Philosophy Notes

IB 2020

Table of context:

Chapter 1…………………………………………………….

Chapter 2…………………………………………………….

Chapter 3…………………………………………………….

Chapter 4…………………………………………………….

Chapter 5…………………………………………………….

Chapter 6…………………………………………………….

Chapter 7…………………………………………………….

Ethics………………………………………………………..

John Stuart Mill……………………………………………..

HUMAN NATURE (CHAPTER 2)

 1

RATIONALIST (Reason unquestionable)

Plato
In the Phaedrus, Plato share the allegory of the chariot to explain the tripartite nature of the human soul or psyche.
He claims there are two different worlds
1. World of ideas that is eternal,unchanging, perfect and has true knowledge
2. Sensible world that is the world we live in that is temporary, constantly changing,imperfect and insecure

The soul is made of three different parts, a pair of wing horses and a charioteer
● The charioteer represents the logical part of the soul which controls the two horses
● The white horse represent the spirited part of the soul, the courage and bravery
● The black horse represents the appetitive part consisting of our basic desires
Driving these horses gives the charioteer a lot of trouble and is only possible when the horses are working in harmony the
wings is the corporeal element which is divine, the divine is beauty, wisdom. There is a fight between the two horses, but
the black horses which want to go to the natural world wins as the white horse is not completely rational.

Rene descartes

Rene descartes was a french philosopher, and the father of rationality he also had a dualistic perception on mind and body.

Evil genius
Descartes theory was that we cannot trust perception, he argues that if there is any doubt regarding the truth of a
proposition, one does not know that proposition. He claims that although he may appear to know that he is sitting by the
fire, the sensory perception of sitting by the fire could be a dream or an illusion
Descartes introduces the idea of an ‘evil demon’ as a device to subject all beliefs to rigorous sceptical doubt. He reasons
that a demon intent on deceiving could easily make it appear to Descartes that he is sitting by the fire, even if this was not
the case. If Descartes’ sensory experience of sitting by the fire could be caused by an evil demon, Descartes does not
know that he is sitting by the fire. It is important to note that Descartes is not suggesting that such a demon exists – the
mere possibility of the demon existing suffices to deprive Descartes of knowledge. Since we cannot determine whether we
are being deceived by an evil demon, we cannot rule out the evil demon possibility.
He decides to apply the radical doubt ( absolute doubt)suspecting everything and everybody.
Although descartes cannot trust his perception he can show that he actually exist. As he asks himself how can i doubt
myself doubting if by doubting on perception i am able to doubt.
Cogito Ergo sum = I think therefore i am
Counterclaim (Descartes)
we can say that he starts his theory by saying “ I think” using the pronoun “I” already demonstrating that is he the person
that is thinking when in reality there is also the possibility that there is a third part related to this and consequently is not
him thinking in first person but his thoughts may come from somewhere else, in contraposition to this there wouldn’t be
the certainty that he is actually something as his thoughts don’t necessary come from him resulting in the certainty of just
thoughts and not in the human being. We can also say that in his theory Descartes has a dualist point of view as he is
convinced that there is no relation between mind and body while instead there are many theories showing that our
thoughts are strongly affected by things happening to our body and consequently changing our perception. As for example
brain damage that may cause a change in our behavior and way of thinking
 2

NON-RATIONALIST
Nietzsche

Nietzsche was a german philosopher that lived between 1844 and 1900( monistic perception)
His idea was related to the radical critique of western philosophy: his radical questioning of the values and objectivity of
truth through a rejection of Plato's metaphysics.
Nietzsche claims that there are no philosophical truths yet, this suggests that there is something wrong in our
perception of philosophy.
He begins his critique with an argument called perspectivism. He argues that perspectivity is the most obvious pre-
condition of any kind of knowledge, any knowledge we may have of the world is just an interpretation that is filtered
through our values and ways of seeing.
Rational theories that we develop are vast falsifications and simplifications in which we overemphasize what
appeals to us and ignore what doesn’t.
Despires of our body= rationalism takes what is real and turns it into an illusion, it is the result of the resentment
felt by physically fearful and weak persons, philosophy is used to make thinking more important and living less important.
Conclusion
•All philosophy is derived from the hidden desires and prejudices of the men who wrote it
•Philosophical truth is a myth

Sigmund Freud
Sigmund Freud, late 19th and early 20th-century Austrian philosopher who was one of the founding fathers of modern
psychology
It is a method of investigating the mind and the way one thinks but it also is a set of theories regarding human behaviour.
It also provides a method of treatment of psychological illness

Drew upon many scientific ideas oh his days including Darwin’s theory.
Developed a model of the human psyche in which our actions are driven by forces hidden even from ourselves.
His psychoanalytic account of the mind focuses on Unconsciousness

Development of Freud’s theory came from his experience of neurotic patients (worked particularly well patient diagnosed
with Hysteria)
● Insisted that everything had an explanation, including neurosis.

With the example of “Anna O” and “Little Hans”, he was able to provide evidence for his theory that the behaviour of
neurotics was caused by early childhood traumas, that had been buried deep in the unconscious mind and never
successfully integrated or dealt with.
All people’s personality was the result of their early childhood experiences.

Freud argued that the psyche is constituted in three parts:

1. ID:
The id is our basic instincts, contains the energy and drive behind all our actions. Our will and libido reside here
and it is this animalistic part of the mind that contains our sexual desire and aggression.
 3

2. Super-ego:
This part of the mind is given to us from civilization. Social behaviour requires that we restrain our aggressive
and sexual impulses and the super-ego works as a suppression mechanism that controls the ID. The super-ego is
formed of social norms that have been internalized into an unconscious morality.

3. Ego:
The only part of our mind which is conscious is the ego, has to get the negative impulse from the Id and superego
and resolve them into coherent behaviours that meet the demands of living in the world.

The model holds that the id lies in the unconscious while the super-ego and ego can only be partly consciously accessed.

The key to Freud’s theory is the limited control, awareness and honesty of the ego. The ego is actually a weak component
of the mind that has been given an impossible job:
Control and harmonizing the unconscious part
According to Freud, the stories we tell ourselves about who we are and why we do the things we do are nothing more than
fictions that he calls “Defence mechanisms”
● Theory refined and developed by Freud’s daughter Anna.

