There is a lot of controversy surrounding the whole subject of human freedom. Humanity in general and philosophers in particular have grumbled on this issue. Some argue that just like rationality, freedom is an intrinsic element of man while others argue that a human being has never and possibly will never be free. This work therefore tries to critically analyze this subject and so answer this vital question: is freedom real or it is just an illusion?
Before defining the key concept here: ‘freedom,’ it is necessary to note that freedom is defined through the ‘will’ which as St Thomas Aquinas points out, is the “rational appetite” The term freedom has been simply defined as the “absence of constriction.” It is the “faculty of which man enjoys to determine himself to an action and to bring its cause after having taken consciousness of the considerations that such an action carries for his life.” The validity of the above definitions lies in the assumption on the part of some who believe that man has a will that is free and which consequently acts without constrictions. However, those opposed to it claim that human freedom is determined and that even though man may have a will, this will is not free, that it (will) is determined by various forces, both intrinsic and extrinsic. This leaves us with a question, ‘is man really free?’
Therefore, freedom remains a thorny issue both in practical and in theoretical fields. Practical because the external environment, that is; social, political, economic and cultural realities have constricted it and it has almost been completely suffocated both in the past and in the present. Capitalism and socialism systems on their part avail an environment with humiliating and even oppressive features which bind many in chains making choice an arbitrary and even contradicting in as much as it would contrast the laws of nature which seems deterministic. By socialism exalting the society, it reduces man to an object in a chain to perfecting a society through work while capitalism exalts the freedom of an individual, bring about competition and takes human beings back into the Hobbean ‘state of nature.’
Freedom has been divided into five major forms namely; physical, moral, psychological, political and social. The above are defined as “immunity from physical constriction, absence of constriction through oppressive forces of the moral order such as reward and punishment, absence of pressure on the part of other human activities on the will to perform an act in a determined way such as the intellect or passion, absence of political pressure,…and absence of social determinism” respectively. If Hobbes idea that for a society to exist the masses should cede there freedom to a monarch is true, then it can easily be assumed that there is no political freedom. But considering Locke’s social contract, then it can be concluded that there may be political freedom but only in its relativity. In fact, looking at today’s world, it can be assumed that physical, moral and social freedoms have been eroded and that if they exist, they do so relatively. This leaves us with only one real freedom to be considered: psychological freedom, “the sovereign control over the situations by which the will holds in its hands the power to make a choice in favour of one of various alternative possibilities.” This therefore becomes our focus.
Historically, in ancient Greece, the answer to this question was clear, apart from the freedom at birth, man was not free! This is because they considered that “all things, including man, were considered subject to fate (an absolute will), which consciously or unconsciously determined an action, thus men were exempt from the responsibilities of their actions” and as such, man could not be blamed for whatever reason. Man therefore, being part of nature and subject to the general laws that governed him, could not act differently. They also believed that man was subject to the strong influence of history which they believed to be cyclical. In Christian era, fate cedes its place to God and history came at the service of man. As Saint Augustine rightly points out, “there is the God of the scripture to reveal to us that in man, there is free choice of will.” This makes the medieval era to view freedom in a theocentric perspective. However, the theocentric era could easily have plunged man into perpetual imprisonment because on one hand, it gives assigns free will to man and on the other, it withdrew the same free will, making man only to do wot please the Deity. Possibly this goes with the idea of 'responsibility' that may easily be considered the the sole most important moderator of the free will and consequently, its prisoner. It is not until the modern era with Descartes ‘cogito ergo sum’ that man starts to grasp the consciousness of his autonomy. In this period therefore, the focus of freedom shifts from the relationship with God to relationship with other faculties especially, passion and society. In the contemporary era with its politics, technology and mass media, “freedom is being defined through social forces created by man himself” that seems to be working against the master. The issue therefore is trying to reconcile progress and freedom leaving us with a question: Is man really free?
Basing on the above, there are two principal solutions to this subject namely; deterministic solutions which denies human freedom and indeterministic solution which affirm that man is no doubt, free. The first category is further subdivided into two main sub-divisions; intrinsic and extrinsic determinism. The intrinsic pessimists argue that man is intrinsically bound not to be free. This thinking is further sub-divided into four main sub-classes namely; physiological, psychological, sociological and metaphysical. Physiological intrinsic determinism is defended by the modern scientists who “see in the movement of will simple reactions to determined chemical combinations of cells among human tissues” that man cannot be free because his whole body function is determined by what they view as complex chemical reactions. Structuralists on their part claim that “all human action is determined by the pressure exercised by society on individuals,” and since freedom must be freedom to do something, then an individual cannot claim any freedom for himself. This is particularly real in the contemporary setting where an individual seems to have ceded all his freedom to the society in which he/she lives. philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Leibniz represent a group of psychological determinists who claim that the “action of will is entirely determined by the intellect and its knowledge.” Metaphysical determinists like Spinoza see in nothing ‘more than a movement and a mode of the supreme will and the divine substance and as such, no freedom left for an individual. Therefore, this group of determinists holds that man is doomed not to be free.
Extrinsic determinism on its part suggests that there are external forces which suffocate human freedom. These features it suggests may be mythological or theological. Mythological in that fate, celestial bodies, demons and other things real and not real that man has no control over, constricts an individual’s freedom. Theological extrinsic determinists on their part argue that “the omnipotent of man (God) do not leave any room for man’s freedom.” Such a stand is widely held by Muslims and protestant theology. This still leaves us with the question, is freedom real or it is just an illusion?
The indeterminists who affirm that man is free and indeed should be left to be so, both intrinsically and extrinsically come in to challenge the former groups. On their affirmation stand the human rights declaration which notes in part that “all human beings are born free…endowed with reason and conscience.” On their belief rests the human rights movements led by people like Mandela and Luther. When confronted with the struggle of choosing between fight for liberation of the black people and giving up, Mandela says, “I am not prepared to sell the birth right of people to be free” Viktor Frankal, a holocaust survivor recalling his tribulations and final survival in the concentration camps once wrote in his book ‘man search for meaning’ that “everything can be taken away from you but to choose ones attitude (and action) is left to a person” therefore, there is a belief in the part of many that man is indeed free, both extrinsically and intrinsically, and that this freedom must be safeguarded and upheld.
The indeterminists are, according to Mondin, divided into two major fields namely; gnoseological and ontological fields. The former is further divided into postulative and assertive. Postulative theory taken up by Kant affirms that “man is certainly free but this cannot be theoretically proven.” The assertive theory Aristotle, Saint Thomas Aquinas among others asserts that the freedom of man is real and that it can be proven. The ontological freedom on its part appeals to the intrinsic relationship between freedom and the true nature of a human being, that freedom is a necessary and essential property of a human being. Descartes backed by Sartre affirms that “freedom constitutes the essence itself of man’s nature.”
Various philosophers have presented different arguments in affirmation of human freedom, some like Augustine appealed to testimonies of conscience which attest that ‘we are free to initiate an action, that we can interrupt it, that once fulfilled we are responsible for It.’ Others like Kant have appealed to the intellective constitution of the human being by which an individual comes to have certain mastery over things and over possibilities that these things present to him, while others like Spinoza have used as a focal point the absurdity and disastrous consequences in the negation of freedom. Infact, Kant’s assertion that “although man is free, freedom cannot identify itself to human nature,” seems more applicable and as depicted by Descartes, it (freedom) makes up part of human’s essence. Therefore, this work also highlights the thoughts of various philosophers especially Origen, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Hegel among others.
Origen affirms that “free will constitutes the essence itself of rational creature by which none of them can be constrained to act by force.” Thus, he points to the fact that man is completely free. Being a Christian, he argues that such a freedom has been given by God. Infact, by Descartes putting the ‘ergo’ in the ‘sum,’ through his first principles, he agrees with him. On his part, Descartes through his immanentistic premises claims freedom to be “a choice of pure and simple…spontaneous self-determination of the individual.” He believes that what differentiates man from other animals is his rationality and is ability to choose. Therefore, from his definition and argument, Descartes puts freedom as an essential and necessary element of man which differentiates him any other creatures.
Saint Thomas Aquinas on his part holds human freedom to a higher degree and refutes the deterministic solutions on freedom. He clearly recognizes that in the act of decision making, the will and the intellect must work together. He also affirms that man is fully free especially in making decisions. He rightly notes that,
“Man does not choose of necessity and this is because that which is possible not to be is not of necessity. Now, the reason why it is possible to choose may be gathered from a two fold power in man…for man can will and not will, act and not act, again, he can will this or that and do this or that. Again this is seated in the very power or reason, for the will can tend to whatever reason can apprehend as good…man chooses not of necessity, but freely.”
Immanuel Kant on his part views freedom as a property of the will to give itself a law and not to be subordinate to the law of necessity as phenomena are. Perhaps his most vehement defense of human freedom comes from his critique of practical reason. Kant, tackling the subject of freedom argues that;
“as a rational being and consequently belonging to the intelligible world, man can never conceive the rationality of his own will otherwise than on condition of the idea of freedom, for independence on the determining causes of the sensible world is freedom. Now, the idea of freedom is inseparably connected with the conception of autonomy, and this again with the universal principle of morality which ideally the foundation of all actions of rational beings, just as the law of nature is of all phenomena.”
Therefore, Kant being a moralist recognizes the necessity of freedom in ethics and thus, puts it as the number one requirement in morality. Choice therefore is a necessary element in morality and since man cannot live without morals, then Kant believes that man must be free (so as to act morally). His arguments have formed the basis of human rights declarations.
Consequently, Sartre believed that ‘man is doomed to be free,’ that no matter what, man is free. For him, the freedom of man was absolute. He believed in freedom and responsibility. He says “I am condemned to exist beyond my essence, beyond my causes and motives. I am condemned to be free.” He sees the arguments of determinists as psychic malfunctioning. Therefore, for Sartre, man has absolute freedom that neither the visible nor the invisible forces can curtail. However, he thinks that human freedom may be conditioned by passions.
Having known that the will and the intellect operate together in making choices, it is necessary to look at how a choice is made before we draw a conclusion. According to Mondin, the first step is that the will is attracted by some good, presented by the intellect, but in this step, there is no freedom and thus no responsibility and ultimately no guilt involved here. Secondly, the good presented is examined by the intellect in conjunction with the will to establish if it is an absolute good since the will must always tend towards an absolute good. There is no action taken in this stage and as such no guilt involved. In the third stage, after a through examination in the second stage, various reasons for and against the root of action to be taken are analyzed. This ensures that a good decision is reached and happiness is achieved at the end. This step may take longer than other stages since sound deliberations must be reached. It is also influenced by various features, both internal and external. Lastly, the actual decision is made. This is done through focusing on the favourable elements of the good, neglecting the unfavourable ones. A decision is finally reached and the will swings into play to make an absolute choice. Therefore, even though the intellect participates in evaluating the authenticity of the good, the power to make a decision is left to the will. The choice opted for always tends towards a befitting good and not just an apparent one. Therefore, the relationship between the will and the intellect, which work hand in hand, determines the decision an individual’s makes. The intellect presents a concrete good and will, which tends towards an absolute good, makes a choice. It is important to note that the will and the intellect are all free in their deliberations and hence, the choice opted is free and independent, making man free.
In summary, using the intellect and through the power of the will, man has been left at crossroads, to choose among various possible options at his disposal. These two intrinsic faculties of man give him freedom to choose how to respond to his ever changing habitat. But this freedom is limited by the environment in which he lives and by his nature: body and soul. The soul, as it has been argued by various philosopher, is that faculty in which the intellect and will rests. If the assumption by Aristotle that man is basically body and soul, and if Plato’s argument that the body is the prisoner of the soul holds, then it is inevitably right to assert that man is free, but complete freedom is an illusion, since the soul, which holds the will, is not free.
Having assessed various stands on this subject therefore, it is necessary to note that no group or individual has given any conclusive answer to this subject. Analyzing man’s position in the world today, it is certainly unfair to deny his freedom. Given that; war against a better part of colonialism and slavery has been won and each country has a constitution and a legal system that seeks to safeguard the freedom of man, it is certainly wrong to deny human freedom. It is indeed erroneous to claim that there is no human freedom when all over, there are human rights movements that seek to enhance this freedom. If man is stripped off his freedom, then he is not only reduced to a level of a primitive primate, but in reality, to a mere object which cannot act, for the freedom is essentially freedom to do something. However, it is also incorrect to assert that man is absolutely free both intrinsically and extrinsically. The fact that man lives in a society and is responsible for his actions in such a setting no doubt affirms that man is not completely free. With all the torture chambers all over, wars, the specter of global warming, oppressive political regimes, numerous disasters both natural and man-made like the Haiti Tragedy and the current volcano in Europe, rampant poverty caused by poor societal structures and inequality, it is definitely misleading to say that man is absolutely free. The absolute freedom of man may therefore be said to be ‘becoming.’ If man attains absolute freedom, he may turn into a beast that cannot be tamed by any power.
Therefore, if man has to live with others and survive in his habitat, he has to make choices, an act determined by the will and the intellect. However, man has to be responsible for his freedom, to carry the blame or praises that may come as a result of his choices. Man’s ultimate desire is to attain happiness and he has the power to reach such a goal through his well calculated choices, or fall into frustrations and disappointments if his will is weak. Therefore, although freedom, just like rationality, is an intrinsic feature of an individual, man cannot fully achieve this freedom for he does not live alone in the world. We can therefore rightly conclude that human freedom is real, but that absolute human freedom is an illusion!
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
the immanetist critique
Descartes in his six discourses on the method claims to have found a particularly effective method of guiding his reason that has helped him to make many significant discoveries in his scientific research. He undertakes to explain his method by means of autobiography: he tells the story of his intellectual development and of how he came upon this method.
In the first discourse, he starts by presenting one thing that is most fairly distributed in the world: good sense, which he defines as 'the power of judging well and distinguishing truth from falsity,' which he says is naturally equal in all people. He further says that, “good sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have.” He however points out that our difference in opinion does not arise because of superiority in rationality in others but rather, because people 'direct their thoughts along different ways and do not consider the same things.' He argues that it is not enough to have a sound mind, but that the most important thing is its applicability (the sound mind). This proper application of the mind is what he endevours to achieve and is what he presents here; application that helps one to achieve clear and distinct ideas. Descartes knowing how liable all are to error in what relates to self, including himself, he tries to show the path he has taken and which represents his life. He does not present the method all ought to follow in order to direct their reason correctly, but rather he tries to show that he has tried to direct his own thinking.
After long years of formal studies in some best schools, Descartes finds himself “embarrassed by so many doubts and errors” that it seems to him that 'the only profit' he had had from his efforts to acquire knowledge was his 'progressive discovery' of his own ignorance. Although he says it is good to examine various disciplines, he disregards most them. For example, comparing history to traveling, he says that 'a man who spends too much time traveling becomes a foreigner in his own country' and that to much curiosity of customs of the past goes as a rule with great ignorance of the present customs. He also disregards poetry and rhetoric as natural gifts rather than fruits of study. As a result, he embraces mathematics which gives consistent and coherent proofs.
After discerning in mathematics, because of its 'certainty and self -evidence of reasoning,' he sees that his reasoning can find a firm foundation on mathematics especially geometry, which creates indubitable reasoning. Thus, he starts by disregarding all subjects; save for theology which he says is above his reason, and for mathematics which provided a solid foundation for his discourse. He particularly doubts the validity of sciences, for he says that they have a 'shaky foundation.' he also disregards all pinions of other people ad resolve to make his own studies within himself and use the power of his mind to choose the path to follow. This thus presents Descartes not only as a skeptic (who disregards sensible thing and the opinion of others), but also as a pure rationalist, who has absolute confidence in the power of reason.
In the second discourse, Descartes clearly presents his problem, the problem of attainment of intellectual certainty. He thus desires to acquire a reality that is indubitable and unquestionable, a reality that is intellectually certain. To do this, he sets off by rejecting everything that is, destroying all shaky foundations he has had and coming up with rules to help him find certainty. He says that “I could not do better than to set about rejecting them bodily, so that later on I might admit to believe either other, better opinions or even the same one.pg17. He does not intend to follow any kind of short cuts but rather to follow an extensive path of reasoning to attain certainty, for he says that “ just as high roads that wind about between the hills become gradually so well beaten and convenient through being much used, that it is far much better to follow them than to try to take a short cut by climbing rocks and going down to the bottom of precipices.” Thus, his plan is to try reform his own thought and rebuild them on the ground that is altogether his own.
On knowledge about the people in the world, he says that the world has two kinds of people; those who think that they are clever more than they are, and those who think that they cannot distinguish truth from falsity. This he thinks is unacceptable since, as he had already said, all have been endowed with 'good sense.' he disagrees with the idea of universal agreement, for he notes that “it is much more likely that one person should have hit them(knowledge and truth) for himself, than that a whole nation should.”
