muni by that very reason. He who understands

both good and evil as they really are, is called a true sage.

To recover the original supremne wisdom of self-nature covered by the self-imposed

three dusty poisons (greed, anger, ignorance) Buddha taught to his students the

threefold training by turning greed into generosity and discipline, anger into

kindness and meditation, ignorance into wisdom. As the Sixth Patriarch of Chán

Buddhism, Huineng, said in his Platform Sutra, "Mind without dispute is self-nature

discipline, mind without disturbance is self-nature meditation, mind without

ignorance is self-nature wisdom."

Christianity

In Christian theology, "wisdom" describes an aspect of God, or

the theological concept regarding the wisdom of God.

There is an oppositional element in Christian thought between secular wisdom and

Godly wisdom. Paul the Apostle states that worldly wisdom thinks the claims

of Christ to be foolishness. However, to those wh0 are "on the path to salvation"

Christ represents the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:17-31) Also, Wisdom is one of

the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit according to Anglican, Catholic, and Lutheran
belief. 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 gives an alternate list of nine virtues, among which

wisdom is one.

The book of Proverbs in the Bible primarily focuses on wisdom, and was primarily

written by one of the wisest kings according to Jewish history, King Solomon.

Proverbs is found in the Old Testament section of the Bible and is written in a sort of

poetic way, giving direction on how to handle various aspects of life; one's

relationship with God, marriage, dealing with finances, work, friendships and

persevering in difficult situations faced in life.

According to King Solomon, wisdom is gained from God, "For the Lord gives wisdom;

from His mouth come knowledge and understanding" Proverbs 2:6. And through

God's wise aide, one can have a better life: "He holds success in store for the upright,

he is a shield to those whose walk is blanmeless, for he guards the course of the just

and protects the way of his faithful ones" Proverbs 2:7-8. "Trust in the LORD with all

your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him,

and he will make your paths straight" Proverbs 3:5-6. Solomon basically states that

with the wisdom one receives from God, one will be able to find success and

happiness in life.

There are various verses in Proverbs that contain parallels of what God loves, which

is wise, and what God does not love, which is foolish. For example, in the area of good

and bad behavior Proverbs states, "The way of the wicked is an abomination to the

Lord, But He loves him who pursues righteousness (Proverbs 15:9). In relation to

fairness and business it is stated that, "A false balance is an abomination to the Lord,

But a just weight is His delight" (Proverbs 11:1; cf. 20:10,23). On the truth it is said,

"Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal faithfully are His

delight" (12:22; cf. 6:17,19). These are a few examples of what, according to Solomon,

are good and wise in the eyes of God, or bad and foolish, and in doing these good and

wise things, one becomes closer to God by living in an honorable and kind manner.

King Solomon continues his teachings of wisdom in the book of Ecclesiastes, which is
considered one of the most depressing books of the Bible. Solomon discusses his

exploration of the meaning of life and fulfillment, as he speaks of life's pleasures,

work, and materialism, yet concludes that it is all meaningless. "Meaningless!

Meaningless!" says the Teacher [Solomon]. Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless'...For with
much wisdom comes much sorrow, the more knowledge, the

more grief" (Ecclesiastes 1:2,18) Solomon concludes that all life's pleasures and

riches, and even wisdom, mean nothing if there is no relationship with God.

The book of James, written by the apostle James, is said to be the New Testament

version of the book of Proverbs, in that it is another book that discusses wisdom. It

reiterates Proverbs message of wisdom coming from God by stating, "If any of you

lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding

and it will be given to you." James 1:5. James also explains how wisdom helps one

acquire other forms of virtue, "But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all

pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit,

impartial and sincere." James 3:17. In addition, James focuses on using this God-given

wisdom to perform acts of service to the less fortunate.

A part from Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and James, other main books of wisdom in the

Bible are Job, Psalms, and 1 and 2 Corinthians, which give lessons on gaining and

using wisdom through difficult situations. But wisdom is not limited to only these

books in the Bible, no matter the book, words of wisdom can be found. Through

devotional time or meditation through the reading and reflection of the Bible and

other readings that analyze the Bible, one can gain wisdom in order to help

Christians become more aware, insightful and happy in life.

Confucianism

According to Confucius (551-479 BCE), one can learn wisdom by three methods:

reflection (the noblest)

imitation (the easiest)

experience (the bitterest)

One does not dispernse wisdorm oneself unless asked by another. This means that a
wise man never tells his wisdom unless asked person to person.

According to the Doctrine of the Mean, Confucius also said:

"Love of learning is akin to wisdom. To practice with vigor is akin to humanity. To

know to be shameful is akin to courage (zhi, ren, yong. three of Mengzi's sprouts of

virtue)

Compare this with the Confucian classic, Great Learning, which begins with: "The

Way of learning to be great consists in manifesting the clear character, loving the

people, and abiding in the highest good." One can clearly see the correlation with the

Roman virtue prudence, especially if one interprets "clear character" as "clear

Conscience."

Hinduism

Wisdom in Hinduism is considered a state of mind and soul where a person

achieves liberation.

The god of wisdom is Ganesha and the goddess of knowledge is Saraswati.

"O Lord Lead me from the unreal to the real.

Lead me from darkness to light.

Lead me from death to immortality.

May there be peace, peace, and perfect peace"

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.3.28.

Wisdom in Hinduism is knowing oneself as the truth, basis for the entire Creation,

i.e, of Shristi. In other words, wisdom simply means a person with Self-awareness as

the one who witnesses the entire creation in all its facets and forms. Further it means

realization that an individual through right conduct and right living over an

unspecified period comes to realize their true relationship with the creation and

the Paramatma who rules it.

Islam
In Islam, Wisdom is deemed as one of the greatest gifts humankind can enjoy.

The Quran states:

"He gives wisdom to whom Hle wills, and whoever has been given wisdom has

certainly been given much good. And none will remember except those of

understanding."

-Qur'an, sura 2 (Al-Baqara), ayat 269

Judaism

The word wisdom is mentioned 222 times in the Hebrew Bible. It was regarded as

one of the highest virtues among the Israelites along with kindness and justice. Both

the books of Proverbs and Psalms urge readers to obtain and to increase in wisdom.

In the Hebrew Bible, wisdom is represented by Solomon, who asks God for wisdom

in 2 Chronicles 1:10. Much of the Book of Proverbs, a book of wise sayings, is

attributed to Solomon. In Proverbs 9:10, the fear of YHWH is called the beginning of

wisdom. In Proverbs 1:20, there is also reference to wisdom personified in female

form, "Wisdom calls aloud in the streets, she raises her voice in the marketplaces."

In Proverbs 8:22-31, this personified wisdom is described as being present with God

before creation began and even taking part in creation itself.

The Talmud teaches that a wise person is a person who can foresee the

future. Nolad is the Hebrew word for "future," but also the Hebrew word for birth, so

one rabbinic interpretation of the teaching is that a wise person is one who can

foresee the consequences of his/her choices (i.e. can "see the future" that he/she

"gives birth" to).

Taoism

In Taoism, wisdom is construed as adherence to the Three Treasures (Taoism):

charity, simplicity, and humility.

Knowing others is intelligence;

knowing yourself is true wisdom.

Mastering others is strength;

mastering yourself is true power.

Tao Te Ching, 33, tr. S. Mitchell

Truth

It is difficult to define truth as it may differ in any case. Blackburn defined truth as "the aim

of belief wherein falsity is a fault." In the same article on truth, it says that truth is essential

and believing in something that is not the truth may lead to consequences.

Propositions. A common technical definition of a proposition (credited to Peter van

Inwagen) is "a non-linguistic bearer of truth value." A proposition is a representation of the

world or a way the world could possibly be and propositions are either true or false.

Propositions are different than sentences. Sentences are synmbolic, linguistic

representations of propositions.

Let's take the sentence, "The moon has craters." This is an English sentence that

supposedly states some fact about the world or reality (and specifically about the moon).

Because it's in English, we say it's "linguistic" or language-based. If we're going to get

philosophical about it, we could describe its properties as having four words and 17 letters,

it's in the English language written in 11-point font and it's black. The same sentence could

be written like this:

The moon has craters.