Catalogue of defence mechanisms thought to be routinely used by the ego:

1. Denial: Ego defends itself by rejecting a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept, can happen in everyday life
when we deny the truths that we don’t like or that upset us.
2. Rationalization: Ego invents reasons for an action or feeling that has already occurred when the real cause of the
action or feeling is unacceptable to the ego
3. Reaction formation: Ego deals with an uncomfortable truth by asserting an extreme version of its opposite
4. Sublimation: This mechanism is unusual in that it can form a perfectly healthy way of dealing with socially
inappropriate impulses. In sublimation, instead of expressing the basic drivers for aggression and sexuality in their
raw form, we transform them into useful energies.
5. Repression: a key part of psychoanalytic philosophy because it plays a central role in mental illness. The ego
suppresses a difficult feeling or impulse by forcing it into consciousness.

Freud’s psychoanalysis is an argument that we are irrational animals. The part of ourselves that rationalist identifies as our
core, the reasoning objective, part that controls us, is for Freud nothing more than a confused passenger.

The theory of the unconscious

Freud was the first thinker to apply deterministic principles systematically to the sphere of the mental, instead of treating
the behaviour of the neurotic as being casually inexplicable, Freud insisted, on treating it as behaviour for which it is
meaningful to seek an explanation by searching for causes in terms of the mental state of the individual.
According to his theory freedom of the will is more tightly circumscribed than is commonly believed

Infantile sexuality
Freud’s theory of infantile sexuality must be seen as an integral part of a broader development theory of human
personality. This had origins in Breuer’s discovery that traumatic childhood events could have devastating negative
effects upon the adult individual.
 4

● Early childhood sexual experiences were the crucial factors in the determination of the adult personality.
From the moment of birth the infant is driven in his actions by the desire for bodily/sexual pleasure, where this is seen by
Freud in almost mechanical terms as the desire to release mental energy. Infants fain such release and derive such
pleasure, from the act of sucking, term this the “oral” stage of development, followed by a stage in which the locus of
pleasure or energy released is the anus, “anal” stage. Then the young child develops an interest in its sexual organs and
develops a deep sexual attraction for the opposite sex.
This Freud believes is the sequence or progression implicit in normal human development

Psychoanalysis as a therapy
Freud’s account of the sexual genesis and nature of neurons led him naturally to develop a clinical treatment for treating
such disorders. The aim of the method is to re-establish a harmonious relationship between the three elements which
constitute the mind by excavating and resolving unconscious repressed conflicts.
When a hysterical patient was encouraged to talk freely about the earliest occurrences of her symptoms and fantasies, the
symptoms began to abate and were eliminated entirely when she was induced to remember the initial trauma which
occasioned them

Freud Identified irrational behaviours as Neurosis, hidden in an opaque dimension of the consciousness.
Our childhood is characterized by an unlimited quantity of irrational behaviours, it demands the immediate
satisfaction of his desires.

PERSONHOOD (CHAPTER 3)
Necessary Condition= a characteristic that is absolutely required for something to belong to a category.
Sufficient Condition=a characteristic that is "enough" to make something belong to a category.

One of the characteristics that is most often cited as a condition of personhood is consciousness
Consciousness=a state of wakefulness where a being is aware of its immediate surroundings and is able to
respond to them.According to Nagel, consciousness is also what it is like to be oneself and to experience that state
of being.
Consciousness is a state of wakefulness, aware of its immediate surroundings, and able to respond to them
 5

Thomas nagel = philosopher who said that consciousness is what it is like, or what it feels like, to be oneself and to
perceive the world as oneself.
Wakefulness = opposite of being asleep. Awareness of the world.
Awareness= elusive concept which exclude animals
responsiveness =basic human characteristic

Self Consciousness=being "conscious about consciousness" or a being's knowledge that it exists as a conscious
being and an individual.
For animal or young children, self-consciousness means that they are aware that they exist and that they are distinct from
others and the world around them.
In human babies, self-consciousness is thought to appear gradually

From birth (level 1) demonstrate a sense of their own body as a differentiated entity
From 2 months (level 2 ) have a sense of how their own body is situated in relation to other entities
Around 18 months ( level 3) start separate themselves from others through language
From 3 years old (level 4) understand experiences
From 4 to 5 years old (level 5) children possess a better understanding of others and their own self.

One of the most fundamental rights granted to a person is the right to self-determination: person should be free to make
choices and decide what he or she wants

Agency=the ability people have to act and by extension to cause their own actions in a voluntary and intentional
way.
Harry G. Frankfurt draws a distinction between agency as it is found in animal, and human agency
Frankfurt’s definition of the will means that there is no doubt that human beings are the only beings who can be persons.
Frankfurt considers that what he calls “second-order desire” are a necessary condition of personhood, which seems to
exclude young children and animals and some mentally or morally deficient adults.

Morality and moral responsibility another criteria that are often cited as conditions of personhood
Morality=beliefs about right and wrong that are applied to the actions of other people. Usually, moral decisions
are socially based and acceptable.
A child under the age of criminal responsibility lacks the capacity to commit a crime. This means they are immune from
criminal prosecution they cannot be formally charged by authorities with an offence nor be subjected to any criminal law
procedures or measures.

Responsibility is a concept that does not just refer to the strict moral responsibility.
Authenticity=the ability to determine the meaning of one's life and decide who one wants to be and what kind of
existence on wants to lead -- one must accept these freedoms to live with authenticity.
Existentialists believe that human being are essentially free, they can decide who they want to be and what kind of
existence they want to lead
 6

According to Soren Kierkegaard one of the first existentialist philosophers it is frightening to follow our own individual
choice, as they might to be unpopular.
Existentialist believe that we need to free ourselves from conformity and become what we really want to become.
Project= people need to focus on something they want, the way we live our live is more important that what we
do with it.