The four rules: To direct his thinking, he comes up with four rules for discourse on the method. First, he sets never to accept anything as true that is not clearly and distinctly recognized as so. He does this to avoid precipitancy and prejudice and to embrace his mind only to what presents itself as to his mind so clearly and distinctly. Secondly, he sets to divide each problem he examined into as many parts as possible for its better solution. Thirdly, he sets to advance from the more simple and easy, to knowledge of other complex related objects. This he sets to do by directing his thoughts in an orderly way. Lastly, he intends to make sure that even after such an analysis and division, nothing is omitted in this process. He immediately finds this method effective in solving problems that he had found too difficult before.
From the above four rules it can be noted that a universal methodic (hyperbolic) doubt can be deduced, that is, he uses skeptical arguments not because he is a skeptic himself, but as an analytic device to identify the indubitable. Such a method as he has used it follows the rules of geometry, where everything follows each other necessarily. He notes that “as long as we avoid accepting as true what is not so, and always preserve the right order for deduction of one thing from another, there can be nothing too remote to be reached or too well hidden to be discovered. Indeed, he has full trust in this method (geometrical method) that he thinks the method can be used in all fields. He says that “my method of following the proper order and exactly enumerating all conditions of the problem comprises everything that gives the rule of arithmetic their certainty.” he in fact argues that he has a special pleasure in the method because it ensures him using reason in all fields. Therefore, because the method could be used in all fields, the only necessary thing is to constantly and repeatedly use it.
In the third discourse, in order to come to certainty, Descartes establishes four provisional codes of morals. First, he sets to obey the laws and customs of his country and to faithfully keep to the religion in which he has been raised up and never to take any extreme opinion.pg24. Secondly, he endevours to be as “firm and resolute in action as he could and follow out his most doubtful opinion.”pg25. He compares himself to the lost travelers in the woods, that no matter what, they must not turn left or right but rather, keep on walking as straight as they could in one direction and not to change cause for any slightest reason. He indeed asserts that “it is a sure truth that when we cannot discern the most correct opinion, we must follow the most probable.” Thirdly, he sets to change himself and not the world. In his own words, he says ....try always to concur myself rather than fortune, to change my desire rather than the world.....from the habit of thinking that only our thoughts are completely within our power.” this he sets so that he may be content. Also by doing this, he shuns the worldly material things and resolves not to be tempted by them.
Finally, on moral codes, he sets to examine all the professions in the world and tries to figure out what the best is among them. Thus, he decides to dedicate all his life in cultivating his reason and to advance in the way of knowledge and truth, following his self imposed method. Pg27. He argues that reasoning and search for knowledge is, if not the highest calling, at least extremely useful. Descartes believes that God has given him power to distinguish between truth and falsity, and that he should have thought himself to not rest content with other people's opinion.pg27
In his view, right judgment precedes right action and that the best possible judgment precedes all things one can do right. He affirms here that he did not take up skepticism to be like a skeptic whose aim is to doubt just for the sake of doubting and effect be always undecided, but rather, his aim is to reach security of not stumbling on any error. Thus, his is a purely methodic doubt. For many years after his revelation, Descartes travels widely and gains reputation and wisdom. He then retires to examine his thoughts and solitude.
Proof for the existence of I and God. In the fourth discourse, Descartes offers proofs for the existence of ‘I’ (ergo) and God. Contemplating on the nature of truth, and the unreliability of senses, Descartes become aware of his own process of thinking. That while he is trying to doubt everything, he says that it must therefore be that “I, who is thinking this (qui le pensais), was something.” pg 31. Thus observing this truth, “I am thinking (je pense), therefore I exist.” pg 31. That is, cogito ergo sum. He says that this truth “was so solid and secure that the most extravagant supposition of the skeptic could not overthrow it.” Thus, this (cogito ergo sum) becomes his first principle. He thus puts full trust in the 'I' and takes to doubt all other things because without ‘I,’ all other things cease to be. He says that it is the soul, that makes him who he is, separate and distinct from the body and that the soul is immortal and completely independent, and can exist without the body. Pg 32.
Descartes considers that certainty consist in the fact that “he who is thinking exists”, and this assures him that he speaks the truth, and that he sees very clearly that in order to think, he must exist. Yet he doubts the existence of his own body. His own doubt however leads him to believe that he is imperfect, as he states, “For I saw very clearly that knowledge was a greater perfection than doubt.” In his knowledge and doubt, he realizes that he has the idea of something more perfect than himself. He notes that this idea must come from something more real and perfect and that it is impossible that he should have gotten this idea of perfection out of nothingness. Thus, this idea must have come from a being purely perfect and possessing all perfection. He says that this being must be God. Thus, he affirms, God exists. Pg 33. He says that unlike himself, God is infinite, immutable, omniscient and almighty and that all good things, including the clear and distinct ideas, come from God.
From the proof of the existence of God, he finally agrees with the existence of the material world. He says that while his body (which he calls an extension) and other bodies and intelligences in the world, are not perfect, they must nevertheless come from God. He says that the being and essence of these bodies depend on God's power and that without God; they would not subsist for a single moment.
Descartes reasons that the idea of God and of the soul is only surely found in the intellect. He says that “the reason why many people are convinced that there is difficulty in knowing God, and even in knowing what their soul is, is that they never raise their minds beyond sensible objects, and are used to think of things only by way of imagining them, that whatever is unimaginable appears to them unintelligible. “ pg 35. By this, he thus differs with the scholastic philosophers like Aquinas who argued that “there is nothing in the intellect which has previously not been in the senses.” pg 35. He indeed doubts the reliability of the senses by stating that, “ the sense of sight gives us no less assurance of the object than the senses of smell and hearing; whereas neither our imagination nor our senses can ever assure us of anything except with the aid of understanding.' pg 35. Descartes, in this discourse, believes that “whatever we conceive very clearly and distinctly as true is assured only because God exists.” He believes that God “is a perfect being and everything in us comes from him.” pg 36. Therefore, in this discourse, he is seen as one who has full trust in his reason and who disregards knowledge from possession, imaginations and dreams. He is also seen a religious apologist who wants to relate the existence of everything to God.
In the fifth discourse, Descartes moves from discussing theories of light of reason to theories about human anatomy. He considers that animals have many of the same organs as humans, yet their lack of power of speech and reason points to the fact that they cannot be equated to humans. Even lunatics and insane people have power of speech he says, and so are the deaf who have invented their way of speech. Basing on the above, he concludes that the difference between the animals and man is a sure sign of the “human rational soul.” He considers that God created the rational soul and joined it to the body and that this connection is mysterious. He therefore deduces that the soul must have a life outside the body and thus, unlike the body, it is immortal. This is because he cannot conceive of any other way the soul can perish. He in fact says that “it is not enough for the soul to dwell in the body like a captain in a ship...” and that ' the soul is of its nature entirely independent of the body and thus, not liable to die with it (body).” pg 44. Thus, although he presents the soul as an independent and immortal entity, he nevertheless affirms the unity of man as soul and body and recognizes God's mysterious power in uniting the two. However, he takes a dualistic perspective that does not concur with his geometrical method. He completely fails to convince about this union, after doubting all sensible things and later affirming so clearly the independence and immortality of the soul
In the sixth discourse, Descartes gives the conclusion of this work. He tells of how he has disregarded the knowledge he has acquired from formal education, affirms that God is “the cause of all that exist and could exist.” pg 47 that is, both the extension and the intellect. He also affirms the importance of his discovery and gives reasons why it is a discovery not only of the present but also of the future, not only of self, but also of others and he considers this to be the most important thing. He states that 'our concern must extend further than the present” pg 49. In his words, he conclude by saying that “ the little I have learned is so far hardly anything in comparison with what I do not know and still have hope of finding out.' Thus, he acknowledges the immensity of knowledge and the limitedness of his knowing. Knowing that some of his ideas about physical sciences are controversial and especially in conflict with the church, he asks his readers to read carefully.
CRITICISMS
Descartes, by following one method of search that is; geometrical mathematical method, shows how organized a philosopher he is. By taking a stand on the point of reason and never turning back clearly affirms that he is a fine and pure rationalist. His philosophy is clear and his first principle is indeed indubitable for it follows all rules of deductive logic. He also does well by endeavoring to fight skepticism by taking such a position himself. This is truly a clever and smart way of fighting the ideologies of such people. He seems to be following some Aristotelian mode of reasoning based on syllogisms, where one starts with a major and minor premise to draw a conclusion. He also confirms his wisdom as a philosopher by admitting that knowledge is so immense that human mind cannot be able to know it all. However, while he takes up a position of methodic doubt, he plunges himself into a quandary for he refuses to doubt the truth of religion in which he was born. He also fails to doubt the truth of mathematics, especially geometry, because he wants to employ it in his work, yet he doubts all other truths. This is absurd, because if he says that he doubts everything, there ought to be no need for excluding some other aspects because he wants to use them.
It is also unfortunate that he disregards the work of other people, all that he has learned. Yet clearly, the knowledge he has, the mathematics that he uses to develop his method is a work of other people and it is thus unacceptable to doubt the works of other people while using them. Moreover, by doubting such knowledge as he had learned it, “he employs a two fold strategy: first by purposely being vague on the nature of these ‘principles’ that his former opinions had rested on; all we are told is that his former opinions were derived from the senses.” Secondly, “he convinces his reader of his ‘theoretical justification’ by disguising it as a matter of practical connivance. Certainly ‘practical convince’ is not very good grounds for ‘justification.’” Thus, Descartes take advantage of his reader's ignorance to support his own views.
Thirdly, it is also unacceptable to deny the existence of the body while acknowledging the existence of the 'cogito.' Yet truly, it is impossible for the 'cogito' to be, without the existence of the body. Indeed, the intellect cannot exist on its own, just as the body. The two are complementary to each other for the existence of one necessarily calls for the existence of the other. Therefore, by Descartes disregarding the existence of his body and even other bodies, he falls into solipsism for clearly; it is absurd to disregard their (bodies) existence. In the same respect, Descartes fail to hit the point by stating that his method can be used in all fields. Yet, reality as we know it comes with different challenges that require different approaches and no one method can be said to be appropriate to tackle all situations. By this therefore he commits a fallacy of generalization by taking one method that works in one field and assuming that it can be employed to all other fields.
Descartes also falls into a vicious circle of reasoning about his concept of God and extension thus committing a logical fallacy. In his forth and fifth discourses, he attempts to prove the existence of God. “He states that clear and distinct perception leads to knowledge, and that God’s existence is apparent and obvious because of things we have come to perceive as knowledge. Furthermore, he asserts that we cannot turn these perceptions into knowledge without the assurance that God exists. Essentially, Descartes claims that God is a necessary condition for knowledge, which in turn requires the existence of God.” Indeed “his argument follows a “vicious circle,” as both premises rely on each other’s truth and validity. His argument is basically dependent on certainty of God’s existence, despite an equal amount of uncertainty regarding that existence. Descartes states that no one is definite about the existence of God, nor can they know anything clearly and distinctly until they are certain about the existence of God. Assuming that these premises are accurate, we as humans know nothing because we cannot say with certainty that God exists.” However, taking Descartes as a devoted Christian, apart from being a philosopher, his argument holds for it is in and from God that all proceed and subsist.
Descartes, by reducing everything to reason and negating all facts of experience, employs a coherence mode of attaining truth which is by far, limited. Clearly, his idea that only ‘I’ exist is far removed from common sense and only arises from his psychological concepts (thinking and perceiving) which are abstracted from his own inner experience. There seems to be no connection between the fact of reason and the fact of experience. This kind of egocentric pursuit of reality goes against the reality itself as it is known, for a reality cannot be independently known, but should be known in relation to other realities. For example, I cannot ascertain my being without ascertaining the existence of others. As the traditional African philosophy rightly points out, “I am because you
Are.” This points to the fact that humanity is intrinsically linked together, and that my existence is necessary because others existence is.
Nevertheless, although Descartes may have confused logic and reality as in the case of God, or may have taken the advantage of his readers’ ignorance as in affirming the existence of the cogito without the body, he seems to have hit the target by giving an indubitable truth of the existence of I. surely, his premises are consistently and coherently bound together in the system he makes that it is difficult to disapprove his first principle. And even though he may be blamed for reasoning in a vicious circle about the existence of God and so other things, it should be understood that apart from being a pure rationalist, Descartes is also a pure Christian who cannot give up his beliefs for the sake of philosophy.
In the first discourse, he starts by presenting one thing that is most fairly distributed in the world: good sense, which he defines as 'the power of judging well and distinguishing truth from falsity,' which he says is naturally equal in all people. He further says that, “good sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have.” He however points out that our difference in opinion does not arise because of superiority in rationality in others but rather, because people 'direct their thoughts along different ways and do not consider the same things.' He argues that it is not enough to have a sound mind, but that the most important thing is its applicability (the sound mind). This proper application of the mind is what he endevours to achieve and is what he presents here; application that helps one to achieve clear and distinct ideas. Descartes knowing how liable all are to error in what relates to self, including himself, he tries to show the path he has taken and which represents his life. He does not present the method all ought to follow in order to direct their reason correctly, but rather he tries to show that he has tried to direct his own thinking.
After long years of formal studies in some best schools, Descartes finds himself “embarrassed by so many doubts and errors” that it seems to him that 'the only profit' he had had from his efforts to acquire knowledge was his 'progressive discovery' of his own ignorance. Although he says it is good to examine various disciplines, he disregards most them. For example, comparing history to traveling, he says that 'a man who spends too much time traveling becomes a foreigner in his own country' and that to much curiosity of customs of the past goes as a rule with great ignorance of the present customs. He also disregards poetry and rhetoric as natural gifts rather than fruits of study. As a result, he embraces mathematics which gives consistent and coherent proofs.
After discerning in mathematics, because of its 'certainty and self -evidence of reasoning,' he sees that his reasoning can find a firm foundation on mathematics especially geometry, which creates indubitable reasoning. Thus, he starts by disregarding all subjects; save for theology which he says is above his reason, and for mathematics which provided a solid foundation for his discourse. He particularly doubts the validity of sciences, for he says that they have a 'shaky foundation.' he also disregards all pinions of other people ad resolve to make his own studies within himself and use the power of his mind to choose the path to follow. This thus presents Descartes not only as a skeptic (who disregards sensible thing and the opinion of others), but also as a pure rationalist, who has absolute confidence in the power of reason.
In the second discourse, Descartes clearly presents his problem, the problem of attainment of intellectual certainty. He thus desires to acquire a reality that is indubitable and unquestionable, a reality that is intellectually certain. To do this, he sets off by rejecting everything that is, destroying all shaky foundations he has had and coming up with rules to help him find certainty. He says that “I could not do better than to set about rejecting them bodily, so that later on I might admit to believe either other, better opinions or even the same one.pg17. He does not intend to follow any kind of short cuts but rather to follow an extensive path of reasoning to attain certainty, for he says that “ just as high roads that wind about between the hills become gradually so well beaten and convenient through being much used, that it is far much better to follow them than to try to take a short cut by climbing rocks and going down to the bottom of precipices.” Thus, his plan is to try reform his own thought and rebuild them on the ground that is altogether his own.
On knowledge about the people in the world, he says that the world has two kinds of people; those who think that they are clever more than they are, and those who think that they cannot distinguish truth from falsity. This he thinks is unacceptable since, as he had already said, all have been endowed with 'good sense.' he disagrees with the idea of universal agreement, for he notes that “it is much more likely that one person should have hit them(knowledge and truth) for himself, than that a whole nation should.”
The four rules: To direct his thinking, he comes up with four rules for discourse on the method. First, he sets never to accept anything as true that is not clearly and distinctly recognized as so. He does this to avoid precipitancy and prejudice and to embrace his mind only to what presents itself as to his mind so clearly and distinctly. Secondly, he sets to divide each problem he examined into as many parts as possible for its better solution. Thirdly, he sets to advance from the more simple and easy, to knowledge of other complex related objects. This he sets to do by directing his thoughts in an orderly way. Lastly, he intends to make sure that even after such an analysis and division, nothing is omitted in this process. He immediately finds this method effective in solving problems that he had found too difficult before.