This sentence has different properties from the first one above. This one still has the same

number of words and letters and iť's in English. But it is in 18-point font and is written in

blue. Now let's take this sentence, "La luna tiene cráteres." This sentence has four words

but 19 letters. It's written in 11-point font and is black but it's Spanish. What do all three

sentences have in common? They all express the same idea or meaning and we could say

the same "truth." We could express the same idea in Swahili, semaphore, Morse code, or
any other symbolic system that conveys meaning.

Notice that the symbols themselves are neither true nor false. The meaning the

sentences represent is either true or false. Sentences are symbolic representations of

something else-propositions. The common property true of all sentences that express the

same truth is what philosophers call the propositional content of the sentences or"the

proposition." Now we can better understand the idea behind "non-linguistic bearer of truth

value." Propositions are non-linguistic because they aren't written or spoken in a language

They bear truth because they are the things that are true or false. This is what allows them

to be expressed or "exemplified" in a variety of different symbolic systems like language-

based sentences. When it comes to understanding truth, many philosophers believe

propositions are at the center.

Belief. Beliefs are things (at least) people have. They don't exist outside the mind. Some

philosophers say beliefs are "dispositional." That is, they incline a person to behave in a

way as if the thing they believe is true. So a belief, simply, is a proposition that a

person accepts as representing the way the world actually is. Beliefs can be about falsee

propositions and thus be "wrong' because the person accepts them as true. This is a critical

distinction. While a proposition has to be true or false, beliefs can be about true or false

propositions even though a person always accepts them as being true.

Some philosophers attempt to define truth "mind-independently." That means, they want

to come up with a definition that doesn't depend on whether humans can

actually believe or know what is true. Truth is viewed as independent of our minds and they

seek a definition of it that captures this. Other philosophers have developed theories that

keep people at the center. That is, truth and belief are considered together and are

inseparable.

Knowledge. Knowledge is belief in a true proposition that a person is justified in holding as

true. The conditions under which a person is justified is complicated and there are many

theories about when the conditions are met. Theories of knowledge attempt to describe

when a person is in a right" cognitive relationship with true propositions.

Module 004 Transcendence and the Human

Body

This module will contain the following topics:

1. The definition of transcendence

2. Kant and modern philosophy

3. Husserlian phenomenology and Sartre

4. Self-transcendence

Transcendence

In philosophy, the adjective transcendental and the noun transcendence convey three

different but related meanings, all of them derived from the word's literal meaning (from

Latin) of climbing or going beyond, that correspond with Ancient philosophy, Medieval

philosophy, and modern philosophy. The concept of transcendence, together with its paired

concept immanence, is a common philosophical term and is used by many philosophers.

The meaning of the concept of transcendence more or less differs according to each

philosopher's framework of thought.

Transcendence often refers to an experience with the divine or God, which is conceived

as absolute, eternal, and infinite. Negative theology and mysticism recognizes the limits of

conceptual understanding or linguistic articulation of that which transcends the

phenomenal world. Negative theology in particular is an example of an attemnpt to describe

what is transcendent by negating what is finite and relative.

Immanuel Kant characterized his critical philosophy as "transcendental" as an attempt to

explain the possibility of experience. While Kant's use of the term is unique to him, Edmund

Husserl also adopted the Kantian notion in his phenomenology.

Transcendence generally refers to the divine, or God, who is conceived as being

transcendent, infinite, absolute, and eternal. These concepts are difficult to conceptualize

and further difficult to define. They are, therefore, often defined in terms of the negation of

finite concepts. For example, infinite is defined as "not finite," eternity is "not temporal" or

"no beginning and no end." Negative theology likewise tries not to describe God in direct or

immediate terms, but tries to describe Hinm as a negation of what human beings can directly

conceptualize.

Although transcendence or immanence is not part of Plato's philosophical vocabulary,

his Ideas are divine objects that are transcendent of the world. In Plato's ontology, Ideas,

such as beauty and good, are eternal, absolute, and are manifested in a relative and

imperfect form in the world we live in.

Mysticism can also be seen as an attempt to access the divine, or that which is

transcendent.

Transcendence and Immanence

One use of the term transcendence, as part of the concept pair

transcendence/immanence, is the use of the term in reference to God's relation to

the world. Here transcendent means that God is completely outside of and beyond

the world, as opposed to the notion that God is manifested in the world. This

meaning originates in the Aristotelian view of God as the prime mover, a non-

material self-consciousness thati outside of the worl On the other hand

philosophies of immanence such as stoicism and those held by Spinoza

and Deleuze maintain that God is manifested in the world.

Similarly, Plato's Ideas are also divine objects that transcend the world. For Plato,

the Idea of beauty is perfect and absolute, which manifests itself in imperfect form in

the phenomenal world. Similarly, the Idea of the Good is eternal, perfect, and

absolute, and transcendent of the world. On the other hand, goodness in the world is

imperfect, temporal, and finite, and it is understood in reference to the ldea of good.

Kant and modern Philosophy

In modern philosophy, Kant introduced a new use of the term transcendental.In

his theory of knowledge, this concept is concerned with the conditions of possibility

of knowledge itself. He also set the term transcendental in opposition to the

term transcendent, the latter meaning "that, which goes beyond" (transcends) any

possible knowledge of a human being. For him transcendental meant knowledge

about our cognitive faculty with regard to how objects are possible a priori. "I call all

knowledge transcendental if it is occupied, not with objects, but with the way that

we can possibly know objects even before we experience them." He also

equated transcendental with that which is ".in respect of the subject's faculty of

cognition." Something is transcendental if it plays a role in the way in which the

mind "constitutes" objects and makes it possible for us to experience them as

objects in the first place. Ordinary knowledge is knowledge of objects;

transcendental knowledge is knowledge of how it is possible for us to experience

those objects as objects. This is based on Kant's acceptance of David Hume's

argument that certain general features of objects (e-g persistence, causal

relationships) cannot be derived from the sense impressions we have of them. Kant

argues that the mind must contribute those features and make it possible for us to

experience objects as objects. In the central part of his Critique of Pure Reason, the

Transcendental Deduction of the Categories," Kant argues for a deep

interconnection between the ability to have self-consciousness and the ability to

experience a world of objects. Through a process of synthesis, the mind generates

both the structure of objects and its own unity.

A metaphilosophical question discussed by many Kant scholars is how

transcendental reflection is itself possible. Stephen Palmquist interprets Kant's

appeal to faith as his most effective solution to this problem.

For Kant, the "transcendent," as opposed to the "transcendental," is that which lies

beyond what our faculty of knowledge can legitimately know. Hegel's counter-

argument to Kant was that to know a boundary is also to be aware of what it bounds

and as such what lies beyond it-in other words, to have already transcended it.

Husserlian phenomenology and Sartre

In Husserlian phenomenology, the "transcendent" is that which transcends our own

consciousness-that which is objective rather than only a phenomenon of

consciousness. "Noema" (object of intentionality, that is, object of mental acts such as thinking, feeling,
imagining, hoping, believing, and others) is used in

phenomenology to refer to the terminus of an intention as given for consciousness.

Following the Kantian distinction, Husserl distinguishes transcendental from

transcendent. Transcendental means a type of discourse that explains the possibility

of experiences, that is, why and how experience is possible. So "transcendental

phenomenology" is a phenomenology which explains the condition of the possibility

of experience.

Jean-Paul Sartre also speaks of transcendence in his works. In Being and

Nothingness, Sartre uses the term transcendence to describe the relation of the self

to the object oriented world, as well as our concrete relations with others. For

Sartre, the for-itself is sometimes called a transcendence. Additionally, if the other is

viewed strictly as an object, much like any other object, then the other is, for the for-

itself, a transcendence-transcended. When the for-itself grasps the other in the

others world, and grasps the subjectivity that the other has, it is referred to as

transcending-transcendence. Thus, Sartre defines relations with others in terms of

transcendence.

Jaspers and other contemporary thinkers also used the concept of transcendence in

various ways as an integral part of their thoughts.