Anthropocentrism is the philosophical idea arguing that human beings are the most significant entities in the world.In
philosophy, anthropocentrism can refer to the point of view that humans are the only holders of moral standing.
Anthropocentrism also states that natural resources are open to human manipulation
Philosopher in support:
1.Aristotle place human reason at the center of their world views. He based his theory on the bible .
2.Immanuel Kant on "anthropocentrism" is based on the fact that he,knows only humans to fall under this
concept

The flexibility, adaptability and capacity of problem solving of the human mind is what makes us above non-human
animals. An example could be that parrots only repeat sounds mechanically

PRO
Descartes= rational human soul as a unique entity within the world
Denies personhood to non human animals, he claims that animals have some seemingly intelligent abilities but behavior
separates them from humans .
Descartes talks about human self-consciousness, humans are identified for their ability to think. Language and intelligence
necessary.
Argument:
1, animal poses consciousness awareness similar to human beings even if they cannot expects their own self-
consciousness as humans, aware similar to experience to humans
2.the ability to use language by animals, example of the parrot

AGAINST
Darwin= organism develop over time through their adaption to the surroundings
Humans previous generations of primate, biologically successful through development of language skills and problem
solving.
Since darwin humans can no longer identify themselves exclusively as persons, at the expense of other animals.
•Human characteristics related and derived from animal characteristics
•humans cannot literally support creation of myth about their own
•characteristics of all animals will develop over time

Soren kierkegaard
Kierkegaard contrasts the philosophical system because he asserts the truth of individual existence and subjectivity.
Become subjective is the highest task that he assigned to men. “Subjectivity is truth” is one of the most famous quotes by
Kierkegaard.
Kierkegaard proposed that the indivisdal passed through 3 stages on the way to becoming a true self
 7

► The aesthetic stage is that of abandonment to the pleasures of immediacy: think Don Juan and his frantic
desire of desires, from conquest to conquest, delights in pleasures.

Somebody who lives within the Aesthetic sphere is chiefly concerned with pleasure and are essentially hedonistic.

► The ethical stage, are the social rules that govern how a person ought to act, taking in consideration the effects
of their action (commitment)

where the concept of “Good and Evil” begins to take hold and the idea of responsibility for ones fellow man.

► The religious state is the highest plane to existence and the only way to make life worthwhile is to embrace
faith in god

Kierkegaard considers that ethical sphere is an important part of human development but he feels that it is
through a personal relationship with God that human beings achieve their highest purpose. The Ethical sphere
gives human beings the idea of “the moral absolute” but human reason alone does not seem to be enough in
Kierkegaard’s view. He believes that an awareness of human sinfulness and transcendence to a higher power

Conclusions
Aesthetic life=ruled by passion
Ethical life= ruled by social regulations
Religious life = ruled by faith in god

After someone went through the 3 stages on the way to becoming a trueself he will stay on top of an hypothetical ladder
until death. Going through the stages represent the climbing of the ladder

Martin Heidegger
Martin heidegger was a german philosopher and phenomenologist, a type of philosophy which doesn’t improve values on
human, not definoing then but showing the internal nature of humans, nothing is predetermined. Every human being has a
personal anxiety, weakness and problem.
Heidegger stats that we are possibilities and in order to carry on our life in possibilities we continuously project
our future, Every possibility has to pass through a practical relationship with reality
By achieving our possibilities we comprehend the truth of reality, he also says that we don’t get ideas and possibilities
thanks to reason but instead thanks to the direct contact with reality
Heidegger, metaphysics and forgetfulness of the Being:
Heidegger’s philosophy is, in fact, centered on the difference between Being and beings.
Being, what does that mean? This term refers to Heidegger, the source of “spiritual” core of all things, which enlightens
and illuminates so enigmatic.
Instead, beings are the various unique realities:
 8

– The mind, present participle of the verb to be mean: being concrete, existing.
– However, among the various “beings” (a table, a tool, an animal, a book …), there is one whose existence is precisely a
question of Being: Dasein, support the issue of Being and Being open to that.
It is, indeed, opening to the Being that is constitutive of man and his characteristic.
However, this opening is veiled and, moreover, constantly threatened:
The human being repressed or forgotten Being, or preferring the views empirical perspective, most daily and reassuring.
This threat is even at work in metaphysics, the study of phenomena beyond that, since Plato and Aristotle, speaks of being
in the size of oblivion. But the forgetting of being, torn from the true spiritual openness characterize the utmost
contemporary cultures.

MIND AND BODY (CHAPTER 4)

Mind and body is divided into 2 different categories;
1.DUALISM= Mind and body are two different entities(body is inferior to the mind; Mind superior)
2.MONISM=Mind and body are directly connected and work together to achieve the same scope

DUALIST:
Rene Descartes
Descartes is a dualistic philosopher, as in his opinion, mind and body are two distinct things, makes distinction between
the physical and the mental aspects of humans,supported by rational philosopher.
Distinction between:
1.Res cogitans(Thinking substance, Free, incorporeal. Characteristics given by our continuous flow of thoughts)
2.Res extensa (Determined substance provided of a certain extension)

His concept of soul was inherited by aristotle, he claims that the mind interacts with the body at the pineal gland, located
at the centre of the brain where the soul is stored and where all thoughts are formed. The mind controls the body but the
body can influence the otherwise rational mind( when acting without passion). He claims the existence of the mind but not
the body proving his dualistic perception
 9

If mind and body are two seperate essences there there is the possibility of life after death as the soul doesn’t die

Plato
argued that the mind and body are fundamentally different because the mind is rational, which means that examining the
mind can lead to truth
.Plato did not trust the senses because we can confuse reality with imagination. The most extreme cases happen when we
dream or hallucinate, but this also occurs when we confuse one object for another. Plato showed that we are often
presented with illusions of this kind. A stick, for example, can appear bent in water, yet when we pick it up, we will find
that it’s straight.
Things are not always what they seem, and we are not always aware that we are making these mistakes. To find true
knowledge, we need to examine our own minds in what's known as 'rational introspection'.

Plato praised mathematics as one of the only forms of true knowledge. He disliked art because he thought that we distort
our perception even further when we attempt to copy an imperfect image.
Plato thought that the things we perceive on Earth are really composed of ideas or forms. A form is an eternal and perfect
concept, something that is strived for but never actualised on Earth. All horses, for example, are
united by the concept of ‘horse’, an ideal that all horses on Earth were built to resemble. But it’s not just objects and
individuals that have forms. Forms also apply to abstract concepts like beauty.