From the above four rules it can be noted that a universal methodic (hyperbolic) doubt can be deduced, that is, he uses skeptical arguments not because he is a skeptic himself, but as an analytic device to identify the indubitable. Such a method as he has used it follows the rules of geometry, where everything follows each other necessarily. He notes that “as long as we avoid accepting as true what is not so, and always preserve the right order for deduction of one thing from another, there can be nothing too remote to be reached or too well hidden to be discovered. Indeed, he has full trust in this method (geometrical method) that he thinks the method can be used in all fields. He says that “my method of following the proper order and exactly enumerating all conditions of the problem comprises everything that gives the rule of arithmetic their certainty.” he in fact argues that he has a special pleasure in the method because it ensures him using reason in all fields. Therefore, because the method could be used in all fields, the only necessary thing is to constantly and repeatedly use it.
In the third discourse, in order to come to certainty, Descartes establishes four provisional codes of morals. First, he sets to obey the laws and customs of his country and to faithfully keep to the religion in which he has been raised up and never to take any extreme opinion.pg24. Secondly, he endevours to be as “firm and resolute in action as he could and follow out his most doubtful opinion.”pg25. He compares himself to the lost travelers in the woods, that no matter what, they must not turn left or right but rather, keep on walking as straight as they could in one direction and not to change cause for any slightest reason. He indeed asserts that “it is a sure truth that when we cannot discern the most correct opinion, we must follow the most probable.” Thirdly, he sets to change himself and not the world. In his own words, he says ....try always to concur myself rather than fortune, to change my desire rather than the world.....from the habit of thinking that only our thoughts are completely within our power.” this he sets so that he may be content. Also by doing this, he shuns the worldly material things and resolves not to be tempted by them.
Finally, on moral codes, he sets to examine all the professions in the world and tries to figure out what the best is among them. Thus, he decides to dedicate all his life in cultivating his reason and to advance in the way of knowledge and truth, following his self imposed method. Pg27. He argues that reasoning and search for knowledge is, if not the highest calling, at least extremely useful. Descartes believes that God has given him power to distinguish between truth and falsity, and that he should have thought himself to not rest content with other people's opinion.pg27
In his view, right judgment precedes right action and that the best possible judgment precedes all things one can do right. He affirms here that he did not take up skepticism to be like a skeptic whose aim is to doubt just for the sake of doubting and effect be always undecided, but rather, his aim is to reach security of not stumbling on any error. Thus, his is a purely methodic doubt. For many years after his revelation, Descartes travels widely and gains reputation and wisdom. He then retires to examine his thoughts and solitude.
Proof for the existence of I and God. In the fourth discourse, Descartes offers proofs for the existence of ‘I’ (ergo) and God. Contemplating on the nature of truth, and the unreliability of senses, Descartes become aware of his own process of thinking. That while he is trying to doubt everything, he says that it must therefore be that “I, who is thinking this (qui le pensais), was something.” pg 31. Thus observing this truth, “I am thinking (je pense), therefore I exist.” pg 31. That is, cogito ergo sum. He says that this truth “was so solid and secure that the most extravagant supposition of the skeptic could not overthrow it.” Thus, this (cogito ergo sum) becomes his first principle. He thus puts full trust in the 'I' and takes to doubt all other things because without ‘I,’ all other things cease to be. He says that it is the soul, that makes him who he is, separate and distinct from the body and that the soul is immortal and completely independent, and can exist without the body. Pg 32.
Descartes considers that certainty consist in the fact that “he who is thinking exists”, and this assures him that he speaks the truth, and that he sees very clearly that in order to think, he must exist. Yet he doubts the existence of his own body. His own doubt however leads him to believe that he is imperfect, as he states, “For I saw very clearly that knowledge was a greater perfection than doubt.” In his knowledge and doubt, he realizes that he has the idea of something more perfect than himself. He notes that this idea must come from something more real and perfect and that it is impossible that he should have gotten this idea of perfection out of nothingness. Thus, this idea must have come from a being purely perfect and possessing all perfection. He says that this being must be God. Thus, he affirms, God exists. Pg 33. He says that unlike himself, God is infinite, immutable, omniscient and almighty and that all good things, including the clear and distinct ideas, come from God.
From the proof of the existence of God, he finally agrees with the existence of the material world. He says that while his body (which he calls an extension) and other bodies and intelligences in the world, are not perfect, they must nevertheless come from God. He says that the being and essence of these bodies depend on God's power and that without God; they would not subsist for a single moment.
Descartes reasons that the idea of God and of the soul is only surely found in the intellect. He says that “the reason why many people are convinced that there is difficulty in knowing God, and even in knowing what their soul is, is that they never raise their minds beyond sensible objects, and are used to think of things only by way of imagining them, that whatever is unimaginable appears to them unintelligible. “ pg 35. By this, he thus differs with the scholastic philosophers like Aquinas who argued that “there is nothing in the intellect which has previously not been in the senses.” pg 35. He indeed doubts the reliability of the senses by stating that, “ the sense of sight gives us no less assurance of the object than the senses of smell and hearing; whereas neither our imagination nor our senses can ever assure us of anything except with the aid of understanding.' pg 35. Descartes, in this discourse, believes that “whatever we conceive very clearly and distinctly as true is assured only because God exists.” He believes that God “is a perfect being and everything in us comes from him.” pg 36. Therefore, in this discourse, he is seen as one who has full trust in his reason and who disregards knowledge from possession, imaginations and dreams. He is also seen a religious apologist who wants to relate the existence of everything to God.
In the fifth discourse, Descartes moves from discussing theories of light of reason to theories about human anatomy. He considers that animals have many of the same organs as humans, yet their lack of power of speech and reason points to the fact that they cannot be equated to humans. Even lunatics and insane people have power of speech he says, and so are the deaf who have invented their way of speech. Basing on the above, he concludes that the difference between the animals and man is a sure sign of the “human rational soul.” He considers that God created the rational soul and joined it to the body and that this connection is mysterious. He therefore deduces that the soul must have a life outside the body and thus, unlike the body, it is immortal. This is because he cannot conceive of any other way the soul can perish. He in fact says that “it is not enough for the soul to dwell in the body like a captain in a ship...” and that ' the soul is of its nature entirely independent of the body and thus, not liable to die with it (body).” pg 44. Thus, although he presents the soul as an independent and immortal entity, he nevertheless affirms the unity of man as soul and body and recognizes God's mysterious power in uniting the two. However, he takes a dualistic perspective that does not concur with his geometrical method. He completely fails to convince about this union, after doubting all sensible things and later affirming so clearly the independence and immortality of the soul
In the sixth discourse, Descartes gives the conclusion of this work. He tells of how he has disregarded the knowledge he has acquired from formal education, affirms that God is “the cause of all that exist and could exist.” pg 47 that is, both the extension and the intellect. He also affirms the importance of his discovery and gives reasons why it is a discovery not only of the present but also of the future, not only of self, but also of others and he considers this to be the most important thing. He states that 'our concern must extend further than the present” pg 49. In his words, he conclude by saying that “ the little I have learned is so far hardly anything in comparison with what I do not know and still have hope of finding out.' Thus, he acknowledges the immensity of knowledge and the limitedness of his knowing. Knowing that some of his ideas about physical sciences are controversial and especially in conflict with the church, he asks his readers to read carefully.
CRITICISMS
Descartes, by following one method of search that is; geometrical mathematical method, shows how organized a philosopher he is. By taking a stand on the point of reason and never turning back clearly affirms that he is a fine and pure rationalist. His philosophy is clear and his first principle is indeed indubitable for it follows all rules of deductive logic. He also does well by endeavoring to fight skepticism by taking such a position himself. This is truly a clever and smart way of fighting the ideologies of such people. He seems to be following some Aristotelian mode of reasoning based on syllogisms, where one starts with a major and minor premise to draw a conclusion. He also confirms his wisdom as a philosopher by admitting that knowledge is so immense that human mind cannot be able to know it all. However, while he takes up a position of methodic doubt, he plunges himself into a quandary for he refuses to doubt the truth of religion in which he was born. He also fails to doubt the truth of mathematics, especially geometry, because he wants to employ it in his work, yet he doubts all other truths. This is absurd, because if he says that he doubts everything, there ought to be no need for excluding some other aspects because he wants to use them.
It is also unfortunate that he disregards the work of other people, all that he has learned. Yet clearly, the knowledge he has, the mathematics that he uses to develop his method is a work of other people and it is thus unacceptable to doubt the works of other people while using them. Moreover, by doubting such knowledge as he had learned it, “he employs a two fold strategy: first by purposely being vague on the nature of these ‘principles’ that his former opinions had rested on; all we are told is that his former opinions were derived from the senses.” Secondly, “he convinces his reader of his ‘theoretical justification’ by disguising it as a matter of practical connivance. Certainly ‘practical convince’ is not very good grounds for ‘justification.’” Thus, Descartes take advantage of his reader's ignorance to support his own views.
Thirdly, it is also unacceptable to deny the existence of the body while acknowledging the existence of the 'cogito.' Yet truly, it is impossible for the 'cogito' to be, without the existence of the body. Indeed, the intellect cannot exist on its own, just as the body. The two are complementary to each other for the existence of one necessarily calls for the existence of the other. Therefore, by Descartes disregarding the existence of his body and even other bodies, he falls into solipsism for clearly; it is absurd to disregard their (bodies) existence. In the same respect, Descartes fail to hit the point by stating that his method can be used in all fields. Yet, reality as we know it comes with different challenges that require different approaches and no one method can be said to be appropriate to tackle all situations. By this therefore he commits a fallacy of generalization by taking one method that works in one field and assuming that it can be employed to all other fields.
Descartes also falls into a vicious circle of reasoning about his concept of God and extension thus committing a logical fallacy. In his forth and fifth discourses, he attempts to prove the existence of God. “He states that clear and distinct perception leads to knowledge, and that God’s existence is apparent and obvious because of things we have come to perceive as knowledge. Furthermore, he asserts that we cannot turn these perceptions into knowledge without the assurance that God exists. Essentially, Descartes claims that God is a necessary condition for knowledge, which in turn requires the existence of God.” Indeed “his argument follows a “vicious circle,” as both premises rely on each other’s truth and validity. His argument is basically dependent on certainty of God’s existence, despite an equal amount of uncertainty regarding that existence. Descartes states that no one is definite about the existence of God, nor can they know anything clearly and distinctly until they are certain about the existence of God. Assuming that these premises are accurate, we as humans know nothing because we cannot say with certainty that God exists.” However, taking Descartes as a devoted Christian, apart from being a philosopher, his argument holds for it is in and from God that all proceed and subsist.
Descartes, by reducing everything to reason and negating all facts of experience, employs a coherence mode of attaining truth which is by far, limited. Clearly, his idea that only ‘I’ exist is far removed from common sense and only arises from his psychological concepts (thinking and perceiving) which are abstracted from his own inner experience. There seems to be no connection between the fact of reason and the fact of experience. This kind of egocentric pursuit of reality goes against the reality itself as it is known, for a reality cannot be independently known, but should be known in relation to other realities. For example, I cannot ascertain my being without ascertaining the existence of others. As the traditional African philosophy rightly points out, “I am because you
Are.” This points to the fact that humanity is intrinsically linked together, and that my existence is necessary because others existence is.
Nevertheless, although Descartes may have confused logic and reality as in the case of God, or may have taken the advantage of his readers’ ignorance as in affirming the existence of the cogito without the body, he seems to have hit the target by giving an indubitable truth of the existence of I. surely, his premises are consistently and coherently bound together in the system he makes that it is difficult to disapprove his first principle. And even though he may be blamed for reasoning in a vicious circle about the existence of God and so other things, it should be understood that apart from being a pure rationalist, Descartes is also a pure Christian who cannot give up his beliefs for the sake of philosophy.
the essence of education
The term and the concept Education
The term education originates from a Latin word 'Educatio' derived from the verb 'educare' which used to mean the whole activity of or 'general process of growing up, rearing or bringing up' in the antiquity. It was basically used to refer to rearing of animals and plants and bringing up of children. Although in this sense it meant a physical process, it never excluded mental care of children. Even when the word 'education' was adopted into English up to 19th century, it could still be used as in 'the education of silkworm, of bees.' in the last two centuries, the word was restricted to children.
It is worth noting that 'education' and 'instruction' were used in different ways by the ancient Romans, the former was used to refer to the whole process of bringing up children, while the latter to the more specific process of formal, systematic learning in schools. In the mean time, this distinction was extended into the English Language but at the moment, the meaning conferred by the term education is derived from 'original instruction' and is used to refer to primary or secondary but in other sense to mean schooling. Casually, we speak of education as schooling.
Education as a concept is rather complex to be limited to one or few characteristics, it has a host of meanings in embracing or pointing at various ideas like growing up, instruction, training, schooling e.t.c. Therefore, education being a wide concept is not precise in meaning, moreover, it is a relational concept that cannot be understood in isolation from situations, attitudes and goals, its practices and aims. This is why it is a dynamic concept in meaning and practice.
According to the International encyclopedia of social sciences, education is primarily understood as instruction. It is written there that 'instruction is a basic activity of humankind. Men inform one another conveying beliefs, knowledge and skill, as they raise a family, earn a living, govern a polity, minister a church, nurse the ill, encounter friends.....” Therefore, education can be viewed as ‘including all communicating of knowledge and shaping of values, it is viewed similar to socialization.’
The normative dimension of education.
Education being a multi-dimensional concept as earlier discussed, has distinct but inter-related dimensions which all together give us the best understanding of the concept. Socialization is what gives light to what normative dimension is. Socialization can be defined as ' a process whereby an individual learns to accept the norms, values and ways of behaviour characteristic of the society to which they belong. It can either be formal or informal. The agents of socialization are 'parents, grand parents, relatives, neighbours, elders and formal teachers.' it is not only individually done but also collectively. In other words, it is a mandate of all adult members of the society in question. Normative dimension being concerned with instilling norms, values, …....socialization does not define the core concept of education. It only points to parts of the concept but not in totality. Worth noting, however much as socialization brings out the basic areas of normative dimension of education. It is admitted that sociological definition does not give a comprehensive grasp of the dimension. It tends to go beyond what is done in socialization. The term socialization as used by sociologists and social anthropologists define education descriptively, giving what is actually done or observed as 'the process of education.' Such definitions are rather empirical, basing on careful observation and empirical investigation.
Normative definition of education however tends to define education in terms of what ought to or should happen, such a definition 'enters into the areas of values and deals.' in other words, they provide us with prescriptions not with descriptions of education. The normative dimension serves as a guideline pointing to the future, and it is emphasized by policy makers, philosophers and educationalists. Normative dimension of education refers to norms or standards to guide the educational activities, to serve as a principal guideline for educational theory and practice.
Using official government reports and documents of Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania are given by Njoroge and Bennaars as examples of the goal oriented dimension of education. Suggesting ideals is a clear indication that education has a purpose to fulfill. That is why it is a very serious business and expensive indeed. It is because of its purposefulness that motivates society to shoulder all it takes in terms of mobilizing resources.
R.S Peters, an analytic philosopher understands education as an activity aiming at confering what is considered valuable to learners. Therefore, according to him, education aims at instilling values, qualities, skills, and it is these that he calls it the 'value condition' of education. He further defines this as the 'normative criterion,' since values are often explicated in norms, and from all these we arrive at a normative dimension of education.
The background information which is very important is to know the various perspectives in which education was regarded through ages past. In traditional African society, informal education was basically aiming at instilling moral values. But from Islamic perspective, Islamic traditional education was rooted in 'hadith' and Islamic law aimed at instilling religious ethics. On the other hand however, education in the colonial Africa was not centered on practical knowledge, but for adaptation and assimilation of western values and Christian ethics. Critically analyzing the above, there is a common moral concern in all traditions; they were all normative in nature. This is now changing with modernity which emphasizes pragmatism and neglects morality. This in one way or another provokes a thinker to reflect and analyze. The relationship between education and ethics and this is done in the normative dimension of education.
Education and ethics: initial orientation
As mentioned earlier, it is clear that the purpose of education should be to confer desirable or valuable qualities. Aristotle's question reflects this ''should knowledge or virtue or the useful in life be the aim of education.?”
In traditional African societies, promotion of virtue was first hand priority but not downplaying the useful in life. The two were compatible. 'the useful' was not pursued for its sake but partly as means to aiming at virtue. The traditional education systems focused on morality as the core of learning, no wonder, in the ancient Greek society, they regarded knowledge as 'virtue.'
In modern educational systems, morality is sometimes locked outside, and they focus on economic lines, especially scientific knowledge, for promoting economic gains but far from an ethical world. The problem arises when it is forgotten that economic activities cannot be isolated from moral or ethical values. Here we are prompted to ask ourselves, what is the purpose or end of education? And this being an ethical question, it brings us to the branch of philosophy namely, 'axiology' which basically studies ethical matters in a normative sense. However, although axiology studies values in a wider sense, our concern is specifically ethics.
Under this section, 'education and ethics: initial orientation' we try to look at the original meaning of ethics and its various applicabilities or types.