Self-Transcendence

Self-transcendence is the concept of making personal progress in different fields - physical,

mental spiritual. Self-transcendence means we seek to exceed our previous achievements

and extend our capacities.

One of the most famous American psychologists, Abraham Maslow, became widely known
for his theory of psychological health called as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is often

illustrated as a pyramid with levels of our basic needs: (from top to bottom) self-

actualization, esteem, love/belonging, safety and physiological.

Unknown to most, Maslow amended this model towards the end of his life. He argued that

there is another, higher level of development, what he called self-transcendence. We

achieve this level by focusing on goals beyond the self like altruism, spiritual awakenings

liberation from egocentricity, and ultimately the unity of being. Here is how he put it:

Transcendence refers to the very highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of

human consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather than means, to oneself,

to significant others, to human beings in general, to other species, to nature, and to

the cosmos. (The Farther Reaches of Human Nature, New York, 1971, p. 269.)

This is not to be confused with self-actualization because the latter refers to fulfilling your

own potential while the former refers to literally transcending the self.

There are three kinds of self-transcendence. These are the following:

Physical Self-Transcendence.

Self-Transcendence can most easily be nmeasured through improvements in physical

achievements. In running, it involves trying to break new records in both time and speed. The beauty of
self-transcendence is that it can be practiced by anyone; we

need not compete with others, we can just compete with ourselves. From this

perspective, we can get great joy by surpassing our previous personal bests.

Spiritual self-transcendence.

Self-transcendence is a concept that is incorporated into different spiritual

traditions. In this regard, we are seeking to go beyond our limited state of ego to

expand our own consciousness. When we identify only with the body and ego, it is a

limited perspective. Spiritual traditions suggest we are more than just a frail body.

Through practicing yoga and spiritual traditions, we learn to expand our

consciousness and feel our connection with the universal Self.

Physical and Spiritual Self-Transcendence.

There is no need to separate the physical self-transcendence with spiritual

development; they can harmoniously work together and complement each other.

One notable example of this is the 3100-mile Self Transcendence race founded by Sri

Chinmoy. The 3100 mile is an epic race which can take competitors between 45 60

days to complete. To run such a mind-boggling distance requires the c0-operation of

both body and soul. By completing this act of physical transcendence, we are going

beyond the limits of what the mind may think possible. By stretching our physical

capacities, we also delve into a different understanding of ourselves.

Module 005- Order and Disorder in the

Environment

This module will contain the following topics:

1. Environmental Ethic:

2. The Challenge of Environment Ethics

3. Anthropocentrism

Environmental Ethics

Environmental ethics is defined by Conserve Energy Future as a branch of ethics that

studies the relation of human beings and the environment and how ethics play a role in

this." Its belief is that humans, plants and animals are a part of society and play an

important part in the world. Environmental ethics believes that it is essential for humans to

respect and honor the other living creatures in the world and use morals and ethics in

dealing with them.

Nature.com, on the other hand, gave the following definition: "Environmental ethics is a
branch of applied philosophy that studies the conceptual foundations of environnmental

values as well as more concrete issues surrounding societal attitudes, actions, and policies

to protect and sustain biodiversity and ecological systems."

According to Wikipedia, "Environmental ethics is the part of environmental philosophy

which considers extending the traditional boundaries of ethics from solely including

humans to including the non-human world. It exerts infuence on a large range of

disciplines including environmental law, environmental sociology, ecotheology, ecological

economics, ecology and environmental geography.

There are many ethical decisions that human beings make with respect to the environment.

For example:

Should humans continue to clear cut forests for the sake of human consumption?

Why should humans continue to propagate its species, and life itself?

Should humans continue to make gasoline-powered vehicles?

What environmental obligations do humans need to keep for future generations?

Is it right for humans to knowingly cause the extinction of a species for the

convenience of humanity?

How should humans best use and conserve the space environment to secure and

expand life?

The academic field of environmental ethics grew up in response to the work of scientists

such as Rachel Carson and events such as the first Earth Day in 1970, when

environmentalists started urging philosophers to consider the philosophical aspects of environmental

problems. Two papers published in Science had a crucial impact: Lynn

White's "The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis" (March 1967) and Garrett Hardin's

The Tragedy of the Commons" (December 1968). Also influential was Garett Hardin's later

essay called "Exploring New Ethics for Survival", as well as an essay by Aldo Leopold in

his A Sand County Ałmanac, called "The Land Ethic," in which Leopold explicitly claimed

that the roots of the ecological crisis were philosophical (1949).

In the literature on environmental ethics the distinction between instrumenta

value and intrinsic value (in the sense of "non-instrumental value") has been of
considerable importance. The former is the value of things as means to further some other

ends, whereas the latter is the value of things as ends in themselves regardless of whether

they are also useful as means to other ends. For instance, certain fruits have instrumental

value for bats who feed on them, since feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the

bats. However, it is not widely agreed that fruits have value as ends in themselves. We can

likewise think of a person who teaches others as having instrunmental value for those who

want to acquire knowledge. Yet, in addition to any such value, it is normally said that a

person, as a person, has intrinsic value, i.e., value in his or her own right independently of

his or her prospects for serving the ends of others. For another example, a certain wild

plant may have instrumental value because it provides the ingredients for some medicine

or as an aesthetic object for human observers. But if the plant also has some value in itself

independently of its prospects for furthering some other ends such as human health, or the

pleasure from aesthetic experience, then the plant also has intrinsic value. Because the

intrinsically valuable is that which is good as an end in itself, it is commonly agreed that

something's possession of intrinsic value generates a prima facie direct moral duty on the

part of moral agents to protect it or at least refrain from damaging it (see O'Neil 1992 and

Jamieson 2002 for detailed accounts of intrinsic value).

Many traditional western ethical perspectives, however, are anthropocentric or human-

centered in that either they assign intrinsic value to human beings alone (i.e., what wve

might call anthropocentric in a strong sense) or they assign a signiticantly greater amount

of intrinsic value to human beings than to any non-human things such that the protection

or promotion of human interests or well-being at the expense of non-human things turns

out to be nearly always justified (i.e., what we might call anthropocentric in a weak sense).

For example, Aristotle (Politics, Bk. 1, Ch. 8) maintains that "nature has made all things

specifically for the sake of man" and that the value of non-human things in nature is merely

instrumental. Generally, anthropocentric positions find it problematic to articulate what is

wrong with the cruel treatment of non-human animals, except to the extent that such

treatment may lead to bad consequences for human beings. Immanuel Kant ("Duties to

Animals and Spirits", in Lectures on Ethics), for instance, suggests that cruelty towards a
dog might encourage a person to develop a character which would be desensitized to

cruelty towards humans. From this standpoint, cruelty towards non-human animals would

be instrumentally, rather than intrinsically, wrong. Likewise, anthropocentrism often

recognizes some non-intrinsic wrongness of anthropogenic (i.e. human-caused)

environmental devastation. Such destruction might damage the well-being of human beings

now and in the future, since our well-being is essentially dependent on a sustainable

environment (see Passmore 1974; Bookchin 1990; Norton et al. (eds.) 1995).

When environmental ethics emerged as a new sub-discipline of philosophy in the early

1970s, it did so by posing a challenge to traditional anthropocentrism. In the first place, it

questioned the assumed moral superiority of human beings to members of other species on

earth. In the second place, it investigated the possibility of rational arguments for assigning

intrinsic value to the natural environment and its non-human contents. It should be noted, however,
that some theorists working in the field see no need to develop new, non

anthropocentric theories. Instead, they advocate what may be

called enlightened anthropocentrism (or, perhaps more appropriately called, prudential

anthropocentrism). Briefly, this is the view that all the moral duties we have towards the

environment are derived from our direct duties to its human inhabitants. The practical

purpose of environmental ethics, they maintain, is to provide moral grounds for social

policies aimed at protecting the earth's environment and remedying environmental

degradation. Enlightened anthropocentrism, they argue, is sufficient for that practical

purpose, and perhaps even more effective in delivering pragmatic outcomes, in terms of

policy-making, than non-anthropocentric theories given the theoretical burden on the

latter to provide sound arguments for its more radical view that the non-human

environment has intrinsic value (cf. Norton 1991, de Shalit 1994, Light and Katz 1996).