MONISTS:

Nietzsche has a monistic idea on mind and body as he thinks they are a unique entity/nature, makes link between physical
and mental aspects of humans, and supported from empiricist philosophers.
He gives more power to the body that the mind.
In order to understand philosophy he had to look at greek drama. He realized there are two epoques.
1. Aeschylus and sophocles
2. Euripides (protagonist of plato's work)
In the tragedy of aeschylus and sophocles he understands two different main drives= Dionysian and apollonian
Dionysian comes from Dyonisius, which is the god of chaos and euphoria and apollonian from Apollo the god of
harmony. These two different identities create a perfect equilibrium. Without apollo dionysus action would cause self-
destruction. The human in its original nature is defined by the perfect equilibrium between the two.
For the Nietzsche western mind started to decline after euripidis.
Apollonian is nothing without dionysiac, so in order to maintain philosophy you have to accept the fact of the
chaos rationalism philosophical perception weakness the body and reason to philosophy itself.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Hegel was a german philosopher, whose legacy has played a vital role in the development of modern philosophy.
His attempt was to show that the mind becomes realized through the physical world. Thinking and ideas form the
ultimate reality for hegel the absolute but they can only come about through their development in biological human
 10

beings, there may be no mind without body, but the body without mind is nothing . His philosophy is related to freedom in
particular the one of the spirit.
Monistic perception, reason and reality are regulated by the same law thanks to this they can recognise each
other.
Dialectic law capacity=to be able to communicate with each other
In order to understand his theory we have to understand Hegel's dialectical method for understanding the world. He quite
often uses a triad o ideas to explain how things work: dialectical logic, divided in 3 steps
1. Initial thesis: the moment of identity
2. Anthesis: the moment of conflict
3. Synthesis: the recognition of each other
Essentially, Hegel argues that philosophy and even all o history advance by differing and competing ideas coming into
conflict, thus creating new ways of understanding.

Master-slave dialectic
1.There are two men who both think themselves free, though at first they are not aware of each other.
2.They meet and come into conflict, fighting for dominance. One is victorious and becomes the master; the defeated man
is the slave.
3.However, the master makes use of his slave and gradually becomes aware that he is dependent on the slave.

4. Conversely, the slave becomes aware that the master needs him, and so he is the one (paradoxically) with freedom,
having learned to be self-sufficient.

5.So, or the sake of his own freedom, the master releases the slave. In dialectical terms, this can be translated as follows:
-Thesis: the initial position is the desire to be the master (potential freedom).
-Antithesis: the second position is the state of being the slave (actual bondage).
-Synthesis: the new position is that of true freedom, granted by understanding (actual freedom).

In Hegel's understanding of the world, reality has a mental and a physical aspect. Everything has this dual aspect and so,
for Hegel, mind body dualism in the style of Descartes would not be possible: mind goes hand-in-hand with the physical
aspect (the body) of human beings. However, mind can take an ultimate form in humans, claims Hegel, because they are
capable of a form of higher awareness. That is to say, human thinking can achieve a form of self-realization:
•Humans think.
•Humans become aware that they think.
•Humans become aware that they are among thinking humans.
•Humans become aware that they can collectively think o universal things.
•Human thinking as a whole can thus become self-aware.
•This totality or absolute thinking (idealism) is infinite.
•Absolute Mind (or Absolute Spirit, or God) is realized in human thinking
Therefore, Hegel is arguing that the mind is dependent upon the body (monism) but, in its ultimate form, becomes greater
than the sum of its parts. Through my ideas, I can become united with “mind” as a
whole, and so my own mind goes beyond my own body.

Hobbes
Hobbes was an English philosopher of the 17th century
 11

Thomas Hobbes argued that reason was nothing more than calculation in which we compare potential costs and benefits
of given actions when choosing what to do next. When we describe the world we give the objects in it names and
meanings we create concepts. For Hobbes, when we reason we are using these concepts to calculate a judgment about
what will happen in the future.

For example, we have given the name water to a substance and as part of that concept we have included the claim that
water helps to clean things. Therefore I can reason that if I soak my shirt in water after spilling
food on it, it will help to remove the mess. I have combined what I know of the world my concepts about it into a
prediction of what will happen next. Rationality, or Hobbes, is just using this to pursue our interests.

All of this even a rationalist might agree with but Hobbes adds a key assumption that undermines the value and usefulness
of reason. The trouble is that reasoning always involves using concepts that we have
invented rather than ones that perfectly ft the world.

SELF AND THE OTHER (CHAPTER 5)

Self is that set of characteristics that define our personality “the self is our self”. It defines the way I approach reality.
Two philosophical ways to approach the notion of self
1. Essentialist= our identity is never changing and not influenced by others
2. Existentialist = we face a continuous evolution that shapes who we are going to be.
Essentialist philosophers can compare the being as a rock, stable and unchangeable, does not take in consideration the
impact other people have on it.
Essentialist
Locke
Locke father of philosophical empiricism movement. He believes that we can only learn from our experience In order to
know the reality we have to go through experiences. He is a monistic philosophy In Mind and body issue he would be
placed in monism. On the other hand, when talking about the self and the other he would be placed in dualism.
The outcome is not going to change you

He believed we can approach relationship only after building yourself through experience. We can now others only when
we know ourself.
He defines the self as Immaterial

We can experience only thanks to this unchangeable self. By experiencing the world we discover, step by step, something
solid which makes us reason. Experience by experience we confirm who we are.

Descartes
essentialist He doesn’t care for the others, He doubts perception so he rely only on himself, as we can see from the cogito
ergo sum “I”. He defines reason as part of reality. We experience together with others but only as if the person was
something next to me
 12

Plato
essentialist He state that the soul is immortal , the self has to be unchangeable and ideas are eternal as they come from the
world of idea

We can experience only thanks to this unchangeable self. By experiencing the world we discover, step by step, something
solid which makes us reason. Experience by experience we confirm who we are.

David Hume
For hume if you want to be an empiricist you cannot put a side the self. We don’t experience ourself, we rely on
ourself to experience the world.
He contradict locke:
“We don’t experience ourself, we rely on ourself to experience the world.
He states that ourself is a bundle of perception
HIs philosophy is a turning point between essentialism and existentialism
Existentialist
Husserl
Phenomenology= philosophy take as its primary task the description of the structure of experience as they present
themselves to consciousness.Focus on lived human experience in all its richness and depth, escaping the limitation of
strict empiricism and reductive psychology exploring the “effective, emotional and imagination”

Husserl inspired by the attempt to understand the nature of mathematical and logical truths and a critique of reason.
Husserl most famous student= Martin Heidegger, inspired by Husserl new approach to philosophy

The Phenomena is what appear to our point of view. He takes in consideration

1. What appears to us
2. Our point of view
Appearance and manifestation
=
Phenomena

Who receives the information? === My ego/consciousness ( I have to be conscious in order to perceive the meaning of
the object)
Consequently to industrial revolution the human forgot the relation with objects and therefore becoming an object itself.