Ethics is a term originating from a Greek word 'ethos' which means 'established customs or conventions of a community or a social group.' 'ethos' has 'mores' as its equivalent in Latin. In its strict sense, ethics stood to mean the study of people's customs, but the original meaning has dissolved with time. Therefore, it is appropriate to first analyze the common usage. In the day to day meaning of the term ethics, it refers to a set of standards by which a group of people decide to abide by in order to regulate its behaviours. Deducing from this understanding of the term, different codes of behaviours depend on different groups in question. Here we speak of medical, business or professional ethics in general. In more general terms, we talk of Christian ethics, national or social ethics. First, to members of these given groups , a behaviour will be considered ethical if it conforms to the stipulated behaviour, if it doesn't then it is immoral or unethical.
Secondly, each code of conduct is rooted in some moral principle which in turn reflects certain moral values. All moral values are believed to have originated from two sources that is; from the divine law as revealed in the Bible or Quran or from human philosophical reflections (moral philosophy.)
In the strict sense or in the academic usage of the term ethics, we still divide it into three namely; the descriptive ethics, normative ethics and meta ethics.
(a) Descriptive ethics.
This implies 'the scientific or empirical investigation of moral conduct in a given society or community.' under this, social anthropologists and sociologists endevour to describe visible human behaviours, but in relation to the established or society's accepted norms. Ones behaviour is regarded as good/normal if it tallies with the norms of the society, and behaviour is bad if it doesn't. Kollberg gives various stages of moral development, in fact, there are three namely;
1. pre-conventional levels. These occur when a child acts either to avoid punishment or to be rewarded, without or with less concern for values or norms.
2. At a conventional level, a child's behaviour is basically determined by social approval, a child conforms to the expectations of the society.
3. And in the post conventional stage , young people begin becoming autonomous in matters of morality, by reflecting on general moral principles or the values they present.
(b) Normative ethics.
This doesn't describe but instead prescribes or recommends, but in similar way as the above, it involves the study of moral conduct, but in a divergent sense. Here thinkers study moral or ethical principles, reflect and analyze them before they are recommended. They ask questions like; what makes something good or bad? Moral or immoral?
c) Meta- ethics.
Is a new form of moral study, being derived from the analytic philosophy, it studies the meaning of ethical terms. 'meta-ethics is a form of linguistic analysis: the language used in ethics is critically analyzed in order to clarify meanings of terms and statements.' this serves both descriptive and normative ethics and it is between them, but in a critical sense.
2. Moral standards: A Philosophical critique.
Education refers to a goal, which is achieved through setting of specific standards. These standards are beneficial for equipping the learners with some distinctive skills for coping with challenges of life. To a large extent, education helps in forming and shaping the moral life of a learner. It enables learners to develop a sense of disposition to do good.
Influence of education on human life.
Education has both direct and indirect influence on learners. It acts as an instrument for leading the learners towards the achievement of the “good life.” Hence, it is understandable that education is part of morality. But before we proceed, let us define the moral standards, their sources and how they contribute to education.
Moral standards
Moral standards refer to norms, rules or principles that are designed to govern human conducts. They act as the correct measure for evaluating human behaviours either as right or wrong.
Sources of moral standards
There are many sources of moral standards. They include, divine command, cultural dictates among others.
a. Divine Command is one of the sources of morality. There is a belief that this source came from Supreme Creator as it is found the in the
Bible, Quran and other divine books. These books; Bible, Quran, etc, contain Commandments which express how we should relate with God and our fellow human beings. Moral principles such as you should not kill, steal or committing adultery helps us be morally upright. Although they are generally good, the non-believers are excludes from this source.
b. Human society
We get our morality from the social institutions such as the family, culture and the governments. Members of these institutions establish moral principles for governing human conducts in order to live harmoniously with others. All members of these institutions are required to conform to the norms that are formed by these institutions.
c. Human reason as source of morality.
Human reason is a source of morality. Here norms for governing human conducts come from a personal independent reflection. A person therefore becomes the lawmaker for acting according to his or her own conviction. For example a hungry man decides to steal in order to satisfy his hunger.
Philosophical Approach to the source of morality
There are philosophical theories that explain the sources of human morality. This category has two set of theories for moral obligation.
They are teleological theories and deontological theories.
1. Teleological theories.
These are theories that judge moral decisions as good or bad on the basis of the desired consequences. These consequences are closely connected to the set goals of an individual. According to these theories, any act which is considered good directly depends on the major aim which exclude non moral values. Hence, any act which is morally upright is the ultimate good. This ultimate good benefits people according to ethical egoism and utilitarianism theories.
a).Ethical egoism
This theory state that a person “must always do what he wills to promote his or her greatest good.” Here, a person is the sole judge of what is good for him or her. Proponents of this theory associates “the good with pleasure and knowledge”
b).Utilitarianism
It is an ethical theory which maintains that the “an act is right if it useful to bring about good or good end.” This good is expected to advance the happiness of each person in the society. This theory includes act utilitarianism and the rule utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism. According to act utilitarianism, each person is expected to act in a manner that brings the best good than bad for each individual who is affect by the act.
Proponents of this theory do object the idea of establishing rules for governing human actions because of the variation of circumstances. The limitation of this theory is that it difficult to determine what is good for every one because people have divergent interest.
Rule Utilitarianism. It is a theory which states that each person “should always establish and follow the” promulgated rules and act in a manner that “brings the greatest good for all concerned.” Establishing these rules involves the use of our experience and reason capacity that enables us to act in way that brings the greatest good for everyone.
2. Deontological Theories
Deontological theories identify the good with the duty. These theories stress on the existence of rules that are used as the correct scale for judging human conducts as good or bad. I.e the golden mean.
a).Act – Deontological Theory
According to this theory, a person makes the moral judgments according to a particular situation and case. For example, one, threatened by thugs, may fight back even to a point of killing. He does this in a disparate attempt to save his/her life.
b. Theories of moral values
These theories are concerned with the moral decisions according to a person’s motivations. Basically our morality in this class of theory stresses on the effective use of the virtue. Virtues help us to know the good and to do the good in the right way.
3. EDUCATION AND ETHICS: - AN APPRAISAL.
At this juncture we are going to make a rigorous evaluation of what education is from a stand point of ethics. Put differently, the relationship between education and morality. Since education in its
fundamental meaning deals with what a person should be and not what he should do. Then, it is worth to deal with what can lead us to this point. As we have seen from the onset of this work, education is an activity which aims at developing desirable qualities in people. This is quite axiomatic that every society needs members with good qualities. This end can only be successfully achieved by integrating ethics in teaching.
Since education is a purposeful activity, educators should try to make a clear direction of education in order to reach their goals. Throughout history, it has been the mission of education to cultivate virtue. Thus in a way, education and ethics are inseparable. Of course, what is considered good and virtuous in one society may profoundly differ from another society. This is the work of all education stakeholders to adjust according to the needs of the society. Denying morality in education is tantamount to denying education in itself, this is because morality is the basis of education.
Therefore, the major aim of education is to instill values, skills, attitudes and behaviours in learners, to make them fit in their societies and more importantly, to enable them face the challenges of life in their environment. Moreover, living in a society involves interacting with people from different backgrounds and with different temperaments. The ethical part of education therefore will enable learners to adapt and make necessary adjustments. Education that is built on the principles of morality clearly helps people to solve their daily problems and get along with people amicably and respectfully.
4. New direction...... “Moral Education”
Normative education was in the past pre-determined by the norms and customs. E.g. in the already established region and even African societies. In such a case the norms and the standards could not be questioned but rather unconditionally accepted. This was done through the initiation into the established norms and values of the societies through baptism circumcision etc. However, this kind of education was flawed because the older generation tried to impose their norms and teaching on the younger ones. Being in the authoritarian manner it should easily be called ‘norm training’ rather than ‘moral education’ because the people were condition to follow. And as Plato said, “knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.” Therefore, this kind of education is not so useful today. Free dictionary defines 'moral' as something “Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong.” or “Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong.”
In the modern world however, with a great diversity of norms and standards derived from different societies, where man is not sure of what is wrong or right , norms and standards are questioned by the younger generation and as such cannot be imposed. In the modern world, education is taking a pragmatic dimension , where what works seem more appropriate than the ideal. Education is more concerned with the objective facts and as such, education seem to take place in amoral vacuum, where there is no sense of right or wrong. With this in mind, education is seen as a mean/tool to an end rather than an end in itself, only judged as useful or useless according to its practicality rather than its moral sense
Therefore, in such an atmosphere, education concentrates at producing market based people, those with economic values and productivity, rather than molding morally upright individuals that can strengthen the society's ties and enhance the common good of all, where all are equal and humanity more important than an individual. This can explain why egoism is rising, why technology is against its master, why man seems to be against himself, and indeed why a new beginning is necessary.
With the above in mind, a philosopher's intervention is inevitable, who ought to shift the attention to moral education, where man comes to terms with life in an out rightly humanistic way. Thus, rather than moral training, emphasized in the past, moral education aimed at developing valuable qualities in learners, the inner conscience, is necessary.
First, because man need to discover his identity as a human being, as one with inbuilt conscience. Here, man ought to be empowered with knowledge and understanding which is necessary for him to justify human morality in difficult times. I.e., not only defining what is good or bad, but also developing the inner conscience to perceive and achieve such ethics in difficult situations, and through this, understanding the fundamental right of human being to existence.
Secondly, because to-day's man wants autonomous ethics, where ethical standards originate directly from him, serious reflection on the meaning and significance of such moral principle is necessary; where man has to deeply and thoughtfully search for answers about this autonomous principle, that is to say, develop a moral conscience which enables him to make sound decision, and follow the right way even at a sacrifice of his own personal interest, or interest of his country or ethnic group (the golden rule in practice). As Spinoza says, “that the flourishing of individuals depends on their personal resources, namely, their conatus(tendency simulating a human effort), power, vitality or capacity to act from their own inner natures.” This is only enabled by moral education rather than moral training.
Thirdly, to avoid the gap between the individual and the society in which he lives, where man is either too great because of egoism or the society too important because of reverence, there ought to be a dialogue between the two, for one influences the other. This is expressed through the dialogical dimension of education, which is catered for in moral education, which not only recognizes and upholds the dignity of an individual together their intrinsic worth and capacity but also the necessity and vitality of the society in which he lives. On the other hand, moral training being authoritative, tends to be non dialogical, and in the process, alienating modern man.
Therefore, education normatively speaking, is moral education, and in this case, we are keen on the content of moral education rather than its approach. Moral education teaches modern man to appreciate the need for universal norms of morality, service to humanity, providing man with the much needed moral sense and social ethics that is, both meaningful and relevant. Ethics that not only reminds him that he has a dignity and intrinsic worth, but that also he should concern himself with human centered values, values aimed at attaining the golden rule.
The term education originates from a Latin word 'Educatio' derived from the verb 'educare' which used to mean the whole activity of or 'general process of growing up, rearing or bringing up' in the antiquity. It was basically used to refer to rearing of animals and plants and bringing up of children. Although in this sense it meant a physical process, it never excluded mental care of children. Even when the word 'education' was adopted into English up to 19th century, it could still be used as in 'the education of silkworm, of bees.' in the last two centuries, the word was restricted to children.
It is worth noting that 'education' and 'instruction' were used in different ways by the ancient Romans, the former was used to refer to the whole process of bringing up children, while the latter to the more specific process of formal, systematic learning in schools. In the mean time, this distinction was extended into the English Language but at the moment, the meaning conferred by the term education is derived from 'original instruction' and is used to refer to primary or secondary but in other sense to mean schooling. Casually, we speak of education as schooling.
Education as a concept is rather complex to be limited to one or few characteristics, it has a host of meanings in embracing or pointing at various ideas like growing up, instruction, training, schooling e.t.c. Therefore, education being a wide concept is not precise in meaning, moreover, it is a relational concept that cannot be understood in isolation from situations, attitudes and goals, its practices and aims. This is why it is a dynamic concept in meaning and practice.
According to the International encyclopedia of social sciences, education is primarily understood as instruction. It is written there that 'instruction is a basic activity of humankind. Men inform one another conveying beliefs, knowledge and skill, as they raise a family, earn a living, govern a polity, minister a church, nurse the ill, encounter friends.....” Therefore, education can be viewed as ‘including all communicating of knowledge and shaping of values, it is viewed similar to socialization.’
The normative dimension of education.
Education being a multi-dimensional concept as earlier discussed, has distinct but inter-related dimensions which all together give us the best understanding of the concept. Socialization is what gives light to what normative dimension is. Socialization can be defined as ' a process whereby an individual learns to accept the norms, values and ways of behaviour characteristic of the society to which they belong. It can either be formal or informal. The agents of socialization are 'parents, grand parents, relatives, neighbours, elders and formal teachers.' it is not only individually done but also collectively. In other words, it is a mandate of all adult members of the society in question. Normative dimension being concerned with instilling norms, values, …....socialization does not define the core concept of education. It only points to parts of the concept but not in totality. Worth noting, however much as socialization brings out the basic areas of normative dimension of education. It is admitted that sociological definition does not give a comprehensive grasp of the dimension. It tends to go beyond what is done in socialization. The term socialization as used by sociologists and social anthropologists define education descriptively, giving what is actually done or observed as 'the process of education.' Such definitions are rather empirical, basing on careful observation and empirical investigation.
Normative definition of education however tends to define education in terms of what ought to or should happen, such a definition 'enters into the areas of values and deals.' in other words, they provide us with prescriptions not with descriptions of education. The normative dimension serves as a guideline pointing to the future, and it is emphasized by policy makers, philosophers and educationalists. Normative dimension of education refers to norms or standards to guide the educational activities, to serve as a principal guideline for educational theory and practice.
Using official government reports and documents of Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania are given by Njoroge and Bennaars as examples of the goal oriented dimension of education. Suggesting ideals is a clear indication that education has a purpose to fulfill. That is why it is a very serious business and expensive indeed. It is because of its purposefulness that motivates society to shoulder all it takes in terms of mobilizing resources.
R.S Peters, an analytic philosopher understands education as an activity aiming at confering what is considered valuable to learners. Therefore, according to him, education aims at instilling values, qualities, skills, and it is these that he calls it the 'value condition' of education. He further defines this as the 'normative criterion,' since values are often explicated in norms, and from all these we arrive at a normative dimension of education.
The background information which is very important is to know the various perspectives in which education was regarded through ages past. In traditional African society, informal education was basically aiming at instilling moral values. But from Islamic perspective, Islamic traditional education was rooted in 'hadith' and Islamic law aimed at instilling religious ethics. On the other hand however, education in the colonial Africa was not centered on practical knowledge, but for adaptation and assimilation of western values and Christian ethics. Critically analyzing the above, there is a common moral concern in all traditions; they were all normative in nature. This is now changing with modernity which emphasizes pragmatism and neglects morality. This in one way or another provokes a thinker to reflect and analyze. The relationship between education and ethics and this is done in the normative dimension of education.
Education and ethics: initial orientation
As mentioned earlier, it is clear that the purpose of education should be to confer desirable or valuable qualities. Aristotle's question reflects this ''should knowledge or virtue or the useful in life be the aim of education.?”
In traditional African societies, promotion of virtue was first hand priority but not downplaying the useful in life. The two were compatible. 'the useful' was not pursued for its sake but partly as means to aiming at virtue. The traditional education systems focused on morality as the core of learning, no wonder, in the ancient Greek society, they regarded knowledge as 'virtue.'
In modern educational systems, morality is sometimes locked outside, and they focus on economic lines, especially scientific knowledge, for promoting economic gains but far from an ethical world. The problem arises when it is forgotten that economic activities cannot be isolated from moral or ethical values. Here we are prompted to ask ourselves, what is the purpose or end of education? And this being an ethical question, it brings us to the branch of philosophy namely, 'axiology' which basically studies ethical matters in a normative sense. However, although axiology studies values in a wider sense, our concern is specifically ethics.
Under this section, 'education and ethics: initial orientation' we try to look at the original meaning of ethics and its various applicabilities or types.
Ethics is a term originating from a Greek word 'ethos' which means 'established customs or conventions of a community or a social group.' 'ethos' has 'mores' as its equivalent in Latin. In its strict sense, ethics stood to mean the study of people's customs, but the original meaning has dissolved with time. Therefore, it is appropriate to first analyze the common usage. In the day to day meaning of the term ethics, it refers to a set of standards by which a group of people decide to abide by in order to regulate its behaviours. Deducing from this understanding of the term, different codes of behaviours depend on different groups in question. Here we speak of medical, business or professional ethics in general. In more general terms, we talk of Christian ethics, national or social ethics. First, to members of these given groups , a behaviour will be considered ethical if it conforms to the stipulated behaviour, if it doesn't then it is immoral or unethical.