Deep Ecology

"Deep ecology" was born in Scandinavia, the result of discussions between Næss and

his colleagues Sigmund Kvaløy and Nils Faarlund (see Næss 1973 and 1989; also see

Witoszek and Brennan (eds.) 1999 for a historical survey and commentary on the

development of deep ecology). All three shared a passion for the great mountains.
On a visit to the Himalayas, they became impressed with aspects of "Sherpa culture

particularly when they found that their Sherpa guides regarded certain mountains

as sacred and accordingly would not venture onto them. Subsequently, Næess

formulated a position which extended the reverence the three Norwegians and the

Sherpas felt for mountains to other natural things in general.

The "shallow ecology movement", as Næss (1973) calls it, is the "fight against

pollution and resource depletion"', the central objective of which is "the health and

affluence of people in the developed countries." The "deep ecology movement', in

contrast, endorses "biospheric egalitarianism", the view that all living things are

alike in having value in their own right, independent of their usefulness to others.

The deep ecologist respects this intrinsic value, taking care, for example, when

walking on the mountainside not to cause unnecessary damage to the plants.

Feminism and the environment

Broadly speaking, a feminist issue is any that contributes in some way to

understanding the oppression of women. Feminist theories attempt to analyze

women's oppression, its causes and consequences, and suggest strategies and

directions for women's liberation. By the mid 1970s, feminist writers had raised the

issue of whether patriarchal modes of thinking encouraged not only widespread

inferiorizing and colonizing of women, but also of people of color, animals and

nature. Sheila Collins (1974), for instance, argued that male-dominated culture or

patriarchy is supported by four interlocking pillars: sexism, racism, class

exploitation, and ecological destruction.

Emphasizing the importance of feminism to the environmental movement and

various other liberation movements, some writers, such as Ynestra King (1989a and

1989b), argue that the domination of women by men is historically the original form

of domination in human society, from which all other hierarchies-of rank, class, and political power-flow.
For instance, human exploitation of nature may be seen

as a manifestation and extension of the oppression of women, in that it is the result

of associating nature with the female, which had been already inferiorized and

oppressed by the male-dominating culture. But within the plurality of feminist

positions, other writers, such as Val Plumwood (1993), understand the oppression

of women as only one of the many parallel forms of oppression sharing and

supported by a common ideological structure, in which one party (the colonizer,

whether male, white or human) uses a number of conceptual and rhetorical devices

to privilege its interests over that of the other party (the colonized: whether female,

people of color, or animals).

Disenchantment and the New Animism

The new animists have been much inspired by the serious way in which some

indigenous peoples placate and interact with animals, plants and inanimate things

through ritual, ceremony and other practices. According to the new animists, the

replacement of traditional animism (the view that personalized souls are found in

animals, plants, and other material objects) by a form of disenchanting positivism

directly leads to an anthropocentric perspective, which is accountable for much

human destructiveness towards nature. In a disenchanted world, there is no

meaningful order of things or events outside the human domain, and there is no

source of sacredness or dread of the sort felt by those who regard the natural world

as peopled by divinities or demons (Stone 2006).

Whether the notion that a mountain or a tree is to be regarded as a person is taken

literally or not, the attempt to engage with the surrounding world as if it consists of

other persons might possibly provide the basis for a respectful attitude to nature

(see Harvey 2005 for a popular account of the new animism). If disenchantment is a

source of environmental problems and destruction, then the new animism can be

regarded as attempting to re-enchant, and help to save, nature. More poetically,

David Abram has argued that a phenomenological approach of the kind taken by

Merleau-Ponty can reveal to us that we are part of the "common flesh" of the world,

that we are in a sense the world thinking itself [Abram 1995).

In her work, Freya Mathews has tried to articulate a version of animism or

panpsychism that captures ways in which the world (not just nature) contains many

kinds of consciousness and sentience. For her, there is an underlying unity of mind

and matter in that the world is a "self-realizing" system containing a multiplicity of

other such systems (cf. Næss). According to Mathews, we are meshed in

communication, and potential communication, with the "One" (the greater cosmic

sel) and its many lesser selves (Mathews 2003, 45-60). Materialism (the monistic

theory that the world consists purely of matter), she argues, is self-defeating by

encouraging a form of "collective solipsism" that treats the world either as

unknowable or as a social-construction (Mathews 2005, 12).

Instead of bulldozing away old suburbs and derelict factories, the synergistic

panpsychist sees these artefacts as themselves part of the living cosmos, hence part

of what is to be respected. Likewise, instead of trying to eliminate feral or exotic

plants and animals, and restore environments to some imagined pristine state, ways

should be found-wherever possible-to promote synergies between the

newcomers and the older native populations in ways that maintain ecological flows

and promote the further unfolding and developingof ecological processes (Mathews

2004).

Traditional Ethical Theories

As an alternative to consequentialism and deontology both of which consider "thin"

concepts such as "goodness" and "rightness" as essential to morality, virtue

ethics proposes to understand moralityand assess the ethical quality of actions

in terms of "thick" concepts such as "kindness", "honesty", "sincerity" and "justice"

As virtue ethics speaks quite a different language from the other two kinds of ethical

theory, its theoretical focus is not so much on what kinds of things are good/bad, or

what makes an action right/wrong. Indeed, the richness of the language of virtues,

and the emphasis on moral character, is sometimes cited as a reason for exploringa

virtues-based approach to the complex and always-changing questions of

sustainability and environmental care (Hill 1983, Wensveen 2000, Sandler 2007).

One question central to virtue ethics is what the moral reasons are for acting one

way or another. For instance, from the perspective of virtue ethics, kindness and

loyalty would be moral reasons for helping a friend in hardship. These are quite

different from the deontologist's reason (that the action is demanded by a moral

rule) or the consequentialist reason (that the action will lead to a better over-all

balance of good over evil in the world). From the perspective of virtue ethics, the

motivation and justification of actions are both inseparable from the character traits

of the acting agent

Furthermore, unlike deontology or consequentialism the moral focus of which is

other people or states of the world, one central issue for virtue ethics is how to live a

ourishing human life, this being a central concern of the moral agent himself or

herself. "Living virtuously" is Aristotle's recipe for flourishing, Versions of virtue

ethics advocating virtues such as "benevolence', "piety", "filiality", and "courage",

have also been held by thinkers in the Chinese Confucian tradition. The connection

between morality and psychology is another core subject of investigation for virtue

ethics.

It is sometimes suggested that human virtues, which constitute an important aspect

of a flourishing human life, must be compatible with human needs and desires, and

perhaps also sensitive to individual affection and temperaments. As its central focus

is human flourishing as such, virtue ethics may seem unavoidably anthropocentric

and unable to support a genuine moral concern for the non-human environment.

But just as Aristotle has argued that a flourishing human life requires friendships

and one can have genuine friendships only if one genuinely values, loves, respects,

and cares for one's friends for their own sake, not merely for the benefits that they

may bring to oneself, some have argued that a flourishing human life requires the

moral capacities to value, love, respect, and care for the non-human natural world as

an end in itself (see 0'Neill 1992, 0'Neill 1993, Barry 1999).

Obligations concerning the natural environment

A. Human Beings

Many of the concerns we have regarding the environment appear to be concerns

precisely because of the way they affect human beings. For example, pollution diminishes our health,
resource depletion threatens our standards of living,

climate change puts our homes at risk, the reduction of biodiversity results in

the loss of potential medicines, and the eradication of wilderness means we lose

a source of awe and beauty. Quite simply then, an anthropocentric ethic claims

that we possess obligations to respect the environment for the sake of human

well-being and prosperity.