In order to solve this problem we have to suspend passive knowledge (passive knowledge is the knowledge we have of
objects deprived of memory/lack of interest)
Epoche= suspension of Judgment, thanks to this suspension we can recover:
-Our ego/I
-The consciousness of the object (phenomena manifestation)
Cogito ergo sum=principle of pure Ego
In every epoche every human tend to this oblivion in how humans developed, technology doesn’t create the oblivion , but
expands it.
Example= cold War, we just know the name not the reason for it
 13

Transcendental consciousness is the knowledge of the Eternal-Self which is beyond the reach of the senses and mind. It
doesn’t overfly reality instead is prior to the experience. In order to recover the transcendental consciousness we have to
change from passive knowledge to epoche
This type of consciousness receives the manifestation of someone as an object

(The body which I move)Vital body←Leib Körper→objectival body

Analogical representation= analogical way to perceive an object the other body is as much conscious as mine
Analogical transfer= if perceived object like this I can transfer my consciousness into the body of the other

Herbert marcuse
Existentialist Our experiences shape our personality, Often experience are imposbbile without the presence of someone
else: experience by experience we understand we confirm who we are.
Example: In young age through experience we recognize which things and activities we like and which no. From negative
experience we still learn

Kierkegaard=existentialist philosopher. The self is able to change, through the 3 stages of life
1. Aesthetic
2. Religious
3. Ethical
He defines the self as mutable, the 3 stages of life that we face through our existence show the different relationships we
have with other people

We don’t only refer to others when changing, we go through this evolution consequently to the impact other people have
on us.

Fork Kierkegaard what is central lto an individual's existence is his subjectivity characterized by freedom
Descarte “ I think therefore I am” argue that it doesn’t respond to the question what is that is doing the thinking.

Hagel
In the science of logic written in 1816 he believes that with the term “I” I mean myself, single and altogether determinate
person. He also defines the self as a unity of dualism of thought and being. Becomes the departure point of kierkegaard.
Kierkegaard rejects the rational and the objective that is the driving force of Hegel's philosophy. Humans exist as
individuals in the particular and not universal free of choice brings person into existence.

FREEDOM (CHAPTER 6)
Determinism: refers to the idea that everything has a cause or a set of causes, also means that, given that cause
or set of causes, what happened had to happen and nothing else could have happened instead
 14

➔ This can be referred to natural events and the law of nature, but also to humans.

Hard determinism: Theory according to which every human action and choice is the inevitable result of a set of
causes, which eliminates the possibility of human freedom.
➔ They base their beliefs on the fact that human beings are material beings subjected to the laws of the
material world.

Soft determinism:Theory according to which there are many external factors influencing our decisions, but an
element of freedom still remains. Soft determinist tend to agree that all events are the inevitable result of a set of
causes.

Libertarianism: theory according to which human beings are free agents. Although the material world around
us is determined by the laws of nature and causation, human choices are not subjected to such laws
➔ Most human actions are the result of a choice made freely

Fatalism: is the idea that at least some events are set in advance and there is nothing we can do to change them
➔ Believe that the time and manner of our death is already set

Compatibilism: Is the idea that determinism and free will are compatible. Soft determinists are compatibilists.

Incompatibilism: is the idea that determinism and free will are incompatible and cannot coexist. Either we are
completely free, a libertarians claim, or we are not free at all, as hard determinism claim

Philosopher believe that free will can be a sufficient causal condition of our actions: in other words free will is
enough to cause certain actions and no other explanation is needed.

Jean Paul Sartre

Born in Paris in 1905.
One of the most important architects of atheist existentialism along with Heidegger
 15

➔ Atheism is a key in Sartre’s philosophy: it alter one’s perception of human life.

The consequence of the complete absence of God and absolutes is that life is absurd.
Sartre’s starting point is a belief that
“Existence comes before essence”
According to him, although there is no human nature, there is a human condition that he describes at length:
Human beings are condemned to be free. This freedom comes from an ability to conceive of what is not the
case (Nothingness) and to desire it.
Human freedom is radical and double: it is a freedom of mind and a freedom of action

Bad faith= we pretend we are not free, lyin to others and mainly to ourselves. The identities we have assumed
have been chosen freely. Although human beings are radically free, they are thrown into a cultural, social and
historical context that constitutes their givenness.

If human existence can continuously break from one situation to another is nothingness.
We are extremely free to model our existence.
“Being a nothingness”-Famous book written by Sartre which talks about how human existence is superior to an
object.
The object according to Sartre is opaque, blurred. The object is closed in itself. It doesn’t realize by itself the
way to relate with the world.
The human being is not a cartesian human being (pure corgito) in order to relate with an object or human being,
the human being itself has to place itself in a situation.
The very radical difference between my self and object is that we are both placed in a situation, but as a human
being a can continuously break away from the situation.
If I wasn't placed in a situation I couldn't have the possibility of breaking free. ( I need a situation to affirm my
absolute freedom)
Sartre Risks to place and reduce the human being in a now where

Marks in comparison to Sartre was a metaphysics philosopher

IDENTITY(CHAPTER 7)
 16

Identity is the most persistent characteristics of humans. The idea of ourself to the eyes of the society is part of our
identity. When studying identity we have to focus on social context, as the identity is built upon what we experience in
this social context.
According to locke consciousness is the capacity to memorize experience making our identity, differing ourself from
others. The self for locke is an immutable consciousness.

The issue of personal identity is a modern problem although there are references to it as far back as ancient greece. It was
traditionally solved by the existence of the soul.

Ship of theseus
Theseus was a hero in ancient athens who defeated the minotaur on the island of crete while rescuing some athenian
captives. He then sailed back to Athens to be hailed as a hero of the city. To honour him athenian leader secured the ship
and once a year paraded it in the harbour. The ship was made of wood and started to deteriorate. In order to fix it they had
to change parts and eventually every part of the ship was new.
Is it the same ship as the one on which theseus returned to Athens?

Locke
As an empiricist he believed that observation was the best method to use to discover the truth. He reacted to the
Methodology of scholastic Aristotelianism rejecting the neo-platonist epistemology that was dominant and central to
Descartes philosophical argument. This led Locke to argue that we have no experience of substance only of properties.
The key to Locke’s consideration is consciousness or being aware that we are thinking.

Consciousness= Aspect of ourselves that makes possible our belief that we are the same identity over time.
According to locke remaining the same person has nothing to do with remaining the same substance.

18th Centiry scottish philosopher Thomas Reid (1710-1796) had an objection about personal identity, he regarded it as a
mistake to treat memory as if it was just an extension of consciousness.