Secondly, each code of conduct is rooted in some moral principle which in turn reflects certain moral values. All moral values are believed to have originated from two sources that is; from the divine law as revealed in the Bible or Quran or from human philosophical reflections (moral philosophy.)
In the strict sense or in the academic usage of the term ethics, we still divide it into three namely; the descriptive ethics, normative ethics and meta ethics.
(a) Descriptive ethics.
This implies 'the scientific or empirical investigation of moral conduct in a given society or community.' under this, social anthropologists and sociologists endevour to describe visible human behaviours, but in relation to the established or society's accepted norms. Ones behaviour is regarded as good/normal if it tallies with the norms of the society, and behaviour is bad if it doesn't. Kollberg gives various stages of moral development, in fact, there are three namely;
1. pre-conventional levels. These occur when a child acts either to avoid punishment or to be rewarded, without or with less concern for values or norms.
2. At a conventional level, a child's behaviour is basically determined by social approval, a child conforms to the expectations of the society.
3. And in the post conventional stage , young people begin becoming autonomous in matters of morality, by reflecting on general moral principles or the values they present.
(b) Normative ethics.
This doesn't describe but instead prescribes or recommends, but in similar way as the above, it involves the study of moral conduct, but in a divergent sense. Here thinkers study moral or ethical principles, reflect and analyze them before they are recommended. They ask questions like; what makes something good or bad? Moral or immoral?
c) Meta- ethics.
Is a new form of moral study, being derived from the analytic philosophy, it studies the meaning of ethical terms. 'meta-ethics is a form of linguistic analysis: the language used in ethics is critically analyzed in order to clarify meanings of terms and statements.' this serves both descriptive and normative ethics and it is between them, but in a critical sense.
2. Moral standards: A Philosophical critique.
Education refers to a goal, which is achieved through setting of specific standards. These standards are beneficial for equipping the learners with some distinctive skills for coping with challenges of life. To a large extent, education helps in forming and shaping the moral life of a learner. It enables learners to develop a sense of disposition to do good.
Influence of education on human life.
Education has both direct and indirect influence on learners. It acts as an instrument for leading the learners towards the achievement of the “good life.” Hence, it is understandable that education is part of morality. But before we proceed, let us define the moral standards, their sources and how they contribute to education.
Moral standards
Moral standards refer to norms, rules or principles that are designed to govern human conducts. They act as the correct measure for evaluating human behaviours either as right or wrong.
Sources of moral standards
There are many sources of moral standards. They include, divine command, cultural dictates among others.
a. Divine Command is one of the sources of morality. There is a belief that this source came from Supreme Creator as it is found the in the
Bible, Quran and other divine books. These books; Bible, Quran, etc, contain Commandments which express how we should relate with God and our fellow human beings. Moral principles such as you should not kill, steal or committing adultery helps us be morally upright. Although they are generally good, the non-believers are excludes from this source.
b. Human society
We get our morality from the social institutions such as the family, culture and the governments. Members of these institutions establish moral principles for governing human conducts in order to live harmoniously with others. All members of these institutions are required to conform to the norms that are formed by these institutions.
c. Human reason as source of morality.
Human reason is a source of morality. Here norms for governing human conducts come from a personal independent reflection. A person therefore becomes the lawmaker for acting according to his or her own conviction. For example a hungry man decides to steal in order to satisfy his hunger.
Philosophical Approach to the source of morality
There are philosophical theories that explain the sources of human morality. This category has two set of theories for moral obligation.
They are teleological theories and deontological theories.
1. Teleological theories.
These are theories that judge moral decisions as good or bad on the basis of the desired consequences. These consequences are closely connected to the set goals of an individual. According to these theories, any act which is considered good directly depends on the major aim which exclude non moral values. Hence, any act which is morally upright is the ultimate good. This ultimate good benefits people according to ethical egoism and utilitarianism theories.
a).Ethical egoism
This theory state that a person “must always do what he wills to promote his or her greatest good.” Here, a person is the sole judge of what is good for him or her. Proponents of this theory associates “the good with pleasure and knowledge”
b).Utilitarianism
It is an ethical theory which maintains that the “an act is right if it useful to bring about good or good end.” This good is expected to advance the happiness of each person in the society. This theory includes act utilitarianism and the rule utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism. According to act utilitarianism, each person is expected to act in a manner that brings the best good than bad for each individual who is affect by the act.
Proponents of this theory do object the idea of establishing rules for governing human actions because of the variation of circumstances. The limitation of this theory is that it difficult to determine what is good for every one because people have divergent interest.
Rule Utilitarianism. It is a theory which states that each person “should always establish and follow the” promulgated rules and act in a manner that “brings the greatest good for all concerned.” Establishing these rules involves the use of our experience and reason capacity that enables us to act in way that brings the greatest good for everyone.
2. Deontological Theories
Deontological theories identify the good with the duty. These theories stress on the existence of rules that are used as the correct scale for judging human conducts as good or bad. I.e the golden mean.
a).Act – Deontological Theory
According to this theory, a person makes the moral judgments according to a particular situation and case. For example, one, threatened by thugs, may fight back even to a point of killing. He does this in a disparate attempt to save his/her life.
b. Theories of moral values
These theories are concerned with the moral decisions according to a person’s motivations. Basically our morality in this class of theory stresses on the effective use of the virtue. Virtues help us to know the good and to do the good in the right way.
3. EDUCATION AND ETHICS: - AN APPRAISAL.
At this juncture we are going to make a rigorous evaluation of what education is from a stand point of ethics. Put differently, the relationship between education and morality. Since education in its
fundamental meaning deals with what a person should be and not what he should do. Then, it is worth to deal with what can lead us to this point. As we have seen from the onset of this work, education is an activity which aims at developing desirable qualities in people. This is quite axiomatic that every society needs members with good qualities. This end can only be successfully achieved by integrating ethics in teaching.
Since education is a purposeful activity, educators should try to make a clear direction of education in order to reach their goals. Throughout history, it has been the mission of education to cultivate virtue. Thus in a way, education and ethics are inseparable. Of course, what is considered good and virtuous in one society may profoundly differ from another society. This is the work of all education stakeholders to adjust according to the needs of the society. Denying morality in education is tantamount to denying education in itself, this is because morality is the basis of education.
Therefore, the major aim of education is to instill values, skills, attitudes and behaviours in learners, to make them fit in their societies and more importantly, to enable them face the challenges of life in their environment. Moreover, living in a society involves interacting with people from different backgrounds and with different temperaments. The ethical part of education therefore will enable learners to adapt and make necessary adjustments. Education that is built on the principles of morality clearly helps people to solve their daily problems and get along with people amicably and respectfully.
4. New direction...... “Moral Education”
Normative education was in the past pre-determined by the norms and customs. E.g. in the already established region and even African societies. In such a case the norms and the standards could not be questioned but rather unconditionally accepted. This was done through the initiation into the established norms and values of the societies through baptism circumcision etc. However, this kind of education was flawed because the older generation tried to impose their norms and teaching on the younger ones. Being in the authoritarian manner it should easily be called ‘norm training’ rather than ‘moral education’ because the people were condition to follow. And as Plato said, “knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.” Therefore, this kind of education is not so useful today. Free dictionary defines 'moral' as something “Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong.” or “Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong.”
In the modern world however, with a great diversity of norms and standards derived from different societies, where man is not sure of what is wrong or right , norms and standards are questioned by the younger generation and as such cannot be imposed. In the modern world, education is taking a pragmatic dimension , where what works seem more appropriate than the ideal. Education is more concerned with the objective facts and as such, education seem to take place in amoral vacuum, where there is no sense of right or wrong. With this in mind, education is seen as a mean/tool to an end rather than an end in itself, only judged as useful or useless according to its practicality rather than its moral sense
Therefore, in such an atmosphere, education concentrates at producing market based people, those with economic values and productivity, rather than molding morally upright individuals that can strengthen the society's ties and enhance the common good of all, where all are equal and humanity more important than an individual. This can explain why egoism is rising, why technology is against its master, why man seems to be against himself, and indeed why a new beginning is necessary.
With the above in mind, a philosopher's intervention is inevitable, who ought to shift the attention to moral education, where man comes to terms with life in an out rightly humanistic way. Thus, rather than moral training, emphasized in the past, moral education aimed at developing valuable qualities in learners, the inner conscience, is necessary.
First, because man need to discover his identity as a human being, as one with inbuilt conscience. Here, man ought to be empowered with knowledge and understanding which is necessary for him to justify human morality in difficult times. I.e., not only defining what is good or bad, but also developing the inner conscience to perceive and achieve such ethics in difficult situations, and through this, understanding the fundamental right of human being to existence.
Secondly, because to-day's man wants autonomous ethics, where ethical standards originate directly from him, serious reflection on the meaning and significance of such moral principle is necessary; where man has to deeply and thoughtfully search for answers about this autonomous principle, that is to say, develop a moral conscience which enables him to make sound decision, and follow the right way even at a sacrifice of his own personal interest, or interest of his country or ethnic group (the golden rule in practice). As Spinoza says, “that the flourishing of individuals depends on their personal resources, namely, their conatus(tendency simulating a human effort), power, vitality or capacity to act from their own inner natures.” This is only enabled by moral education rather than moral training.
Thirdly, to avoid the gap between the individual and the society in which he lives, where man is either too great because of egoism or the society too important because of reverence, there ought to be a dialogue between the two, for one influences the other. This is expressed through the dialogical dimension of education, which is catered for in moral education, which not only recognizes and upholds the dignity of an individual together their intrinsic worth and capacity but also the necessity and vitality of the society in which he lives. On the other hand, moral training being authoritative, tends to be non dialogical, and in the process, alienating modern man.
Therefore, education normatively speaking, is moral education, and in this case, we are keen on the content of moral education rather than its approach. Moral education teaches modern man to appreciate the need for universal norms of morality, service to humanity, providing man with the much needed moral sense and social ethics that is, both meaningful and relevant. Ethics that not only reminds him that he has a dignity and intrinsic worth, but that also he should concern himself with human centered values, values aimed at attaining the golden rule.
getting rid of ignorance
EDUCATION
Education comes from the Latin word ‘educare’ meaning ‘nurture’ or to ‘bring out ignorance’, and instill knowledge of wisdom and understanding. Researchers like Mark Twain argue that education is a life long process, starting at conception and culminating at death. Therefore, education is an informal as well as a formal systemic transmission of knowledge, skills, norms and values, from one generation to another. WAGENAAR, T. C., AND GIERYN, T. F. (1989, page 832)
Features of informal and formal education
Informal education is characterized by: use of word of mouth, through story telling, songs, and character teaching done by the elders and parents in the family and teaches norms and values of the society. Mostly done at home, free of charge and is compulsory for all. Punishment is imposed on one who fails to adhere to the norms and values taught.
Formal education on the other hand is done in specialized institutions called schools, by specialized personnel: the teachers. It also involves people who voluntarily accept to be taught: the students and who pay for the services rendered to them. Special tools like books, pens, chalks and in the advanced world, computers are used to impart knowledge. It involves doing an examination at the end of the course where promotion is done on merit. Therefore, it is a pre-requisite in job industries.
Development of education
Education must have originated at creation when God instructed Adam and Eve and when they disobeyed; they were expelled from the garden. However, true formal education must have come into being between 6th -4th century B.C, when people like Plato opened academies and wrote books.
Taking the example of the United States of America (U.S.A), there has been a shift in educational tends from education for a few (in colonial America), to education for all (in independent America). Most early schools were started by churches and were meant to remove the ‘ignorance of scriptures.’ Therefore, they had their basic teachings on morality and religious reasons and were only for the rich. There was also segregation since it was illegal for the blacks (the slaves), to acquire education. This was to prevent blacks from acquiring knowledge that could see them revolt against their masters.
In 19th and 20th centuries, schools started opening up: charity schools for paupers, private and military academies, church sponsored schools. Education was standardized and the time to stay in school increased. Education was meant to mold good citizens and schools were financed and managed locally. Basic skills like reading, writing, and arithmetics were emphasized for after all; education was to mold good citizens.
From the 20th century, elementary and public schools were developed which were free and mandatory, high school graduation was common although segregation against blacks and women still existed. Universities sprung up and the purpose of education shifted from molding of good citizens to nurturing of good labourers. With the coming up of civil right movements and equality for women, segregation receded and equality embraced. In America today, education is tending towards bureaucratization where hierarchies of authority and professionalism is encouraged. BRINKERHOF, B., WHITE, K. L., (1985, page 362-363)
Functions of education
Education is designed to meet society needs. Education therefore helps in transmission of society’s culture from one generation to the next by teaching ideals, customs, norms, values and standards of the culture. Here, language, religion, and history of the society is learned which is quite useful in the perpetuation of the society’s culture as it builds on the past and preserves the traditions. BRINKERHOF, B. D., WHITE, K. L., (1985, page 367)
It also promotes socialization and a common culture as it brings various people together, giving them the same basics of life. It also helps in instilling values of discipline and obedience and hence conformity is encouraged. Ibid (1985, page 367)
Education also helps in building a common cultural base for it brings various people of diverse cultural backgrounds, languages, and religion together assimilating and creating unity among them. Ibid (1985, page 367)
Man by nature was never created to be an island but a social being, hence, education prepares children to integrate in the outside world by encouraging them to interact and share ideas through; seminars, symposiums, discussions, conferences and workshops. This makes them to fight for a common goal and purpose. Ibid (1985, page 367)
Education makes it easier in implementation of government policies for most government communications come in print which can be easily read by the educated one. More so, learned people can understand what is communicated to them with ease. At the same time, education also helps to identify and nurturing talents which would otherwise have gone to waste, for apart from academics, co-curriculum activities are encouraged in schools and this is why we have sports personalities, poets, musicians, footballers, e.t.c.
It also promotes development and change, for students are encouraged to think critically, analyse matter carefully and be skeptical where necessary. This makes students creative and creates new knowledge. This is how people like Bill Gate came up with Microsoft.
Education is also a tool that brings about equality in various spheres of life. Job allocation and promotion is not so much base on gender or race but on academic qualifications and merit. Ibid (1985, page 367.) e.g. the former Ugandan vice president Miss Kazibwe was appointed not because of her gender but because of her credentials.
It also helps to mould a wholesome citizen in both intellect and character for skills like language, mathematics, technical skills and sciences are taught alongside co-operation, punctuality, and obedience which makes people to be responsible not only for self but for the entire society and indeed the world. Ibid (1985, page 367)
Dysfunctions of education
Apart from the many advantages education has, it is evident that the modern education also has its dark side. This ranges from morality to social life.
The most evident de-merit of education is the big knowledge gap that is being created between the old guard and the young tarks. As young people learn more and more this from school, they tend to view the old people and their ideas as outdated and this brings about conflict in the society. Ibid (1985, page 367).
The idea that children stay in boarding schools during their studies, away from their parents is eroding away the role of parents. Thus, children do not receive enough parental care they ought to, and this may affect them in future. Ibid (1985, page 368).
Education has also lead to growth of unique youth cultures where youth with their newly acquired ideas from schools form counter cultures and this may bring conflict among them and the older members of the society.
It is apparently vivid that the biggest crooks in the world today are molded by education: those who wire money from the banks, those making explosives to kill, highway robbers, internet fraud, in government offices and all those who use pens to steal are all products of education.
Educations has also taught man how to make machine guns for defence, industries for production and engines for travel, yet, guns are in illegal hands killing innocent people, global warming is rising and now humanity is at the verge of extinction. All these are problems caused by and educated man.
Although all people were created to be equal, it is quite clear today than ever before that education is dividing man into classes; the learned from ‘ignorant’, the haves from have-nots, and there is a possibility of education benefiting a few individuals at the expense of the majority who are not so blessed as to acquire a higher education. There is also a tendency to neglect and sideline the less educated ones in the decision making, yet, they may have quite bright ideas that may help the society to grow.
Comparisons in education between Kenya and the United States of America
It was not until 20th century that formal education entered Kenya. Just like the U.S.A, this was brought about by the missionaries and the colonials. Early schools were opened by the missionaries and were meant to teach morality, scripture and civilized way of life. Children from well known families like chiefs then started acquiring formal education. Just like in U.S.A, Africans were not allowed to have access to this type of education as they were seen as ‘thick’ and if learned, a threat to the colonial leadership.