Some philosophers have founded their environmental ethics on obligations to

future generations. The granting of moral standing to future generations has

been considered necessary because of the fact that many environmental

problems, such as climate change and resource depletion, will affect future

humans much more than they affect present ones. Moreover, it is evident that

the actions and policies that we as contemporary humans undertake will have a

great impact on the well-being of future individuals. (Gewirth, 2001)

However, some philosophers have stated that these future people lie outside of

our moral community because they cannot act reciprocally (Golding, 1972). o,

while we can act so as to benefit them, they can give us nothing in return. This

lack of reciprocity, so the argument goes, denies future people moral status.

However, other philosophers have pointed to the fact that it is usually

considered uncontroversial that we have obligations to the dead, such as

executing their wills and so on, even though they cannot reciprocate (Kavka,

1978). While still others have conceded that although any future generation

cannot do anything for us, it can nevertheless act for the benefit of its own

subsequent generations, thus pointing to the existence of a broader

transgenerational reciprocity (Gewirth, 2001).

However, perhaps we do not have obligations to future people because there is

no definitive group of individuals to whom such obligations are owed. This

argument is not based on the simple fact that future people do not exist yet, but

on the fact that we do not know who they will be. Derek Parfit has called this the

"non-identity problem" (Parfit, 1984, ch. 16). The heart of this problem lies in

the fact that the policies adopted by states directly affect the movement,

education, employment and so on of their citizens. Thus, such policies affect who

meets whom, and who has children with whom. So, one set of policies will lead

to one group of future people, while another set will lead to a different group.

Our actions impact who will exist in the future, making our knowledge of who

they will be incomprehensible.

B. Animals

Peter Singer and Tom Regan are the most famous proponents of the view that

we should extend moral standing to other species of animal. While both develop

quite different animal ethics, their reasons for according moral status to animals

are fairly similar. According to Singer, the criterion for moral standing is

sentience: the capacity to feel pleasure and pain (Singer, 1974). For Regan, on

the other hand, moral standing should be acknowledged in all "subjects-of-a-

life": that is, those beings with beliefs, desires, perception, memory, emotions, a

sense of future and the ability to initiate action (Regan, 1983/2004, ch. 7). So,

while Regan and Singer give slightly different criteria for moral standing, both

place a premium on a form of consciousness.

For Singer, if an entity possesses the relevant type of consciousness, then that

entity should be given equal consideration when we formulate our moral

obligations. Note that the point is not that every sentient being should be

treated equally, but that it should be considered equally. In other words, the

differences between individuals, and thus their different interests, should be

taken into account. Thus, for Singer it would not be wrong to deny pigs the vote,

for obviously pigs have no interest in participating in a democratic society; but it

would be wrong to subordinate pigs' interest in not suffering, for clearly pigs

have a strong interest in avoiding pain, just like us. Singer then feeds his

principle of equal consideration into a utilitarian ethical framework, whereby

the ultimate moral goal is to bring about the greatest possible satisfaction of

interests.

Tom Regan takes issue with Singer's utilitarian ethical framework, and uses the

criterion of consciousness to build a "rights-based" theory. For Regan, all entities

who are "subjects-of-a-life" possess "inherent value". This means that such

entities have a value of their own, irrespective of their good for other beings or

their contribution to some ultimate ethical norm. In effect then, Regan proposes

that there are moral limits to what one can do to a subject-of-a-life. This position

stands in contrast to Singer who feeds all interests into the utilitarian calculus

and bases our moral obligations on what satisfies the greatest number. Thus, in

Singer's view it might be legitimate to sacrifice the interests of certain

individuals for the sake of the interest-satisfaction of others.

C. Individual Living Organisms

We ca rely only intuitions to decide who o what has moral standing. For

this reason, a number of philosophers have come up with arguments to justify

assigning moral standing to individual living organisms. One of the earliest

philosophers to put forward such an argument was Albert Schweitzer.

Schweitzer's influential "Reverence for Life" ethic claims that all living things
have a "wil to live", and that humans should not interfere with or extinguish this

will (Schweitzer, 1923). But while it is clear that living organisms struggle for

survival, it is simply not true that they "will" to live. This, after all, would require

some kind of conscious experience, which many living things lack. However,

perhaps what Schweitzer was getting at was something like Paul W. Taylor's

more recent claim that all living things are "teleological centers of life" (Taylor,

1986). For Taylor, this means that living things have a good of their own that

they strive towards, even if they lack awareness of this fact. This good, according

to Taylor, is the full development of an organism's biological powers. In similar

arguments to Regan's, Taylor claims that because living organisms have a good

of their own, they have inherent value; that is, value for their own sake,

irrespective of their value to other beings. It is this value that grants individual Aldo Leopold is
undoubtedly the main influence on those who propose "holistie"

ethics. Aldo Leopold's "land ethic" demands that we stop treating the land as a

mere object or resource. For Leopold, land is not merely soil. Instead, land is a

fountain of energy, flowing through a circuit of soils, plants and animals. While

food chains conduct the energy upwards from the soil, death and decay returns

the energy back to the soil. Thus, the flow of energy relies on a complex structure

of relations between living things. While evolution gradually changes these

relations, Leopold argues that man's interventions have been much more violent

and destructive. In order to preserve the relations within the land, Leopold

claims that we must move towards a "land ethic", thereby granting moral

standing to the land community itself, not just its individual members. This

culminates in Leopold's famous ethical injunction: "A thing is right when it tends

to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is

wrong when it tends otherwise."

Marshall's Categories

Alan Marshall and Michael Smith has categorized the various ways the natural
environment is valued. These are the following:

Libertarian extension

Marshall's Libertarian extension echoes a civil liberty approach (i.e. a commitment to

extend equal rights to all members of a community). In environmentalism, though,

the community is generally thought to consist of non-humans as well as humans.

Andrew Brennan was an advocate of ecologic humanism (eco-humanism), the

argument that all ontological entities, animate and in-animate, can be given ethical

worth purely on the basis that they exist. The work of Arne Næss and his collaborator

Sessions also falls under the libertarian extension, although they preferred the term

"deep ecology". Deep ecology is the argument for the intrinsic value or inherent

worth of the environment-the view that it is valuable in itself. Their argument,

incidentally, falls under both the libertarian extension and the ecologic extension.

Peter Singer's work can be categorized under Marshall's 'libertarian exttension'. He

reasoned that the "expanding circle of moral worth" should be redrawn to include

the rights of non-human animals, and to not do so would be guilty of speciesism.

Singer found it difficult to accept the argument from intrinsic worth of a-biotic or

"non-sentient" (non-conscious) entities, and concluded in his first edition of

"Practical Ethics" that they should not be included in the expanding circle of moral

worth. This approach is essentially then, bio-centric. However, in a later edition of

"Practical Ethics" after the work of Næss and Sessions, Singer admits that, although

unconvinced by deep ecology, the argument from intrinsic value of non-sentient

entities is plausible, but at best problematic. Singer advocated a humanist ethics.

Ecologic extension

Alan Marshall's category of ecologic extension places emphasis not on human rights

but on the recognition of the fundamental interdeperndence of all biological (and

some abiological) entities and their essential diversity. Whereas Libertarian Extension can be thought of
as flowing from a political reflection of the natural world,

ecologic extension is best thought of as a scientific reflection of the natural world.

Ecological Extension is roughly the same classification of Smith's eco-holism, and it

argues for the intrinsic value inherent in collective ecological entities like ecosystems

or the global environment as a whole entity. Holmes Rolston, among others, has

taken this approach.

This category might include James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis; the theory that the

planet earth alters its geo-physiological structure over time in order to ensure the

continuation of an equilibrium of evolving organic and inorganic matter. The planet

is characterized as a unified, holistic entity with ethical worth of which the human

race is of no particular significance in the long run.

Conservation ethics

Marshall's category of 'conservation ethics' is an extension of use-value into the non-

human biological world. It focuses only on the worth of the environment in terms of

its utility or usefulness to humans. It contrasts the intrinsic value ideas of 'deep

ecology', hence is often referred to as 'shallow ecology, and generally argues for the

preservation of the environment on the basis that it has extrinsic value -

instrumental to the welfare of human beings. Conservation is therefore a means to an

end and purely concerned with mankind and inter-generational considerations. It

could be argued that it is this ethic that formed the underlying arguments proposed

by Governments at the Kyoto summit in 1997 and three agreements reached in Rio in

1992.

Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism is the position that humans are the most important or critical element in

any given situation; that the human race must always be its own primary concern.

Detractors of anthropocentrism argue that the Western tradition biases homo sapiens

when considering the environmental ethics of a situation and that humans evaluate their

environment or other organisms in terms of the utility for them. Many argue that all

environmental studies should include an assessment of the intrinsic value of non-human

beings. In fact, based on this very assumption, a philosophical article has explored recently

the possibility of humans' willing extinction as a gesture toward other beings. The authors
refer to the idea as a thought experiment that should not be understood as a call for action.

What anthropocentric theories do not allow for is the fact that a system of ethics

formulated from a human perspective may not be entirely accurate; humans are not

necessarily the center of reality. The philosopher Baruch Spinoza argued that humans tend

to assess things wrongly in terms of their usefulness to us. Spinoza reasoned that if humans

were to look at things objectively, they would discover that everything in the universe has a

unique value. Likewise, it is possible that a human-centered or

anthropocentric/androcentric ethic is not an accurate depiction of reality, and there is a

bigger picture that humans may or may not be able to understand from a human

perspective.

Peter Vardy distinguished between two types of anthropocentrism. A strong

anthropocentric ethic argues that humans are at the center of reality and it is right for them

to be so. Weak anthropocentrism, however, argues that reality can only be interpreted fromn

a human point of view, thus humans have to be at the center of reality as they see it.

Another point of view has been developed by Bryan Norton, who has become one of the

essential actors of environmental ethics by launching environmental pragmatism, now one

of its leading trends. Environmental pragmatism refuses to take a stance in disputes

between defenders of anthropocentrist and non-anthropocentrist ethics. Instead, Norton

distinguishes between strong anthropocentrism and weak-or-Extended-

anthropocentrism and argues that the former must underestimate the diversity of

instrumental values humans may derive from the natural world.

A recent view relates anthropocentrism to the future of life. Biotic ethics are based on the

human identity as part of gene/protein organic life whose effective purpose is self-

propagation. This implies a human purpose to secure and propagate life. Humans are

central because only they can secure life beyond the duration of the Sun, possibly for

trillions of eons. Biotic ethics values life itself, as embodied in biological structures and

processes. Humans are special because they can secure the future of life on cosmological

scales. In particular, humans can continue sentient life that enjoys its existence, adding
further motivation to propagate life. Humans can secure the future of life, and this future

can give human existence a cosmic purpose.

Module 007- Prudence

This module will contain the following topics:

1. Prudence

2. Integral Parts of Prudence

3. Potential Parts of Prudence

Prudence

Prudence, as defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary, is the ability to govern and

discipline oneself by the use of reason and it is one of the four Cardinal virtues. It is also

called the mother of all the virtues. The word has been derived from an Old French word

prudence, which has also been derived from the Latin word, prudentia, meaning "foresight,

sagacity. Prudence is most commonly associated with words such as wisdom, insight, and

knowledge.

Prudence, by itself, cannot perform actions and is concerned solely with knowledge.

However, all virtues must be regulated by it. Virtue, in this regard, is the ability to judge

between virtuous and vicious actions, not only in a general sense, but with regards to

appropriate actions at a given time and place. For example, distinguishing courageous acts

from reckless and cowardly is an act of prudence.

It is an intellectual and moral virtue that seeks to direct particular human acts through

righteousness, towards a good end. With it being a moral virtue, it is not possible to be

prudent and not morally good in the process as the prudent man does the good as opposed

to the person who only knows the good.

This word has also become synonymous to cautiousness. The word prudence may imply a

reluctance to take risks, which remains a virtue with respect to unnecessary risks.

Prudence is the application of universal principles to particular situations, and so an

understanding of universal moral principles is absolutely necessary. But since prudence

deals in particulars, in the here and now of real situations, a number of other intellectual

qualities are also necessary if one is to choose rightly, qualities that one does not

necessarily acquire in a classroom setting. St. Thomas refers to these as integral parts of

prudence, without which there is no prudence, just as there is no house without a roof,

walls, and a foundation.

Prudence was considered by the ancient Greeks and later on by Christian philosophers,

most notably Thomas Aquinas, as the cause, measure and form of all virtues. It is

considered to be the auriga virtutum or the chario teer of the virtues.

It is the cause in the sense that the virtues, which are defined to be the "perfected ability" of

man as a spiritual person (spiritual personhood in the classical western understanding

means having intelligence and free will), achieve their "perfection" only when they are

founded upon prudence, that is to say upon the perfected ability to make right decisions.

For instance, a person can live temperance when he has acquired the habit of deciding

correctly the actions to take in response to his instinctual cravings.

Tts function is to point out which course of action is to be taken in any concrete

circumstances. It has nothing to do with directly willing the good it discerns. Prudence has

a directive capacity with regard to the other virtues. It lights the way and measures the

arena for their exercise. Without prudence, bravery becomes foolhardiness; mercy sinks

into weakness, and temperance into fanaticism. Its office is to determine for each in

practice those circumstances of time, place, manner, etc. which should be observed, and

which the Scholastics comprise under the term "medium rationis". So it is that while it

qualifies the intellect and not the will, it is nevertheless rightly styled a moral virtue.

Prudence is considered the measure of moral virtues since it provides a model of ethically

good actions. "The work of art is true and real by its correspondence with the pattern of its

prototype in the mind of the artist. In similar fashion, the free activity of man is good by its
correspondence with the pattern of prudence." (Josef Pieper)

In Greek and Scholastic philosophy, "form" is the specific characteristic of a thing that

makes it what it is. With this language, prudence confers upon other virtues the form of its

inner essence; that is, its specific character as a virtue. For instance, not all acts of telling

the truth are considered good, considered as done with the virtue of honesty. What makes

telling the truth a virtue is whether it is done with prudence.

Integral Parts of Prudence

Prudence begins with an understanding of the first principles of practical reason,

which St. Thomas Aquinas calls synderesis. It is a natural habit by which we are

inclined to a number of ends. Now the good is the object of desire. Hence, the object

of these inclinations are goods. And since these goods are not outside the human

person, but are aspects of the human person, they are called human goods. There are

a number of human goods to which every human person is naturally inclined. These

goods are not known by the senses, but by the intellect, and so they are desired not

by the sense appetite, but primarily by the will (the rational appetite), thus they are

not sensible goods, but intelligible goods.

These intelligible human goods include human life, the knowledge of truth, the

intellectual apprehension and enjoyment of beauty, leisure (play and art), sociability,

religion, integrity, and marriage. ILet us consider each one individually.

Life: The human person has a natural inclination to preserve his life; for he

sees his life as basically good. Human existence is a rational animal kind of

existence. It is basically good to be as a rational animal, created in the image

and likeness of God, in the image of knowledge and love (intellect and will).

Human life is specifically "cognitive" life, a life having the potential of self-

expansion through knowledge and through love. Everything else in the

physical universe exists to serve human life and is valued according to its

ability to do just that. Thus, everything in the physical universe is

instrumentally good, while human life alone is basically good (the human
person alone was willed into existence by God for his own sake).

Truth: This human person, who is fundamentally, intelligibly, and

intrinsically good, desires to know truth for its own sake. As Aristotle says in

his Metaphysics: "All men by nature desire to know". Knowing is a mode of

existing. In knowing anything, one becomes what one knows ("the intellect is in a way all things").
Knowledge is a kind of self-expansion. Man always

desires to be more fully, and he exists most fully as a knower, as a see-er. As

Aristotle clearly saw, man's ultimate purpose in life clearly has something to

do with knowing, which is his highest activity and, according to Aquinas, "the

highest mode of having"

Beauty: Man has, at the same time, a natural inclination to behold the

beautiful, to see it, to intuit it, to contemplate it. And so he visits art

museums, listens to beautiful music, gazes at the sunset or the beautiful face

of a child, and he even contemplates the beauty of divine providence. Indeed,

his ultimate purpose has something to do with intuition, especially the

intuition of beauty, and this is something that Plato understood well (CE. The

Symposium, 210e-212b).