Reid’s point is illustrated with the Boy/Soldier/General. They are the same person but at different stages of life. The
soldier remembers the boy experience, however the general is too old to remember the boy experience
BOY=A
SOLDIER=B
GENERAL=C

C is B and B is A. since identity is transitive it follows that C is A

 17

ETHICS
Normative ethics
An ethical theory is normative if it offers guidance on how we should live, on how to make moral judgments
and if it provides reason for that guidance. So a normative theory might tell us which actions are right or wrong,
what sorts of action are good or bad, or what sort of people are virtuous or vicious

Kant
Deontology=define the norm and rules, obligation
For Kant the basis for a Theory of the Good lies in the intention or the will. The only thing GOOD about the act is the
WILL, the GOOD WILL. That will is to do our DUTY. What is our duty? It is our duty to act in such a manner that we
would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people.
Kant expressed this as the Categorical Imperative.

1. Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law.
For Kant the GOOD involves the Principle of Universalizability!

2. Never treat a person as a means to an end.

Persons are always ends in themselves. We must never use or exploit anyone for whatever purpose.

3. Idea of the will of every rational being as a universally legislating will

Kant’s Deontology is presented in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals

Kant in his Critique of Practical Reason wanted to find a basis for ethics that would be based on reason and not on a faith
in a god or in some cold calculation of utility that might permit people to be used for the benefit of the majority. Kant
thought carefully about what it is that all humans would find reasonable as a guide for human conduct

Perfect Duty is that which we are all obliged to do all of the time.
e.g., no killing, no physically harming others, no lies, no theft, no breaking promises

Imperfect Duties are those which we should do as often as possible but can not be expected to do always.
e.g., be charitable, loving,

With the Golden rule you are to: Act as you would have others act towards you.
Act as you would want all other people to act towards all other people.
Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law.
The difference is this. With the Golden rule a masochist or a sadist would be justified in causing or receiving pain. This is not what
the Kantian Principle would support.

PROBLEMS WITH KANT'S THEORY

 18

1. The theory applies only to rational agents. It would not apply to non-humans or to humans who are not rational, e.g., humans with
brain malfunctioning, illness or persistent vegetative coma.
2. The theory cannot resolve conflicts between duties:
a. between two perfect duties
b. between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty

Bentham

Jeremy bentham’s idea of utilitarianism focuses on the experience of pleasure over pain.
He argued that social and legal decisions should be taken in light of utilitarian principles. In order to judge human actions
he uses a psychological argument.
We should search for pleasure and happiness or prevent the happening of pain
Human action is only taken in consideration depending on the intense if the happiness. Essential difference is that the
utilitarian approach takes into consideration only the result.

Ex. If the goal is to plant a tree, the activity of planting the tree is not important, like aristotle thought. It is only the result
of the tree that counts.
Bentham stated that as human beings we have only two masters we obey:
1.Pain
2.Pleasure
Not always my pleasure will result in the pleasure of someone else, for example the act of committing sucide will cause
much more pain than pleasure. He also stats that we should maximize intellectual pleasure, as the more education we
have, the more we can enjoy our body pleasure

Meta Ethics
Meta-ethics analyses what is going on in normative ethics. Moral philosophy took a distinct turn away from
normative ethics and towards meta-ethics in the first half of the twentieth century. Meta-ethics raises questions
about the meaning and nature of moral judgment and of the evaluative terms (good bad right wrong) employed
in these judgment

Consequentialist intuitionism
Great debate amongst moral philosophers was “Where do our intuitions come from”
Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746), stated that our intuition stemmed from an internal, god-given moral sense
through which we could intuit what was right and wrong.
Samuel Clarke, stated that intuitions stemmed from a rational faculty in our mind that had the power to grasp
moral truths.
 19

G. E. Moore had no interest in this debate= which is why he said he wasn’t an intuitionist.
Moore was not a great systems builder, and his influence came from the analysis of moral concepts and
language in Principia ethica (1903). Moore thought it was possible that moral philosophers had been trying to
answer questions that simply couldn’t be answered.
He states that we can only guess the good
As a consequentialist, Moore believes that the moral worth of an action is determined by the good effects it
brings.
He doesn’t believe in utilitarianism
By the end of Principia Ethica Moore states that was is good cannot be defined, but is known intuitively.
-Reason why his approach is known as Intuitionism.
Good is indefinable so it cannot be reduced to the greatest happiness.
In order to clarify what he means by indefinable Moore likens the word “Good” and “Yellow”. If we try to say
that yellow means light travelling at a particular frequency, then we are simply wrong. Yellow refers to what we
see when we see yellow objects.
For Moore it is important to note that moral properties are unlike natural properties.
-Moral judgments are evaluative rather than factual and so cannot be justified by purely empirical
observation.
Moral terms are self-evident and can only be known by what Moore calls intuition

The problem as Moore sees it, is that philosophers have been wrong to try to define “Good” failing to see that it
is indefinable.
Moore presents us with a dilemma= When we ask the question “what is good?” we are faced with three
possibilities: 1) Good is indefinable
2) Good is definable
3) Good means nothing at all
Any theory which attempts to define “good” is saying something equivalent to:
“Good” means X (where X is some fact or set of facts)
But, says Moore, for any such definition it will always make sense to ask:
But is X really good?
Ex. If an utilitarian says “good means maximising pleasure and minimize pain for the majority” it still makes
sense to ask “But is really good to maximise pleasure and minimize pain for the majority?”

Critique= It may object to Moore’s open question argument that the question only appears to remain open
because the meaning of words such as “Good” are unclear. The reason we may wonder whether the promotion
of pleasure really is good is only because we are still unclear in our minds about the proper significance of the
term good.
Moore accused Mill of committing the naturalistic fallacy. According to Moore’s interpretation, Mill attempts
to define “Good” as “Desired”, and then goes on to say that it is happiness that we desire.
 20

Moore’s argument against naturalism may be linked to Hume’s law. As it is drawing a sharp distinction
between the moral realm and the non-mora realm.
➔ Hume’s argument is about the logical connection between these realms
➔ Moore’s argument is about the linguistic or semantic connection between moral and non-moral terms.
Moore also believes that we know what is good, not through analysing it in ordinary, naturalistic terms but
through our discriminating intuitive faculty.
At the end of Principia Ethics Moore describes those things he believes to be good:
Good may consist of friendships and beauty
There is an invisible aspect of reality

Counter Arguments:
➔ It doesn’t give a proper way to act, Intuition is both the strength and the weakness of Moore
➔ Moore’s representation of “Good” result vague

Deontological intuitionism
Similar to Moore this intuitionist believed that we grasp moral principles by intuition and believed moral
judgment refers to the world and can be true or false. However, unlike Moore they believed that values lie in
what is right, rather than what is good, and should be located in the action themselves rather than in the
consequence.