With the acquisition of independence, education was opened for all and following the British system of 7-4-2-3, which was later changed to French system of 8-4-4. Initially, education was only for men and wealthy just like what used to happen in the U.S.A, although this is slowly changing. Education has also changed from teaching of morals and scripture to the nurturing of potential labour force. There is also high level of professionalism today because bureaucratization is taking shape, boarding and private schools are coming up and there is a lot of competition in the education industry.
Education has also helped many Kenyans to come up with new ideas and skill that not only help the Kenyan society but the world as a whole. Just like Bill Gates with his Microsoft, Kenyans are known to be avid researchers in different fields, most recent being a research on HIV/AIDS by KEMRI. Kenya also has her own professionals that handle her internal affairs and there is no great need to seek expertise from the west.
Just like United States where advancement in education has lead to advancement of not only technology but also democracy, the development of educations system in Kenya has lead to the development and growth of democracy in Kenya. Kenya is today ranked among the most democratic countries in Africa.
However, unlike in the United States where elementary and high school education is free an mandatory, there is still a problem in Kenya with many students failing to join high schools, either because of lack of funds, or because of the high cut off points for high school entry.
The other difference between education in the United States of America and Kenya is that due to the great technological advancements in the U.S.A, education is more computerized than it is in Kenya where blackboard and use of chalk, is still the culture. Most Americans use soft libraries where they get their information from the internet, while in Kenya people still struggle with heavy books.
All in all, Kenya is slowly catching up, given the fact that it is only a young country
Education comes from the Latin word ‘educare’ meaning ‘nurture’ or to ‘bring out ignorance’, and instill knowledge of wisdom and understanding. Researchers like Mark Twain argue that education is a life long process, starting at conception and culminating at death. Therefore, education is an informal as well as a formal systemic transmission of knowledge, skills, norms and values, from one generation to another. WAGENAAR, T. C., AND GIERYN, T. F. (1989, page 832)
Features of informal and formal education
Informal education is characterized by: use of word of mouth, through story telling, songs, and character teaching done by the elders and parents in the family and teaches norms and values of the society. Mostly done at home, free of charge and is compulsory for all. Punishment is imposed on one who fails to adhere to the norms and values taught.
Formal education on the other hand is done in specialized institutions called schools, by specialized personnel: the teachers. It also involves people who voluntarily accept to be taught: the students and who pay for the services rendered to them. Special tools like books, pens, chalks and in the advanced world, computers are used to impart knowledge. It involves doing an examination at the end of the course where promotion is done on merit. Therefore, it is a pre-requisite in job industries.
Development of education
Education must have originated at creation when God instructed Adam and Eve and when they disobeyed; they were expelled from the garden. However, true formal education must have come into being between 6th -4th century B.C, when people like Plato opened academies and wrote books.
Taking the example of the United States of America (U.S.A), there has been a shift in educational tends from education for a few (in colonial America), to education for all (in independent America). Most early schools were started by churches and were meant to remove the ‘ignorance of scriptures.’ Therefore, they had their basic teachings on morality and religious reasons and were only for the rich. There was also segregation since it was illegal for the blacks (the slaves), to acquire education. This was to prevent blacks from acquiring knowledge that could see them revolt against their masters.
In 19th and 20th centuries, schools started opening up: charity schools for paupers, private and military academies, church sponsored schools. Education was standardized and the time to stay in school increased. Education was meant to mold good citizens and schools were financed and managed locally. Basic skills like reading, writing, and arithmetics were emphasized for after all; education was to mold good citizens.
From the 20th century, elementary and public schools were developed which were free and mandatory, high school graduation was common although segregation against blacks and women still existed. Universities sprung up and the purpose of education shifted from molding of good citizens to nurturing of good labourers. With the coming up of civil right movements and equality for women, segregation receded and equality embraced. In America today, education is tending towards bureaucratization where hierarchies of authority and professionalism is encouraged. BRINKERHOF, B., WHITE, K. L., (1985, page 362-363)
Functions of education
Education is designed to meet society needs. Education therefore helps in transmission of society’s culture from one generation to the next by teaching ideals, customs, norms, values and standards of the culture. Here, language, religion, and history of the society is learned which is quite useful in the perpetuation of the society’s culture as it builds on the past and preserves the traditions. BRINKERHOF, B. D., WHITE, K. L., (1985, page 367)
It also promotes socialization and a common culture as it brings various people together, giving them the same basics of life. It also helps in instilling values of discipline and obedience and hence conformity is encouraged. Ibid (1985, page 367)
Education also helps in building a common cultural base for it brings various people of diverse cultural backgrounds, languages, and religion together assimilating and creating unity among them. Ibid (1985, page 367)
Man by nature was never created to be an island but a social being, hence, education prepares children to integrate in the outside world by encouraging them to interact and share ideas through; seminars, symposiums, discussions, conferences and workshops. This makes them to fight for a common goal and purpose. Ibid (1985, page 367)
Education makes it easier in implementation of government policies for most government communications come in print which can be easily read by the educated one. More so, learned people can understand what is communicated to them with ease. At the same time, education also helps to identify and nurturing talents which would otherwise have gone to waste, for apart from academics, co-curriculum activities are encouraged in schools and this is why we have sports personalities, poets, musicians, footballers, e.t.c.
It also promotes development and change, for students are encouraged to think critically, analyse matter carefully and be skeptical where necessary. This makes students creative and creates new knowledge. This is how people like Bill Gate came up with Microsoft.
Education is also a tool that brings about equality in various spheres of life. Job allocation and promotion is not so much base on gender or race but on academic qualifications and merit. Ibid (1985, page 367.) e.g. the former Ugandan vice president Miss Kazibwe was appointed not because of her gender but because of her credentials.
It also helps to mould a wholesome citizen in both intellect and character for skills like language, mathematics, technical skills and sciences are taught alongside co-operation, punctuality, and obedience which makes people to be responsible not only for self but for the entire society and indeed the world. Ibid (1985, page 367)
Dysfunctions of education
Apart from the many advantages education has, it is evident that the modern education also has its dark side. This ranges from morality to social life.
The most evident de-merit of education is the big knowledge gap that is being created between the old guard and the young tarks. As young people learn more and more this from school, they tend to view the old people and their ideas as outdated and this brings about conflict in the society. Ibid (1985, page 367).
The idea that children stay in boarding schools during their studies, away from their parents is eroding away the role of parents. Thus, children do not receive enough parental care they ought to, and this may affect them in future. Ibid (1985, page 368).
Education has also lead to growth of unique youth cultures where youth with their newly acquired ideas from schools form counter cultures and this may bring conflict among them and the older members of the society.
It is apparently vivid that the biggest crooks in the world today are molded by education: those who wire money from the banks, those making explosives to kill, highway robbers, internet fraud, in government offices and all those who use pens to steal are all products of education.
Educations has also taught man how to make machine guns for defence, industries for production and engines for travel, yet, guns are in illegal hands killing innocent people, global warming is rising and now humanity is at the verge of extinction. All these are problems caused by and educated man.
Although all people were created to be equal, it is quite clear today than ever before that education is dividing man into classes; the learned from ‘ignorant’, the haves from have-nots, and there is a possibility of education benefiting a few individuals at the expense of the majority who are not so blessed as to acquire a higher education. There is also a tendency to neglect and sideline the less educated ones in the decision making, yet, they may have quite bright ideas that may help the society to grow.
Comparisons in education between Kenya and the United States of America
It was not until 20th century that formal education entered Kenya. Just like the U.S.A, this was brought about by the missionaries and the colonials. Early schools were opened by the missionaries and were meant to teach morality, scripture and civilized way of life. Children from well known families like chiefs then started acquiring formal education. Just like in U.S.A, Africans were not allowed to have access to this type of education as they were seen as ‘thick’ and if learned, a threat to the colonial leadership.
With the acquisition of independence, education was opened for all and following the British system of 7-4-2-3, which was later changed to French system of 8-4-4. Initially, education was only for men and wealthy just like what used to happen in the U.S.A, although this is slowly changing. Education has also changed from teaching of morals and scripture to the nurturing of potential labour force. There is also high level of professionalism today because bureaucratization is taking shape, boarding and private schools are coming up and there is a lot of competition in the education industry.
Education has also helped many Kenyans to come up with new ideas and skill that not only help the Kenyan society but the world as a whole. Just like Bill Gates with his Microsoft, Kenyans are known to be avid researchers in different fields, most recent being a research on HIV/AIDS by KEMRI. Kenya also has her own professionals that handle her internal affairs and there is no great need to seek expertise from the west.
Just like United States where advancement in education has lead to advancement of not only technology but also democracy, the development of educations system in Kenya has lead to the development and growth of democracy in Kenya. Kenya is today ranked among the most democratic countries in Africa.
However, unlike in the United States where elementary and high school education is free an mandatory, there is still a problem in Kenya with many students failing to join high schools, either because of lack of funds, or because of the high cut off points for high school entry.
The other difference between education in the United States of America and Kenya is that due to the great technological advancements in the U.S.A, education is more computerized than it is in Kenya where blackboard and use of chalk, is still the culture. Most Americans use soft libraries where they get their information from the internet, while in Kenya people still struggle with heavy books.
All in all, Kenya is slowly catching up, given the fact that it is only a young country
exploring the senses
INTRODUCTION
Ted Honderich defines knowledge as the principle of intellectual attainment studied by epistemology. Many philosophers from time immemorial to date have ventured into the concept of knowledge and identified different types of knowledge. Benedict Spinoza for instance identified three levels of knowledge namely;
a) First degree of knowledge which is the level of sense perception
b) Second degree of knowledge which is the level of reason and
c) Third degree of knowledge which is the intuition.
In this paper, we are going to dwell on the knowledge of the first degree of Spinoza that is sense perception, which is gained from both internal and external sensation. Our work has been divided into five parts. In the first part we have defined some of the terminologies used in sense perception. In the second part we have looked at the types of senses under the categories of external and internal, highlighting the mechanism and the role played by each category because this is the gist of this research. Part three enumerates the various views of different philosophers on the nature and validity of sense knowledge. In the fourth part we have given the problems regarding sense knowledge, followed by its value in part five, and then we concluded.
A. TERMINOLOGIES
Sense
It is the psychic power or ability by which a person or an animal receives knowledge of things in the world around them.
Sense data
From the Latin word datum data is the plural form which literally means “the given”. Used in this context, Ayer adopts the term Sense data to refer to any object of which it is conceivable that someone should be directly aware. It may be material e.g. direct sight of a tree or immaterial for instance e.g. direct sight of a reflection of one’s image in a mirror.
Sensitivity
Howard H. and Trays refer to sensitivity as the ability to react to a stimulus and to detect a difference between different stimuli.
Sensibility
Honderich uses this term to mean a set of individual or collective dispositions to emotions, attitudes and feelings.
Perception
This refers to the extraction of information about one’s environment by the senses and one’s body. Perception whether veridical or delusive, to some extent depends on the external conditions. For example the character of light may be too bright or too dim to enable clear perception to take place. Sometimes one’s physiological and psychological states may also determine the level of one’s perception. For instance the health of one’s sense organs or the emotional state one is experiencing may affect the quality of perception negatively or positively.
Sensation
This is the gist of our presentation. Kendler defines sensation as an organism’s ability to detect the presence or absence of the stimuli as well as discriminating between stimuli. This definition broadly refers to all living organisms which are capable of sensing, including human beings.
Kainz’s definition excludes other organisms and specifically refers to human beings. For him, sensation as one’s subjective awareness of the sensory stimuli or sensory environment, involves those acts and contents of knowledge which are distinct from the intellectual and conceptual ideas.
Sensation therefore is the first and absolute necessary stage in the process of acquiring knowledge by receiving sense data. It is not purely a passive act, but both physical and psychic, involving the act of sensing and the object being sensed. Let us now look at the different types of senses involved.
B. TYPES OF SENSES
Senses are divided into internal and external senses as follows;
EXTERNAL SENSES
These are organic senses which human beings have in common with animals. We call them organic senses instead of sense organs; because they are not passive, but in connection with the brain, actively perform the task of sensing as we shall see later. They are responsible for receiving particular sense objects either directly or indirectly through a medium. In our research study, we came out with five external senses. Those that receive sensory impressions directly are the senses of touch and taste, while those that receive sensory impressions through a medium are the senses of; sight, hearing, and smelling.
Unlike sensation in animals which are purely physical, in human beings acts of sensation are psychic.
Mechanism of Sensation in Acquiring Knowledge
According to Honderich, once the sense is activated to a specific impression, it becomes identified with the form of the object: it acts immanently thus performing the operation of sensing.
In the act of sensing, the stimuli must get in touch with the receptor organic sense directly or indirectly through the nervous system, thus we get the sensory phase of the perception process from various sense modalities- visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, taste or from other sensory elements like twinges, tickles, pains, itches, thirst, hunger, feelings of sexual desire which are intrinsic mental activities.
Sensations can be of, about or directed upon the same thing yet each remains different from the other. Thus the senses can work co-jointly, yet they have an introspective mental quality that distinguishes them from one another.
From the external senses, the sense impression is the form of the object without the matter, but with the individuating conditions of matter, that is of the individual/particular, not universal.
Idealists associate sensing with perception unlike the materialists who reduce it to the physiological operations of the organs and nerves alone.
It is also worthy noting that sensations are independent of the conceptual or intellectual assent of the subject, unlike reasoning, thinking, knowing and remembering. One can sense something without necessarily knowing it. Thus sensations constitute a primitive level of mental existence at a level at which discursive thought and reason are not well developed.
Let us examine the operation of the eye as one of the organic senses in order to get a glimpse of how sensation takes place generally in all the other external senses.
The Eye
According to Kendler, The eye resembles the camera. Both admit light through adjustable diaphragms. Both have lenses through which light passes and by which an image is focused on a sensitive surface, the pupil of the eye enlarges in dim light and becomes smaller in bright light (amount of light regulation when it widens in dim light, enough light can enter and vise versa).
In the human eye, the widest opening is approximately 17 times greater than the smallest. The retina is the surface inside the eye that is sensitive to light upon which the image falls. The retina has receptor cells sensitive to light
Embedded in the retinas are two different types of receptors (light sensitive structures) called rods and cones because of their shapes. The inner portions are similar to ordinary nerve cells. Rods are more sensitive to light and thus operate in dim light. Cones operate when the light is more intense. The rods and cones convert light energy into neural impulses which are transmitted through several layers of neurons before they reach the optic nerve. Light has to pass through all the nerve layers of the retina before it reaches the rods and the cones where it is absorbed. These nerve layers are transparent, but not completely so. The cones are tightly packed in what is known us the fovea. Diagrammatically an eye looks like this;
How your Eye Works
Take a moment to locate an object around you. Do you know how you are able to see it? Would you believe that what you are actually seeing are beams of light bouncing off the object and into your eyes? It is hard to believe, but it is true. The light rays enter the eye through the cornea, which is a thick, transparent protective layer on the surface of your eye. Then the light rays pass through the pupil (the dark circle in the center of your eye) and into the lens.
When light rays pass through your pupil, the muscle called the iris (colored ring) makes the size of the pupil change depending on the amount of light that's available. You may have noticed this with your own eye if you have looked at it closely in a mirror. If there is too much light, your pupil will shrink to limit the number of light rays that enter. Likewise, if there is very little light available, the pupil will enlarge to let in as many light rays as it can. Just behind the pupil is the lens and it focuses the image through a jelly-like substance called the vitreous humor onto the back surface of the eyeball, called the retina.
The retina, which is the size of your thumbnail, is filled with approximately 150 million light-sensitive cells called rods and cones. Rods identify shapes and work best in dim light. Cones on the other hand, identify color and work best in bright light. Both of these types of cells then send the information to the brain by way of the optic nerve. The amazing thing is, when they send the image to the brain, the image is upside down! It is the brain's job to turn the image right side up and then tell you what you are looking at. The brain does this in a specific place called the visual cortex.
Other organic senses operate in the same mode that is receiving the image (form) of the object which is sent then to the brain via network of nerves to give us sense knowledge from our world.
INTERNAL SENSES
In addition to external senses, St. Thomas Aquinas discovered or talks about four internal senses, namely; Common sense, Imagination, Estimation and Memory.
1. Common Sense
This is one of the internal senses which distinguishes data of different external and internal senses.Vaske calls this sense the central sense or unitive sense because it integrates two or more cognitive aspects and makes a distinction between them.
Aristotle also calls it common sense because it is the root of the external senses.
2. Imagination
This preserves the data apprehended by the senses. This type of sense creates a picture in the mind that does not exist. Therefore, it makes people to be genius and very creative in their minds.
3. Memory
This is the power with which the data known through estimative power are preserved.Vaske has combined imagination and memory into one and has given them one name (imagination). From here he distinguishes two functions of imagination. Namely;
Reproductive and phantasy function. Let us look at them one by one.