Leisure, Play, Art: Man is a maker. He brings all his sense and intellectual

powers to bear upon the project of producing works of art, such as paintings,

poetry, sculptures, buildings, monuments, etc., just for the sake of creating, or

playing games just for the sake playing, such as golt, cards, chess, etc. Indeed,

there is a permanent and underlying element of contemplation in all of this.

It is man the knower who leisures. The person who plays has the cognitive

power of complete self-reflection, and so he contemplates the marvel of his

own skills and delights in the awareness of their gradual perfection. He

contemplates his gifts and detects the giver underneath them. A good player

is awed by the laws that he can detect behind an ordinary game of chess, for

example, and the players delight in the intuition of the beauty of the

execution of a well-planned strategy that resulted in a touchdown or a goal

or a homerun. Even spectators contemplate and discuss these plays typically

after the game. Contemplation permeates the leisure of play and art carried

out for their own sake. If it did not, no one would leisure.

Sociability: The human person inclines to harmony between himself and

others. He is a social and political animal. He is born into a family and

discovers himself through others, such as his parents and siblings. He tends

to establish friendships. He is glad to "see" his friends, to "hear" their voices.

Ultimately, he wills to share the good that has come to him. Above all, he

desires to share what he "sees" or knows with others. And others desire to

share with him all that they have been gratuitously given, especially what

they possess in knowledge (for knowledge is the highest mode of possessing

anything). These others enable him to see what he was unable to see before.

The perspectives they bring to him enlarge him, and they likewise are

enlarged by what he brings them. His friendships are not merely utilitarian.

Rather, the highest kind of friendship he seeks is benevolent friendship (EN

8.3, 1156b6). He has only a few genuine friends with whom he can share

himself on such a profound level. But he inclines towards them, because

goodness is self-diffusive, and the more he is given, the more he wills to share

what he has been given, and this is above all the case with what he "sees" or

beholds, that is, what he knows, what he intuits or contemplates. Delighting in the presence of friends is
nothing less than seeing. It is a form of

contemplation.

Religion: Man aspires after what is higher than himself because he is aware

of a desire him for perfect happiness. He beholds his own finitude and the

finitude of creation. He aspires to what is beyond the temporal to the eternal,

yet he cannot transcend the limits of his nature. But he dreams about it (as

we see in Plato). He seeks to know the giver behind the gift of his existence,

that is, behind the gift that is creation. As a spiritual nature, he is open to the

whole of reality, the whole of being (universal being). He seeks to know the
"whole of reality", that is, to possess the bonum universale. We know from

revelation that he is not going to attain it on his own. He might think, as Plato

did, that death will free him from the temporal in order to enter into the

realm of the "really real" so as to contemplate subsistent beauty. And that

might very well be the case. But revelation tells us that this can only happen

through God's initiative. He cannot, through his own natural faculties, attain

God. If he is to attain the bonum universale, it can only be through another

gratuitous giving (distinct from creation). He depends upon the divine

initiative. In fact, even his own natural happiness is dependent upon the

gratuitous self-giving of others; for he cannot force people to be his friends.

And so this dependency upon the divine initiative is not out of place at all, for

man knows already that an element of his own happiness is the feeling of

having a debt that cannot be paid.

Marriage: Man is inclined to marry, to give himself completely to another, to

belong to another exclusively in one flesh union. Even a marriage

consummated by sexual union is a kind of knowing. Mary says to the angel

Gabriel: "I do not know man" (Lk 1, 35). The giving of oneself in the marital

act is a revealing of oneself to the other. One allows oneself to be known, and

one gives oneself in order to be known by the other in a way that is exclusive

and thus closed off to others. Marriage is a special kind of knowledge of

persons. Love wills that the other see or behold what it knows, especially

conjugal love. And both husband and wife will to beget human life, because

goodness is effusive, and their unique conjugal relationship is good. They

desire that a new life, the fruit of their love, share in what they know, namely

the relationship they have with one another (as well as with others, with

creation, and with God).

Integrity: Man is inclined to seek integration within himself, an integration

of the complex elements of himself. This is because he seeks to be most fully,

and one (along with good, beauty, and true) is a property of being. He is
inclined to bring about a more intense unity within himself, namely harmony

between his actions and his character as well as his will and his passions.

Bringing order to the passions (cultivating temperance and fortitude) is a

means to an end. A person aims to be temperate and brave for the sake of

possessing the highest good, the possession of which is threatened by

excessive sensuality and emotional disorder.

These are the primary principles of practical reason. They are the starting points of

human action, the motivating principles behind every genuinely human action that

we choose to perform. Now the very first principle of morality is self-evident and is

presupposed in every human action. That principle is: good is to be done, evil is to

be avoided.

These are the elements that must be present for any complete or perfect act of the

virtue.

Memoria/Memory: accurate memory that is true to reality; an ability to learn

from experience.

If prudence were merely the knowledge of universal moral principles, we

could stop here. But it is much more than that. Prudence requires a sensitivity

and attunement to the here and now of the real world of real people. It

requires a great deal of experience. That is why Aquinas lists memory as in

integral part of the virtue of prudence, for experience is the result of many

memories.

There is more to memory than the simple recall of facts. Memory is more an

ability to learn from experience. And so it involves an openness to reality, a

willingness to allow oneself to be measured by what is real. This quality of

openness is not as widespread as we might tend to believe at first. Some

people just don't seem to learn from experience, that is, they don't seem to
remember how this or that person reacted to their particular way of relating

to them, for they cotinue to make the same mistakes in their way of relating

to others. It is as if they have no memory of last week, or last month, or last

year. They lack a "true to being" memory because they do not will to conform

to what is real, but have made a stubborn decision to have reality conform to

the way they want the world to be. That is why the study of history is so

important for the development of political prudence; for how often have we

heard the old adage that those who do not learn from history are condemned

to repeat its mistakes?

Docilitas/Docility: an open-mindedness that recognizes variety and is able to

seek and make use of the experience and authority of others.

Those who lack memory will more than likely lack docility, another integral

part of prudence. St. Thomas writes:

"prudence is concerned with particular matters of action, and since

such matters are of infinite variety, no one man can consider them all

sufficiently; nor can this be done quickly, for it requires length of time

Hence in matters of prudence man stands in very great need of being

taught by others, especialy by old folk who have acquired a sane

understanding of the ends in practical matters. (S.T. I1-ll Q 49, 3)"

Docility is open-mindedness, and so it requires a recognition of one's own

limitations and ready acceptance of those limits. Proud people who hope

excessively in their own excellence will tend to make imprudent decisions

because they fail to rely on others by virtue of their inordinate and unrealistic

self-estimation. A person with false docility seeks the advice of others, but only those deemed most
likely to be in agreement with him, or of those of
similar depravity and who are thus unlikely to challenge the overall

orientation of his life.

Intelligentia: The understanding of first principles.

Sollertia/Shrewdness: quick-wittedness or the ability to evaluate a situation

quickly.

Shrewdness is the ability to quickly size upa situation on one's own, and so it

involves the ability to pick up small clues and run with them. The shrewd are

highly intuitive, subtle and discreet. A shrewd teacher, for example, will pick

up subtle clues that reveal just who it is he is dealing with in his classroom

and what the needs of his students really are, which allow him to determine

quickly the approach best suited to their particular way of learning The

shrewd are also able to detect evil behind a mask of goodness, so as to be able

to plan accordingly. Some people are dangerously unsuspecting of the motives

of evil and so they miss the clues that suggest a more ominous picture. For we

tend to see in others what we see in ourselves, and if our motives are good, it

is hard to suspect others of malice. Moreover, excessive empathy has a way of

clouding the intuitive light of solertia (Greek: phronimos).

But just as memory and docility presuppose a good will (right appetite), so

too does shrewdness. It can be the case that the inability to see is rooted in a

will not to see; for sometimes people would rather not think about what the

clues could mean for fear of what they might discover about someone, which

in turn will affect their security in some way. As the old saying goes: "There

are none so blind as those who will not see". It can also be the case that a

person has not learned to listen to his intuition or perhaps confuses a negative

intuition with judging the heart of another and so dismisses his intuitive

insights, especially negative ones. On the other hand, it is possible that a

person wants to see evil where there really is none. This is not shrewdness,

but suspicion, and it is often rooted in a spirit of pride.