Pichard’s most famous work was the article “ Does moral philosophers rst on mistake?”
According to Pichard duty is the ultimate moral value, but we cannot ever prove why something is our duty
(clear contrast compared to kant and the categorical imperative)
Pichard also believes that obligatoriness is only known through intuition not through reason.

There are 4 common forms of moral anti-realism:

1) Emotivism
Emotivism can be seen as a reaction against intuitionism
Alfred Ayer was a british philosopher who was very much under the influence of a group of Austiran
philosophers known as logical positivists.
Language was only meaningful when it referred to the world
In 1936 wrote the the book “Language, truth and logic”
According to Ayer a sentence is meaningful if and only if either:
a. It is a tautology (true by definition)
b. It is verifiable through sense experience”
Ayer puts a lot of faith in science and in the observation of the world
Related to judgments of value, which includes terms such as “Right” or “Good”, he agreed that these terms
were unanalysable. They are “Pseudo-concepts”
 21

According to ayer Moral judgments are meaningless, moral terms are simply expressions of emotions or
feelings.
Unlike Hume, emotivism denies that moral expressions describe feelings or emotions anymore that they
describe other empirical facts.

C.L. Stevenson also analyzed the emotive meaning of moral judgments, stating that terms such as “good” or
“Right” were attempts to influence other people, to persuade them to feel as we feel and to have the same
attitude.
Emotivism opposes intuitionism by not regarding moral properties as descriptive, not informative
Criticism of emotivism.
One conclusion that can be drawn from emotivism is that value judgments are not rational. Different people feel
differently about different things and each has equal right to their opinion
Iff emotivism is correct then there is no point in having a moral discussion, since two people cannot really
contradict each other when they appear to be expressing a disagreement over some moral issue.
If mora judgments were purely subjective it would be senseless for me to condemn someone who professed a
different moral attitude.
So if we were in disagreement it may not be irrational to argue as long as our disagreements are related to a
factual belief about the world.
Emotivism explains how moral judgments motivate actions

2) Ethical relativism
According to relativism, moral judgments are relative to the standards that each society has.
In Plato's Republic the character Thrasymachus takes a relativist line. He argues that justice is the interest of the
stronger, meaning that doing what is right means doing what you are told by those in power.
Ethical relativists claim that there are no universal moral truths and that any rational justification for a moral
position is vain.
Ethical relativism is argued for from the empirically observed fact that peoples from different societies
adhere to different basic ethical beliefs.
Cannibalism and human sacrifice accepted in some societies but not in ours.
According to relativism, Moore’s question”what is good” can be equated with what a particular culture believes
is good. What a culture believes to be good is what members of that culture end up believing to be good.
Suggest that we are not free to choose our beliefs
Criticism of ethical relativism
Tendency to suppose that if you have explained someone’s value or beliefs you have somehow invalidated
them.
Descriptive statements that cultural practices differ does not entail the perspective statement that ethical
statements are relative.

3) Nihilism
 22

Goes further than all other anti-realist theories. It advocates a rejection of all moral principles and values, they
refer to nothing.
Nihilism is the idea that there exists no meaning, purpose, or value.
According to Nietzsche the supposed universaliable character of moral judgments that we make is not an
expression of reason, as Kant argued, but represent an attempt to bind and control the exceptional individual of
whom the majority is resentful.
Considers the moral judgments as the invention of rationalism, Rationalism and morality are dependent upon
each other
Rationalism→Despires of the body
Nietzsche sees Nihilism as the greatest danger to man's morality

4) Perspectivism
Perspectivism can be seen as a reaction against emotivism.
R.M. hare agreed with the emotivists that moral judgment weren’t being used to describe the world, and that
they had a non-descriptive meaning. But Hare felt that emotivism hadn’t captured the real use of moral
judgments, which was to issue recommendations about how other people should act. So moral judgments are
meant to guide action, and to urge everyone in a similar situation to behave in the same way.

Liberalism
The main objective of liberalism is the individuals liberty. Liberalism arises from the possession of private
property. “Oicos”= Economics, which is the reason why human lives
New Liberalism is when the state does not have to obstacle the staging and development of economics

Counterclaim There is a high risk of increasing the gap between rich and poor, solution for the government is to
slightly intervene, imposing taxes to reduce the gap
-Relation between state power and individual’s liberty: Limits of my liberty are the freedom of others, for
example playing loud music during the night, the state is going to intervene in order to protect the freedoms of
others
There are Different freedoms
1: Freedom of thought (the only not harmful one) and speech, which creates freedom of press
2: Freedom of custom and cult: which creates the freedom of action(create our lifestyle)
3: Freedom of association and trade
 23

John stuart Mill

“On Liberty” (written by Mill) is one of the most important works on political philosophy. In it, Mill talks about his
theories related to utilitarianism and individual freedom.
In the book Mill argues that the government's main goal should be protecting its citizens individual liberty.
“How should a government guarantee the safety and well-being of its citizens while also protecting their individual
freedom?”
One of the central questions of political philosophy, the branch of philosophy that focuses on government.
Mill thought that in order to make society happy you have to maximize freedom, giving authority to intellectual
pleasure. He creates rules the government should follow to create the greatest amount of pleasure to the greatest
amount of people, and for Mill this could be obtained by protecting the individual liberty, arguing that people
should be free to do what they choose, as long as it does not harm anyone else
Utilitarianism = Action based on their consequences
Utilitarianism was originally started by bentham stating that the most moral action is the one that maximized
utility.
Utility= defined as “aggregate pleasure” Whatever brings the most pleasure to the most amount of
people.

On liberty was a response to the Victorian period of England during which was written. This period was
characterized by a particular set of social values that emphasizes hard work and respectful behaviour. Mill
found these social institutions to be restrictive, stating that they were a profound problem for human kind.
 24

Before new liberalism (consisting of a critique of the classical one) there was the classical liberalism, inspired
by locke the government is justified in governing a specific geographical location only with the approval of
citizens.
Classical liberalism arises from the possession of private goods
The main purpose of the state for classical liberalism is preventing the individual from harming other liberty
with the use of laws and regulations. Classical liberalism also state that the government cannot possess citizens
and cannot impose regulations upon the economic expansion of businesses.
Problem with this= if we are completely set free to start our economic business we are also free to increase the
gap between rich and poor

“On Liberalism” (Chapter 1 introduction)

He states that this essay will look at what kind of power society can ligitemyle exert over the individual.
Describes civilization as a struggle between society and the individual about which should have control over
the individual's action
The power of personal freedom was regarded as necessary, but also as highly dangerous as a weapon
which they would attempt to use against their subjects.
Refers to the patriots, which tried to limit the leader’s power in two ways.
1.The gained immunities called political rights, having also the possibility to rebellion in these rights
were infringed
2.Constiutional checks developed, under which the community gained some power of consent over
important acts of governance.
Mill states that men progressed to a point where they wanted their leaders to be their servants, although still still
believes that individuals and society as a whole can still progress.