Reproductive Function
This is responsible for recalling or representing operations whose object lies in the past as “form”. That is it re-presents past events as present- day happenings. Therefore the power of a good memory is inherent in its capacity to retrieve accurately the past happenings,
Phantasy Function
Under the direction and illumination of the intellect, phantasy is the creative use of imaginations. This combines and divides the elements of the past in a novel fashion. It is operative in dreams when a person sleeps and in day- dreams as well as in a creative use of imagination.
4. Estimation
This internal sense is also known as instinct in animals. It helps them to detect what is useful, harmless or friendly regardless of the pleasant or unpleasant character of the object. In human beings this sense helps to perceive things which are beyond any of the external senses. Vaske says that it is more pronounced in practical minds for example sales persons in business etc, than in theoretical minds of the thinkers/ philosophers.
Organs of the Internal Senses
Estimative and imaginative senses tend to depend on the cerebral cortex acting either in localized centers or the entire cortex but in specific different ways.
The role of internal senses in sense knowledge
Internal senses play a secondary role in the process of sense perception, by unifying, sorting, remembering, dividing and re- mixing and re producing the impressions/ images supplied by operations of the external senses.
In addition to the four internal senses given above, let us look at the nature of intuition and emotions as internal phenomena of sense perception.
5. Intuition
This is the immediate apprehension of objects, knowledge of a concept for example the sense perception. It can also mean the capability of knowing something using feelings even if you cannot explain that feeling. Like Kant and his intuition of universals and the mystic’s intuition of God.
6. Emotions
Vaske has presented a rich survey into the sphere of emotions as we shall see in the following episode. Emotions are psychic movements towards a sensible good or away from a sensible evil aroused through sense knowledge and accompanied by an organic change that ordinarily relies on the subject for action in a passion situation.
Different terms fall under this category though we are no going to concentrate on them due to the limitation of our scope. These include;
Feelings: These are elementary pleasure or displeasure that spontaneously follows sensory perception.
Mood: This refers to a prolonged and vague feeling of state.
Emotion: This is a complex operative function that is characterized by strong impulses for action.
Passion: refers to intense and violent emotion
Affection for affective state: This is the general way by which sensible objects makes us feel.
Sense appetite: This is the inclination/ movement toward a sensible good specified by sense knowledge. Feelings, emotions, passions, and affections are some of the appetitive operations on the sense level among human beings. Intellectual appetite is the inclination of the intellect to the good as precisely good, whether pleasant or not.
Classification of emotions
According to Aristotle and the medieval scholastics, emotions are classified according to three basic elements; that is; whether the object is estimated to be, a) a sensible good/evil, b) absent or present, c) easy to attain/avoid or difficult to attain or avoid. Therefore, emotions can be desiderative or irascible.
1. Desiderative (pleasure) Emotions
These include love, desire, and pleasure on the one hand and hate, aversion and sadness on the other. Sense love is the simple or absolute movement towards a sensible good. Desire is the movement towards a sensible good which is not yet possessed. Sense delight (pleasure) is the “rest” of the appetite in the good possessed through sense knowledge. Hate is the simple or absolute inclination away from a sensible evil. Aversion is the abhorrence or turning away from a forthcoming evil. Displeasure or sadness is the “rest” or confinement of the appetite in the evil which has actually overtaken the subject.
Love takes the primacy as the absolute in the sequence of emotions whose opposite is hate, for nothing is hated unless in opposition to the sensible good.
Aggressive (Irascible) Emotions
They are two; hope and despair in face of the difficult good:
Hope is the vehement seeking of the difficult good, while despair is the surrender of the attempt to acquire the object because of the difficulties that are estimated to be insuperable.
Fear, Daring: strenuous evil
While fear is the vehement inclination to avoid an evil that is now threatening and is difficult to avoid, daring is the vehement inclination to attack the evil that is difficult to conquer. If the sensible object which we hate and abhor becomes a threatening evil that is difficult to repel, emotions of fear and daring come into play.
Anger
This unique emotion has no contrary. It arises from an inflicted present evil that causes displeasure or pain; an urge to attack with the hope of securing a revenge. It is a strong psychic inclination to destroy the evil which is presently inflicting itself on the subject.
Diagrammatic representation of the emotional sequence
a) Simple pleasurable emotional sequence
Love --------------------- desire ----------------------- pleasure (terminal)
Hate----------------------- aversion -------------------- displeasure/ sadness (terminal)
b) Aggressive emotional sequence
Hope -------------- pleasure
Love -----------------------desire ------------------------ (despair) ------------ displeasure (sadness)
Fear -------------- pleasure
Hate---------------------- aversion --------------------- (daring)------------ displeasure
pleasure
Hate --------------------- aversion -------------------- anger -------------------- displeasure
The role of emotions in sense perception
Although emotions are highly valuable in influencing human existence positively or negatively, in epistemology, they are a hinderance generally because they generate irrational opinions and they cause us to view the universe in the mirror of our moods; now as bright, now dim etc. This arises from the fact that emotional associations seldom correspond to the reality in the external sensible world. In other words emotions, depending on their intensity emotions can lead one to have a distorted, diminished or exaggerated view of sense data. They are not always parallel in intensity to sense knowledge, thus while sensations become vivid on attending to them, emotions diminish on examining them. In addition, while sensations are directed to a particular sensible quality, emotions have no single special sense as their cause, but can be triggered off by any one or more senses or all of them. Thus emotions are strongly objective though individual.
C. DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT ABOUT THE NATURE AND VALIDITY SENSE KNOWLEDGE
Sense knowledge, according to many philosophers is very limited, uncertain and sometimes false when it encounters scientific verification. In addition, even though it is very useful as the beginning of all knowledge, it cannot give us universal objective truth but particular and subjective truths. Stoics and Epicurians however, believe it as true knowledge as we shall see.
Let us turn to the views of different philosophers especially as portrayed by Omoregbe.
Plato
For Plato, true knowledge cannot be acquired through sense perception because objects of sense perception are unstable, yet true knowledge is universal, unchanging. Objects of sense perception are particular and individual, things concrete, found in this world, yet objects of true knowledge are the essence of things found in the world of forms.
Aristotle
Sensation as the act of perceiving things through the sense organs is the first step in the process of acquiring knowledge. All knowledge is acquired through sense perception or sensation. Therefore for Aristotle, the external senses are the windows by which we perceive the material world, while the internal senses depend on the contents of external senses to synthesize or re-present them in their operations. Therefore without sensation, acquisition of knowledge is impossible.
Stoics
Man begins to acquire knowledge through sense perception. They reject Plato’s doctrine of the objects of knowledge being universal, because all we know are concrete things and it is concrete things that we perceive. Therefore clear perception is the criterion of truth for them.
Epicureanism
All knowledge is sense knowledge, which is the criteria for truth, sense perception leads to the formation of concepts, which are the memory images impressed on the sense organs during perception. When one makes a mistake, the error is not due to perception, neither is it due to the concepts but to the judgments. Its wrongness or rightness should be tested according to its conformity to experience. True knowledge conforms to experience. Epicureans confuse the operations of sense perception with those of the intellect.
Patristic period—St. Augustine
Augustine as a Platonic, does not believe in the certainty of knowledge acquired through sense perception, but attributes true knowledge to the world of forms where divine illumination helps human minds to grasp the truth.
Medieval-Bonaventure
Following the Aristotelian thought – all knowledge comes from sense perception except the knowledge of God and knowledge of moral virtues. These two are not objects of sense perception but they are innate. For no impression of them comes from the material world through senses to impress itself on the sense organs.
Thomas Aquinas:
He affirms that the five external senses help the human being to perceive the material world. He affirms the presence of internal senses too as already shown above.
Modern period-------Spinoza Benedict: [idealist]
Identifies three levels of knowledge, the first degree of knowledge being sense perception, the level of reason the second, and the third the level is intuition.
Sense perception for Spinoza gives us inadequate/confused knowledge because it deals with individual objects in isolation, detaching them from their totality of which they are part.
British empiricists- John Locke
Locke highlights three levels of knowledge, intuitive knowledge, demonstrative or scientific knowledge and sensitive knowledge.
All human knowledge derives from sense perception and reflection. The immediate objects according to Locke are ideas of objects, obtained when things impress themselves on our minds, leaving images that represent them. He identifies two types of ideas. Simple ideas and complex ideas and two types of qualities namely: primary and secondary qualities.
Simple ideas are the same as secondary qualities. They are powers in things which impress themselves on our senses, leaving the representations of things [images] in us. They are not in things themselves; they include sound, colour, taste, temperature, and odour.
Complex ideas are a combination of more than one simple idea to give rise to abstract ideas. It’s these ideas which supercede particular traits in things concerning a thing. However things in themselves are not perceivable according to Locke and are therefore unknowable, but we assume the existence of a substratum that supports qualities by going beyond ideas. Primary ideas like solidity, extension, figure and motion are inseparably found in things themselves.
George Berkeley
He equates sense perception or sensation with ideas. Things exist insofar as they are perceived. He denies the reality of matter and maintains that everything in the world is an idea in the mind. All sensible objects are ideas in the mind because for them, isse est percipi [to exist is to be perceived]. Things do not go out of existence when nobody is perceiving them because God is constantly perceiving them and are always known by God.
Berkeley and Locke agree that all our knowledge is about ideas, that the objects of our knowledge are ideas [not things in themselves] but according to Locke, ideas are copies of things in our minds. And Berkeley affirms that ideas are not copies/representation, but things in themselves. Therefore he denies the existence of the material world.
Immanuel Kant
Kant agrees with the empiricists that knowledge begins with sense perception though not all knowledge arises from sense perception. However, such knowledge is limited only to phenomena (appearances) which are received by our senses. Sense data via the forms of space and time and the categories of our minds give us phenomenal knowledge. Senses cannot give us the knowledge of the noumena, (things- in- themselves). Thus knowledge of reality is unknowable.
Contemporary philosophers:
Their concern is not epistemological but rather existential to the human person.
Existentialist--- Don Miguel de Unamuno Y. Jugo.
Unamuno cites the importance of the instinct for human self preservation and self- perpetuation. For him, the importance of sight, hearing, taste, smell, feeling and others are purposely for preservation of life.
Existentialists assert that not reason alone helps us to acquire knowledge or to guide our actions and behavior but also feelings, emotions or passions since they are integral parts of our very nature.
D. PROBLEMS OF SENSE KNOWLEDGE
1. It depends so much on one’s subjective response to the stimuli or the medium of the stimuli. Abnormalities or defects in the receptor organs or the medium will greatly affect its validity.
2 Senses are imperfect, gradual and fragmentary. In here, it means that they only present to us a small part of the reality.
3. They do not go beyond the subjective world (reality). We need to go beyond the knowledge of experience to the knowledge of science and reasoning. For instance the sun seems to be moving but in reality t it is the earth which moves, a stick in a glass of water may seem bent, mirage may appear like a river on a road etc
4. Senses only orient us about the reality of the external world. They only present particular aspects of the reality which are capable of accidental errors.
5. Sensation is relative and therefore it makes it hard for us to explain and apprehend other people’s experiences.
E. THE VALUE OF SENSE KNOWLEDGE
In spite of its limitations sense knowledge is useful in many ways.
1. Sensation constitutes the foundation human existence. Without it human beings cannot survive. Besides life preservation, sensation and emotions are indispensable because without them, no human activity, motions or locomotion is possible since all knowledge begins with sense perception.
Kindler asserts that without sensitivity babies are prone to damage of their lives, since they can get hold of hot objects without feeling any pain. Therefore, changes in our bodies provided by senses are essential for our existence, self preservation, activity, motion and self-perpetuation.
2. Imagination has been usefully adopted in artistic inventions, plays, architecture and computer graphics and the like.
3. Compensation errors make rail trucks appear to converge in distance yet in reality they don’t. This knowledge has been used to produce three dimension presentations on two dimensional surfaces in motion pictures, cameras, projectors and astronomic work.
4. Illusions and distortions are the source of discovery and information, for example the laws of refraction which have been used to plan for the medium of light passing through glasses of varying densities.
5. Knowledge of the distinction between the opposition of the desiderative and aggressive emotions, for example the presence of one diminishes the other has been used by psychologists and counselors to help couples to live together in love.
6. Building attitude through repetition and overt action of emotions for perfection of individuals and animals.
7. Business companies discovered the commercial use of emotions through advertisements. By keeping the message constantly present to the audience it eventually makes an impact on them and they respond accordingly.
Conclusion
Sensation constitutes the foundation of knowledge in human existence. Without it human beings cannot survive as implied by Jugo Unamuno. Besides life preservation, sensations and emotions are indispensable because without them, no human activity, motions or locomotion is possible.
In this paper, we have ventured into the phenomena of sense knowledge. We have examined its nature from the point of view of its sources, that is internal and external senses, and we have given its nature, limitations as well as value, highlighting the views of different philosophers.
Ted Honderich defines knowledge as the principle of intellectual attainment studied by epistemology. Many philosophers from time immemorial to date have ventured into the concept of knowledge and identified different types of knowledge. Benedict Spinoza for instance identified three levels of knowledge namely;
a) First degree of knowledge which is the level of sense perception
b) Second degree of knowledge which is the level of reason and
c) Third degree of knowledge which is the intuition.
In this paper, we are going to dwell on the knowledge of the first degree of Spinoza that is sense perception, which is gained from both internal and external sensation. Our work has been divided into five parts. In the first part we have defined some of the terminologies used in sense perception. In the second part we have looked at the types of senses under the categories of external and internal, highlighting the mechanism and the role played by each category because this is the gist of this research. Part three enumerates the various views of different philosophers on the nature and validity of sense knowledge. In the fourth part we have given the problems regarding sense knowledge, followed by its value in part five, and then we concluded.
A. TERMINOLOGIES
Sense
It is the psychic power or ability by which a person or an animal receives knowledge of things in the world around them.
Sense data
From the Latin word datum data is the plural form which literally means “the given”. Used in this context, Ayer adopts the term Sense data to refer to any object of which it is conceivable that someone should be directly aware. It may be material e.g. direct sight of a tree or immaterial for instance e.g. direct sight of a reflection of one’s image in a mirror.
Sensitivity
Howard H. and Trays refer to sensitivity as the ability to react to a stimulus and to detect a difference between different stimuli.
Sensibility
Honderich uses this term to mean a set of individual or collective dispositions to emotions, attitudes and feelings.
Perception
This refers to the extraction of information about one’s environment by the senses and one’s body. Perception whether veridical or delusive, to some extent depends on the external conditions. For example the character of light may be too bright or too dim to enable clear perception to take place. Sometimes one’s physiological and psychological states may also determine the level of one’s perception. For instance the health of one’s sense organs or the emotional state one is experiencing may affect the quality of perception negatively or positively.
Sensation
This is the gist of our presentation. Kendler defines sensation as an organism’s ability to detect the presence or absence of the stimuli as well as discriminating between stimuli. This definition broadly refers to all living organisms which are capable of sensing, including human beings.
Kainz’s definition excludes other organisms and specifically refers to human beings. For him, sensation as one’s subjective awareness of the sensory stimuli or sensory environment, involves those acts and contents of knowledge which are distinct from the intellectual and conceptual ideas.
Sensation therefore is the first and absolute necessary stage in the process of acquiring knowledge by receiving sense data. It is not purely a passive act, but both physical and psychic, involving the act of sensing and the object being sensed. Let us now look at the different types of senses involved.
B. TYPES OF SENSES
Senses are divided into internal and external senses as follows;
EXTERNAL SENSES
These are organic senses which human beings have in common with animals. We call them organic senses instead of sense organs; because they are not passive, but in connection with the brain, actively perform the task of sensing as we shall see later. They are responsible for receiving particular sense objects either directly or indirectly through a medium. In our research study, we came out with five external senses. Those that receive sensory impressions directly are the senses of touch and taste, while those that receive sensory impressions through a medium are the senses of; sight, hearing, and smelling.
Unlike sensation in animals which are purely physical, in human beings acts of sensation are psychic.
Mechanism of Sensation in Acquiring Knowledge
According to Honderich, once the sense is activated to a specific impression, it becomes identified with the form of the object: it acts immanently thus performing the operation of sensing.
In the act of sensing, the stimuli must get in touch with the receptor organic sense directly or indirectly through the nervous system, thus we get the sensory phase of the perception process from various sense modalities- visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, taste or from other sensory elements like twinges, tickles, pains, itches, thirst, hunger, feelings of sexual desire which are intrinsic mental activities.
Sensations can be of, about or directed upon the same thing yet each remains different from the other. Thus the senses can work co-jointly, yet they have an introspective mental quality that distinguishes them from one another.