Ratio/Reasoning: Discursive reasoning and the ability to research and

compare alternatives

Once a person sizes up a particular situation, he needs to be able to

investigate and compare alternative possibilities and to reason well from

premises to conclusions. He will need to be able to reason about what needs

to be done, that is, what the best alternative or option is that will realize the

right end. Prudence thus presupposes a knowledge of the basics of logical

reasoning. If a person cannot see through the most common logical fallacies,

he will unlikely be able to consistently make prudent decisions.

Some of these common fallacies include Begging the Question, or assuming the

point that needs to be proven, or lgnoring the Question, which consists in

proving something other than the point to be established. False Cause consists

in assuming that when one event precedes another, it is the cause of the

succeeding event. The Fallacy of Part and Whole consists in attributing to a

whole what belongs only to its parts (the fallacy of generalization), while

the Fallacy of Misplaced Authority consists in concluding that something is true because somebody of
authority, such as a medical doctor, said it.

The Fallacy of Ad Hominem (directed to the man) involves the rejection of

some person's position not by virtue of the argument itself, but by virtue of

some unlikeable aspect of the person. The Fallacy of the Double

Standard consists in applying one standard for one group or individual, and

another standard for an opposing group or individual. Appeal to the People

Occurs when a speaker attempts to get some group to agree to a particular

position by appealing solely to their bigotry, biases, and prejudices or, in some
cases, merely to their desire to hear what they already believe. The Fallacy of

False Analogy occurs when a person argues a position merely by drawing an

analogy, without justifying the use of the analogy. And the Fallacy of

Novelty assumes that what is new and current is necessarily better or an

improvement upon what is older. The more adept one becomes at seeing

through such deceptive reasoning, the less likely will one's decisions fall

under its influence.

Providentia/Foresight: the capacity to estimate whether particular actions

can realize goals.

Foresight is the principal part of prudence, for the name itself (prudence) is

derived from the Latin providential, which means "foresight". Foresight

involves rightly ordering human acts to the right end. This of course

presupposes that the person is ordered to the right end, which is the

possession of God through knowledge and love. The greater his love for God,

that is, the greater his charity, the greater will be his foresight: "Blessed are

the pure in heart; for they shall see God" (Mt. 5, 8). For it is through charity

that one attains God, and it is through this supernatural friendship that one

grows in a connatural knowledge of God. The more a person is familiar with

the city towards which he directs his steps, the more able he is to see which

roads lead to that end and which roads lead away. The more a person is

familiar with God, the more readily able he is to discern behaviour

inconsistent with that friendship. An impure heart, that is, a love of God mixed

with an inordinate love of self, will affect one's ability to "see". An inordinate

love of self will cause certain alternatives to have greater appeal, but these
alternatives (means) will not necessarily lead to the right end. A prudent man

sees that, but the imprudent do not. And if they lack true to being memory,

they will continue to fail to see it.

Circumspection: the ability to take all relevant circumstances into account.

It is possible that acts good in themselves and suitable to the end may become

unsuitable in virtue of new circumstances. Circumspection is the ability to

take into account all relevant circumstances. Showing affection to your spouse

through a kiss is good in itself, but it might be unsuitable in certain

circumstances, such as a funeral or in a public place. Telling certain jokes

might be appropriate in one setting, but inappropriate in another

Circumspection is the ability to discern which is which. This too, however,

presupposes right appetite. A person lacking proper restraint (temperance)

will lack thoughtfulness and the ability to consider how the people around

him might be made to feel should he take a certain course of action. The

lusthul, for example, lack counsel and tend to act recklessly. An egoist is also

less focused on others and more on himself, and so he too tends to lack proper

circumspection.

Caution: the ability to mitigate risk.

Good choices can often generate bad effects. To choose not to act simply

because bad consequences will likely ensue is contrary to prudence. But

caution takes care to avoid those evils that are likely to result from a good act

that we contemplate doing. For example, a priest who is about to speak out

publicly against a piece of unjust legislation might anticipate offending

members of his congregation. Out of cowardice or an inordinate love of

comfort, he might choose not to say anything at all and thus risk harming

others through his silence. A prudent priest, on the other hand, will speak out

when not doing so will harm others, yet caution will move him to prepare his

congregation with a thorough preamble so as to minimize the chances of

misunderstanding. One must never do evil that good may come of it, but one

may at times permit evil on condition that the action one is performing is

good or indifferent, that one does not will or intend the evil effect, and that the

good effects of one's action are sufficiently desirable to compensate for the

allowing of the evil effect.

Prudential judgment

In ethics, a "prudential judgment" is one where the circumstances must be weighed

to determine the correct action. Generally, it applies to situations where two people

could weigh the circumstances differently and ethically come to different

conclusions.

For instance, in the theory of just war, the government of a nation must weigh

whether the harms they suffer are more than the harms that would be produced by

their going to war against another nation that is harming them; the decision whether

to go to war is therefore a prudential judgment.

In another case, a patient who has a terminal illness with no conventional treatment

may hear of an experimental treatment. To decide whether to take it would require

weighing on one hand, the cost, time, possible lack of benefit, and possible pain,

disability, and hastened death, and on the other hand, the possible benefit and the

benefit to others of what could be learned from his case.

Potential Parts of Prudence

1. Good Counsel (eubolia)

Counsel is research into the various means to the end and the circumstances. A

person not entirely pure of heart, that is, whose charity is very defective, will

have more options before him, poorer options that nevertheless have some

appeal. The better the character, the less will these poorer options present

themselves; for they will drop out of the picture very quickly. This can be

compared to a person who is physically healthy and has good eating habits and one who is unhealthy
with poor habits. A typical menu will be more appealing to

the one with poor eating habits, while the former deliberates over a few options,

the healthier options on the menu. We've all heard the expression, "Where there

is a will, there is a way". Good counsel, resulting from a greater hope in and love

for God, generates the energy and imagination needed to discover the best

alternative to achieve the best end.

2. Good Judgment (synesis and gnome)

Judgment is an assent to good and suitable means. Synesis is good common sense

in making judgments about what to do and what not to do in ordinary matters. It

is possible to take good counsel without having good sense so as to judge well,

but to judge well on what to do or not to do in the here and now requires a right

mind, that is, an understanding of first principles and precepts and indirectly a

just will and well disposed appetites (both concupiscible and irascible

appetites). Without these, one's ideas will likely be distorted, and one's judgment

regarding the best means will be defective; for as Aristotle points out, asa

person is (character), so does he see. He writes:

.what seems good to a man of high moral standards is truly the object of wish,

whereas a worthless man wishes anything that strikes his fancy. It is the same

with the human body: people whose constitution is good find those things

wholesome which realy are so, while other things are wholesome for invalids,
and similarly their opinions will vary as to what is bitter, sweet, hot, heavy, and

so forth. (Just as a healthy man judges these matters correctly, so in moral

questions) a man whose standards are high judges correctly, and in each case

what is truly good will appear to him to be so. Thus, what is good and pleasant

differs with different characteristics or conditions, and perhaps the chief

distinction ofa man of high moral standards is his ability to see the truth in

each particular moral question, since he is, as it were, the standard and

measure for such questions. The common run of people, however, are misłed by

pleasure. For though it is not the good, it seems to be, so that they choose the

pleasant in the belief that it is good and avoid pain thinking that it is evil. (EN

3,4. 1113a25-1113b)"

Gnome refers to the ability to discern and apply higher laws to matters that fall

outside the scope of the more common or lower rules that typically guide human

action. It involves good judgment regarding exceptions to ordinary rules. For

example, students ordinarily are not permitted to play walkmans in a classroom,

but a possible exception to the rule might be the case of a student with a serious

learning disability and who is highly sensitive to the slightest distractions. One

may be able to think of similar examples on a more judicial level.