Mill explicitly call his justification of liberty utilitarian, and so showing that his idea on liberty wasn’t based on
natural rights(proposed by locke) or metaphysical claims (proposed by kant) but instead basing his idea on what
is the best for mankind
Tyranny of the majority= concept that in a democatric state the majority of people can impose its will
on a minority. Mill believes this behaviour is “tyrannical” when it violates a claim that the minority has a
member of society.

“Of the liberty of thought and discussion” (Chapter 2)

In Chapter 2 Mill turns to the issue of whether people should be allowed to limit anyone else’s expression of
opinion.
-Mill state that such actions are illegitimate
Even if only one person had a particular opinion, mankind wouldn’t be justified in silencing him
Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions (First argument):
1. Suppressed opinion may be true
2. People tend to be confident in their own rightness
Mill then looks at possible criticism of his reasoning and responds to them.
 25

1. Firstly, even though people may be wrong, they still have a duty to act on their “conscientious
conviction”Mill argues that the only way that a person can be confident that he is right is if there is
complete liberty to contradict and disprove his beliefs, as humans have the capacity to correct their
mistakes through experience and discussion.Human judgment is valuable only if people remain open to
criticism=Listening to different opinions.

2. Secondly, governments have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well being of
society. Only “bad” men would try to undermine these beliefs. Mill replies that this argument still relies
on assumption of infallibility. Usefulness of an opinion is still something up for debate, and still requires
discussion

Mill observes that the assumption of infallibility about a certain question included the attempt to try to decide
the question for other people.

Mill writes about: 1.Socrates Two illistrutores figures in history , who were put to death for
2.Jesus Christ blasphemy because their beliefs were radical for their timed

3. Truth may be justifiably persecuted because persecution is something that truth should have to face. By
discovering something true these people have performed a great service to
humanity.Supporting persecution= contributions of some people are not truly being valued.

4. Mill responds to the argument that since we do not actually put dussenter to death any more, no true
opinion will ever be extinguished. Replies that legal persecution for opinions are still significant in
society (example case of blasphemy or atheism). Also no guarantee that more extreme forms of legal
persecution will not reemerge. In addition there continues to be social intolerance of dissent.

After explaining how popular opinions might be false, Mill makes 3 further arguments in favour of freedom of
opinions

His second argument (after the argument that popular opinion could be false), is that even if the popular opinion
is true, if it is not debated it will become "dead dogma." If truth is simply held as a prejudice, then people will
not fully understand it, and will not understand how to refute objections to it.

Mill then turns to two potential criticisms of his argument.

1. People should be taught the grounds for their opinions, and that having been taught these grounds, they
do not then merely hold prejudices but really understand the basis of their opinions. If a person cannot
refute objections, then he cannot properly be said to understand his own opinion. Furthermore, he must
hear these objections from people who actually believe them, because it is only these people who can
show the full force of the arguments.
 26

2. Not necessary for mankind in general to be familiar with potential objections to their beliefs, but only
for philosophers or theologians to be thus aware. Furthermore, while in the Catholic Church there is a
clear distinction between common people and intellectuals, in Protestant countries like England, every
person is considered responsible for his choices

Mill then presents a third argument for the value of liberty of thought and discussion

3. If a true opinion is not debated, the meaning of the opinion itself may be lost. This can be seen in the
history of ethical and religious beliefs--when they stop being challenged, they lose their "living power."
As a result, people do not truly understand the doctrines they hold dear, and their misunderstanding
leads to serious mistakes.

Mill then turn to a fourth argument for freedom of opinion.

4. He writes that in the case of conflicting doctrines, perhaps the most common case is that instead of one
being true and one false, the truth is somewhere between them. This fact can be seen in politics, where
differing opinions keep both sides reasonable. In any open question, the side that is least popular at the
time is the side that should be most encouraged. This side reflects interests that are being neglected.

Mill then looks at a criticism of this fourth argument. He says that it could be argued that some
principles, such as those of Christianity, are the whole truth, and if somebody disagrees, he is
completely wrong. Mill replies by saying that in many ways Christian morality is "incomplete
and one-sided," and that some of the most important ethical ideas have been derived from
Greek and Roman sources

After looking at these four arguments for liberty, Mill briefly addresses the argument that free
expression should be allowed, but only if it sticks to "fair discussion."

“Of Individuality, as one of the elements of well-being” (Chapter 3)

Mill looks at the question of whether people should be allowed to act upon their own opinions without facing
legal punishments.
Human beings should be free to form opinions, and to express their opinions without reserve
Action should not be as free as opinions, both must be limited when they would cause harm to others.
Since humans are fallible, different “experiments of living are valuable
The expression of individuality is essential for individual and social progress
1.Essential to the cultivation of the self.
 27

Individuality is essential to the cultivation of the self. Mill argues that while people should be trained as
children in the accumulated knowledge of human experience, they should also have the freedom as adults to
interpret that experience as they see fit.
-Place great moral emphasis on the process of making choices. Only people who are making choices
are using all of their human faculties.
“One whose desires and impulses are not his own, has no character, no more than a steam engine has
character”

Mill writes that there could be too much individuality. He says that people become more valuable to themselves
and also more able to be valuable to others when they develop their individuality.

-Mill then turns to the second part of his discussion, the ways in which people who exercise their liberty as
individuals are valuable to others.
Individuality is valuable because people might learn something from the nonconformists. Mill argues that all
people should value what originality brings to the world. Mill also argues that the modern age tends to diminish
the individual and encourage mediocrity,

Liberty and individuality are essential to individual and social progress.

-Diversity also lets us see the potential of combining the positive traits of different people.
Mill writes that it is "despotism of custom" that prevents the improvement of England, and that it is Europe's
relative diversity of lifestyles and paths that makes it more progressive than conformist China.