From the external senses, the sense impression is the form of the object without the matter, but with the individuating conditions of matter, that is of the individual/particular, not universal.
Idealists associate sensing with perception unlike the materialists who reduce it to the physiological operations of the organs and nerves alone.
It is also worthy noting that sensations are independent of the conceptual or intellectual assent of the subject, unlike reasoning, thinking, knowing and remembering. One can sense something without necessarily knowing it. Thus sensations constitute a primitive level of mental existence at a level at which discursive thought and reason are not well developed.
Let us examine the operation of the eye as one of the organic senses in order to get a glimpse of how sensation takes place generally in all the other external senses.
The Eye
According to Kendler, The eye resembles the camera. Both admit light through adjustable diaphragms. Both have lenses through which light passes and by which an image is focused on a sensitive surface, the pupil of the eye enlarges in dim light and becomes smaller in bright light (amount of light regulation when it widens in dim light, enough light can enter and vise versa).
In the human eye, the widest opening is approximately 17 times greater than the smallest. The retina is the surface inside the eye that is sensitive to light upon which the image falls. The retina has receptor cells sensitive to light
Embedded in the retinas are two different types of receptors (light sensitive structures) called rods and cones because of their shapes. The inner portions are similar to ordinary nerve cells. Rods are more sensitive to light and thus operate in dim light. Cones operate when the light is more intense. The rods and cones convert light energy into neural impulses which are transmitted through several layers of neurons before they reach the optic nerve. Light has to pass through all the nerve layers of the retina before it reaches the rods and the cones where it is absorbed. These nerve layers are transparent, but not completely so. The cones are tightly packed in what is known us the fovea. Diagrammatically an eye looks like this;
How your Eye Works
Take a moment to locate an object around you. Do you know how you are able to see it? Would you believe that what you are actually seeing are beams of light bouncing off the object and into your eyes? It is hard to believe, but it is true. The light rays enter the eye through the cornea, which is a thick, transparent protective layer on the surface of your eye. Then the light rays pass through the pupil (the dark circle in the center of your eye) and into the lens.
When light rays pass through your pupil, the muscle called the iris (colored ring) makes the size of the pupil change depending on the amount of light that's available. You may have noticed this with your own eye if you have looked at it closely in a mirror. If there is too much light, your pupil will shrink to limit the number of light rays that enter. Likewise, if there is very little light available, the pupil will enlarge to let in as many light rays as it can. Just behind the pupil is the lens and it focuses the image through a jelly-like substance called the vitreous humor onto the back surface of the eyeball, called the retina.
The retina, which is the size of your thumbnail, is filled with approximately 150 million light-sensitive cells called rods and cones. Rods identify shapes and work best in dim light. Cones on the other hand, identify color and work best in bright light. Both of these types of cells then send the information to the brain by way of the optic nerve. The amazing thing is, when they send the image to the brain, the image is upside down! It is the brain's job to turn the image right side up and then tell you what you are looking at. The brain does this in a specific place called the visual cortex.
Other organic senses operate in the same mode that is receiving the image (form) of the object which is sent then to the brain via network of nerves to give us sense knowledge from our world.
INTERNAL SENSES
In addition to external senses, St. Thomas Aquinas discovered or talks about four internal senses, namely; Common sense, Imagination, Estimation and Memory.
1. Common Sense
This is one of the internal senses which distinguishes data of different external and internal senses.Vaske calls this sense the central sense or unitive sense because it integrates two or more cognitive aspects and makes a distinction between them.
Aristotle also calls it common sense because it is the root of the external senses.
2. Imagination
This preserves the data apprehended by the senses. This type of sense creates a picture in the mind that does not exist. Therefore, it makes people to be genius and very creative in their minds.
3. Memory
This is the power with which the data known through estimative power are preserved.Vaske has combined imagination and memory into one and has given them one name (imagination). From here he distinguishes two functions of imagination. Namely;
Reproductive and phantasy function. Let us look at them one by one.
Reproductive Function
This is responsible for recalling or representing operations whose object lies in the past as “form”. That is it re-presents past events as present- day happenings. Therefore the power of a good memory is inherent in its capacity to retrieve accurately the past happenings,
Phantasy Function
Under the direction and illumination of the intellect, phantasy is the creative use of imaginations. This combines and divides the elements of the past in a novel fashion. It is operative in dreams when a person sleeps and in day- dreams as well as in a creative use of imagination.
4. Estimation
This internal sense is also known as instinct in animals. It helps them to detect what is useful, harmless or friendly regardless of the pleasant or unpleasant character of the object. In human beings this sense helps to perceive things which are beyond any of the external senses. Vaske says that it is more pronounced in practical minds for example sales persons in business etc, than in theoretical minds of the thinkers/ philosophers.
Organs of the Internal Senses
Estimative and imaginative senses tend to depend on the cerebral cortex acting either in localized centers or the entire cortex but in specific different ways.
The role of internal senses in sense knowledge
Internal senses play a secondary role in the process of sense perception, by unifying, sorting, remembering, dividing and re- mixing and re producing the impressions/ images supplied by operations of the external senses.
In addition to the four internal senses given above, let us look at the nature of intuition and emotions as internal phenomena of sense perception.
5. Intuition
This is the immediate apprehension of objects, knowledge of a concept for example the sense perception. It can also mean the capability of knowing something using feelings even if you cannot explain that feeling. Like Kant and his intuition of universals and the mystic’s intuition of God.
6. Emotions
Vaske has presented a rich survey into the sphere of emotions as we shall see in the following episode. Emotions are psychic movements towards a sensible good or away from a sensible evil aroused through sense knowledge and accompanied by an organic change that ordinarily relies on the subject for action in a passion situation.
Different terms fall under this category though we are no going to concentrate on them due to the limitation of our scope. These include;
Feelings: These are elementary pleasure or displeasure that spontaneously follows sensory perception.
Mood: This refers to a prolonged and vague feeling of state.
Emotion: This is a complex operative function that is characterized by strong impulses for action.
Passion: refers to intense and violent emotion
Affection for affective state: This is the general way by which sensible objects makes us feel.
Sense appetite: This is the inclination/ movement toward a sensible good specified by sense knowledge. Feelings, emotions, passions, and affections are some of the appetitive operations on the sense level among human beings. Intellectual appetite is the inclination of the intellect to the good as precisely good, whether pleasant or not.
Classification of emotions
According to Aristotle and the medieval scholastics, emotions are classified according to three basic elements; that is; whether the object is estimated to be, a) a sensible good/evil, b) absent or present, c) easy to attain/avoid or difficult to attain or avoid. Therefore, emotions can be desiderative or irascible.
1. Desiderative (pleasure) Emotions
These include love, desire, and pleasure on the one hand and hate, aversion and sadness on the other. Sense love is the simple or absolute movement towards a sensible good. Desire is the movement towards a sensible good which is not yet possessed. Sense delight (pleasure) is the “rest” of the appetite in the good possessed through sense knowledge. Hate is the simple or absolute inclination away from a sensible evil. Aversion is the abhorrence or turning away from a forthcoming evil. Displeasure or sadness is the “rest” or confinement of the appetite in the evil which has actually overtaken the subject.
Love takes the primacy as the absolute in the sequence of emotions whose opposite is hate, for nothing is hated unless in opposition to the sensible good.
Aggressive (Irascible) Emotions
They are two; hope and despair in face of the difficult good:
Hope is the vehement seeking of the difficult good, while despair is the surrender of the attempt to acquire the object because of the difficulties that are estimated to be insuperable.
Fear, Daring: strenuous evil
While fear is the vehement inclination to avoid an evil that is now threatening and is difficult to avoid, daring is the vehement inclination to attack the evil that is difficult to conquer. If the sensible object which we hate and abhor becomes a threatening evil that is difficult to repel, emotions of fear and daring come into play.
Anger
This unique emotion has no contrary. It arises from an inflicted present evil that causes displeasure or pain; an urge to attack with the hope of securing a revenge. It is a strong psychic inclination to destroy the evil which is presently inflicting itself on the subject.
Diagrammatic representation of the emotional sequence
a) Simple pleasurable emotional sequence
Love --------------------- desire ----------------------- pleasure (terminal)
Hate----------------------- aversion -------------------- displeasure/ sadness (terminal)
b) Aggressive emotional sequence
Hope -------------- pleasure
Love -----------------------desire ------------------------ (despair) ------------ displeasure (sadness)
Fear -------------- pleasure
Hate---------------------- aversion --------------------- (daring)------------ displeasure
pleasure
Hate --------------------- aversion -------------------- anger -------------------- displeasure
The role of emotions in sense perception
Although emotions are highly valuable in influencing human existence positively or negatively, in epistemology, they are a hinderance generally because they generate irrational opinions and they cause us to view the universe in the mirror of our moods; now as bright, now dim etc. This arises from the fact that emotional associations seldom correspond to the reality in the external sensible world. In other words emotions, depending on their intensity emotions can lead one to have a distorted, diminished or exaggerated view of sense data. They are not always parallel in intensity to sense knowledge, thus while sensations become vivid on attending to them, emotions diminish on examining them. In addition, while sensations are directed to a particular sensible quality, emotions have no single special sense as their cause, but can be triggered off by any one or more senses or all of them. Thus emotions are strongly objective though individual.
C. DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT ABOUT THE NATURE AND VALIDITY SENSE KNOWLEDGE
Sense knowledge, according to many philosophers is very limited, uncertain and sometimes false when it encounters scientific verification. In addition, even though it is very useful as the beginning of all knowledge, it cannot give us universal objective truth but particular and subjective truths. Stoics and Epicurians however, believe it as true knowledge as we shall see.
Let us turn to the views of different philosophers especially as portrayed by Omoregbe.
Plato
For Plato, true knowledge cannot be acquired through sense perception because objects of sense perception are unstable, yet true knowledge is universal, unchanging. Objects of sense perception are particular and individual, things concrete, found in this world, yet objects of true knowledge are the essence of things found in the world of forms.
Aristotle
Sensation as the act of perceiving things through the sense organs is the first step in the process of acquiring knowledge. All knowledge is acquired through sense perception or sensation. Therefore for Aristotle, the external senses are the windows by which we perceive the material world, while the internal senses depend on the contents of external senses to synthesize or re-present them in their operations. Therefore without sensation, acquisition of knowledge is impossible.
Stoics
Man begins to acquire knowledge through sense perception. They reject Plato’s doctrine of the objects of knowledge being universal, because all we know are concrete things and it is concrete things that we perceive. Therefore clear perception is the criterion of truth for them.
Epicureanism
All knowledge is sense knowledge, which is the criteria for truth, sense perception leads to the formation of concepts, which are the memory images impressed on the sense organs during perception. When one makes a mistake, the error is not due to perception, neither is it due to the concepts but to the judgments. Its wrongness or rightness should be tested according to its conformity to experience. True knowledge conforms to experience. Epicureans confuse the operations of sense perception with those of the intellect.
Patristic period—St. Augustine
Augustine as a Platonic, does not believe in the certainty of knowledge acquired through sense perception, but attributes true knowledge to the world of forms where divine illumination helps human minds to grasp the truth.
Medieval-Bonaventure
Following the Aristotelian thought – all knowledge comes from sense perception except the knowledge of God and knowledge of moral virtues. These two are not objects of sense perception but they are innate. For no impression of them comes from the material world through senses to impress itself on the sense organs.
Thomas Aquinas:
He affirms that the five external senses help the human being to perceive the material world. He affirms the presence of internal senses too as already shown above.
Modern period-------Spinoza Benedict: [idealist]
Identifies three levels of knowledge, the first degree of knowledge being sense perception, the level of reason the second, and the third the level is intuition.
Sense perception for Spinoza gives us inadequate/confused knowledge because it deals with individual objects in isolation, detaching them from their totality of which they are part.
British empiricists- John Locke
Locke highlights three levels of knowledge, intuitive knowledge, demonstrative or scientific knowledge and sensitive knowledge.
All human knowledge derives from sense perception and reflection. The immediate objects according to Locke are ideas of objects, obtained when things impress themselves on our minds, leaving images that represent them. He identifies two types of ideas. Simple ideas and complex ideas and two types of qualities namely: primary and secondary qualities.
Simple ideas are the same as secondary qualities. They are powers in things which impress themselves on our senses, leaving the representations of things [images] in us. They are not in things themselves; they include sound, colour, taste, temperature, and odour.
Complex ideas are a combination of more than one simple idea to give rise to abstract ideas. It’s these ideas which supercede particular traits in things concerning a thing. However things in themselves are not perceivable according to Locke and are therefore unknowable, but we assume the existence of a substratum that supports qualities by going beyond ideas. Primary ideas like solidity, extension, figure and motion are inseparably found in things themselves.
George Berkeley
He equates sense perception or sensation with ideas. Things exist insofar as they are perceived. He denies the reality of matter and maintains that everything in the world is an idea in the mind. All sensible objects are ideas in the mind because for them, isse est percipi [to exist is to be perceived]. Things do not go out of existence when nobody is perceiving them because God is constantly perceiving them and are always known by God.
Berkeley and Locke agree that all our knowledge is about ideas, that the objects of our knowledge are ideas [not things in themselves] but according to Locke, ideas are copies of things in our minds. And Berkeley affirms that ideas are not copies/representation, but things in themselves. Therefore he denies the existence of the material world.
Immanuel Kant
Kant agrees with the empiricists that knowledge begins with sense perception though not all knowledge arises from sense perception. However, such knowledge is limited only to phenomena (appearances) which are received by our senses. Sense data via the forms of space and time and the categories of our minds give us phenomenal knowledge. Senses cannot give us the knowledge of the noumena, (things- in- themselves). Thus knowledge of reality is unknowable.
Contemporary philosophers:
Their concern is not epistemological but rather existential to the human person.
Existentialist--- Don Miguel de Unamuno Y. Jugo.
Unamuno cites the importance of the instinct for human self preservation and self- perpetuation. For him, the importance of sight, hearing, taste, smell, feeling and others are purposely for preservation of life.
Existentialists assert that not reason alone helps us to acquire knowledge or to guide our actions and behavior but also feelings, emotions or passions since they are integral parts of our very nature.
D. PROBLEMS OF SENSE KNOWLEDGE
1. It depends so much on one’s subjective response to the stimuli or the medium of the stimuli. Abnormalities or defects in the receptor organs or the medium will greatly affect its validity.
2 Senses are imperfect, gradual and fragmentary. In here, it means that they only present to us a small part of the reality.
3. They do not go beyond the subjective world (reality). We need to go beyond the knowledge of experience to the knowledge of science and reasoning. For instance the sun seems to be moving but in reality t it is the earth which moves, a stick in a glass of water may seem bent, mirage may appear like a river on a road etc
4. Senses only orient us about the reality of the external world. They only present particular aspects of the reality which are capable of accidental errors.
5. Sensation is relative and therefore it makes it hard for us to explain and apprehend other people’s experiences.
E. THE VALUE OF SENSE KNOWLEDGE
In spite of its limitations sense knowledge is useful in many ways.
1. Sensation constitutes the foundation human existence. Without it human beings cannot survive. Besides life preservation, sensation and emotions are indispensable because without them, no human activity, motions or locomotion is possible since all knowledge begins with sense perception.
Kindler asserts that without sensitivity babies are prone to damage of their lives, since they can get hold of hot objects without feeling any pain. Therefore, changes in our bodies provided by senses are essential for our existence, self preservation, activity, motion and self-perpetuation.
2. Imagination has been usefully adopted in artistic inventions, plays, architecture and computer graphics and the like.
3. Compensation errors make rail trucks appear to converge in distance yet in reality they don’t. This knowledge has been used to produce three dimension presentations on two dimensional surfaces in motion pictures, cameras, projectors and astronomic work.
4. Illusions and distortions are the source of discovery and information, for example the laws of refraction which have been used to plan for the medium of light passing through glasses of varying densities.
5. Knowledge of the distinction between the opposition of the desiderative and aggressive emotions, for example the presence of one diminishes the other has been used by psychologists and counselors to help couples to live together in love.
6. Building attitude through repetition and overt action of emotions for perfection of individuals and animals.
7. Business companies discovered the commercial use of emotions through advertisements. By keeping the message constantly present to the audience it eventually makes an impact on them and they respond accordingly.
Conclusion
Sensation constitutes the foundation of knowledge in human existence. Without it human beings cannot survive as implied by Jugo Unamuno. Besides life preservation, sensations and emotions are indispensable because without them, no human activity, motions or locomotion is possible.
In this paper, we have ventured into the phenomena of sense knowledge. We have examined its nature from the point of view of its sources, that is internal and external senses, and we have given its nature, limitations as well as value, highlighting the views of different philosophers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
