You probably believe that eating too much chocolate can cause an upset stomach, that lifting weights can cause your arms to feel sore, and that missing too much sleep can cause you to feel grumpy. All of these are ordinary beliefs about causation. They are so ordinary, in fact, that you might think there is nothing philosophically interesting about them. Famously, however, the philosopher David Hume thought otherwise. Here we will examine his answers to the following questions: Do we have good evidence for our beliefs about causation? How much can any of us know about one thing being the cause of another? How do we form our beliefs about causation, and what is belief in the first place?
David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish-born philosopher who lived in various parts of Europe throughout his life. Today, he is regarded as one of the most important philosophers of the 18th century and, in many estimations, of all time. Like some of his predecessors, such as René Descartes, Hume made considerable efforts to think for himself and therefore avoid what he regarded as the philosophical and theological dogmas of his time and place.
Although nearly all of Hume’s philosophy is still read today, Hume himself described his book An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Enquiry, for short) as one of his most mature and complete philosophical works. We know this because of a letter sent to his publisher where Hume lists it as one of just three works that can be regarded as ‘containing his philosophical sentiments and principles’ (Letters of David Hume, p. 302). You can read the full Enquiry here. We will focus only on its fourth and fifth sections. These are where Hume sets out some of his most controversial, mind-bending, and fascinating philosophical theories.
Here is a somewhat dramatic passage from one of Hume’s earlier works, A Treatise of Human Nature, in which we catch a glimpse of his general philosophical outlook:
“When I turn my eye inward, I find nothing but doubt and ignorance. All the world conspires to oppose and contradict me; though such is my weakness, that I feel all my opinions loosen and fall of themselves, when unsupported by the approbation of others. Every step I take is with hesitation, and every new reflection makes me dread an error and absurdity in my reasoning.” (A Treatise of Human Nature, Book One, Section Seven)
Try re-reading this quote after reading everything below. Then ask yourself: Is Hume being overly pessimistic about human knowledge?
Epistemological Theories: Theories about the nature and possibility of knowledge – whether, when, how, and to what extent we can know about reality, such as the physical world, or our own consciousness. For example, one epistemological theory says that we can gain understanding of our own consciousness by studying the brain, whereas other theories say that we can only gain knowledge of consciousness by reflecting on our own inner experiences.
Relations of Ideas: Knowledge that is gained just by sufficiently clear thinking, without having to observe or experiment with objects in the world. For example, knowing that a triangle has three sides is something you can know just because of what it means to be a triangle, hence without having to carefully examine triangular objects that you find throughout the world.
Matters of Fact: Knowledge that is gained by experience, such as by observing or experimenting with objects in the world. For example, knowing whether all swans in the world are white requires somebody to examine the many swans in the world and make sure they do not happen to discover a black one (and in fact, there are black swans!).
Causation: A relation between events, where one event (cause) is responsible for another (effect). Eating too much chocolate can cause the effect of having an upset stomach, and not getting enough sleep can cause someone to be grumpy.
Reasoning: Developing arguments to try and support the truth of one’s beliefs.
Inference: The psychological process of moving from one thought to another, such as moving from the thought “it’s raining, and I don’t want to get wet” to “I should get my umbrella”, or from “I am tired, and it’s getting late” to “I should get some sleep”. Nowadays, philosophers tend to use the term ‘inference’ to mean the same as ‘reasoning’, and tend instead to use the term ‘association’ to refer to movements between thoughts that are not based on any logic or evidence.
The Problem of Induction: A problem for reasoning about the future based on past experiences. How can we be justified in believing that patterns of events in the past will continue into the future?
The central topic of these sections is Hume’s epistemological theory of causation. Here you will learn why Hume thought that human beings cannot use their powers of reasoning to know that some things in the world can cause other things to happen.
Hume does not begin with a discussion of causation. Instead, he begins with some of his most basic epistemological theories about the different kinds of knowledge that are possible for human beings. Hume divides human knowledge into two basic categories: relations of ideas and matters of fact.
Section 4, Paragraph 20
All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. That the square of the hypothenuse is equal to the square of the two sides, is a proposition which expresses a relation between these figures. That three times five is equal to the half of thirty, expresses a relation between these numbers. Propositions of this kind are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe. Though there never were a circle or triangle in nature, the truths demonstrated by Euclid would for ever retain their certainty and evidence.
Section 4, Paragraph 21
Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing. The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality. That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood. Were it demonstratively false, it would imply a contradiction, and could never be distinctly conceived by the mind.
In the first passage, Hume describes relations of ideas. Knowledge of relations of ideas is what we can gain just by thinking carefully and clearly. Such relations can also be known with certainty. For example, to know how many sides a triangle has, or to know that bachelors are unmarried men, one does not observe one’s surroundings or devise a scientific experiment. Instead, one simply thinks about the definitions of terms like ‘triangle’ and ‘bachelor’. A triangle is a three-sided shape by definition. Similarly, a bachelor is an umarried men by definition.
On the other hand, matters of fact are known through experience, whether we are using our senses to currently perceive something or using our memory of something we previously experienced. They might also be known through scientific experimentation when direct experience is unhelpful (there is much that our senses cannot tell us because they are not powerful enough, like things about quantum physics).
Our beliefs about matters of fact are never certain: we could always discover a new piece of evidence that goes against what we thought we perceived, remembered, or experimentally studied. For example, we are pretty confident that gravity is real, but this is not a necessary truth. To see why, try imagining a world without gravity. Not that hard to do, right? This is why Hume says that “The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible”. On the other hand, we cannot imagine a world where triangles have four sides, at least not without changing the very meaning of the word ‘triangle’.
You might wonder whether other people can be a source of knowledge of matters of fact, since we often learn things about the world by being told about them, or even through books—such as Hume’s own—written by people we have never spoken to directly! In fact, Hume’s view is that we can only learn things from others if they (or somebody that they heard things from) can perceive or remember what they are saying to us. You can learn more about Hume’s view regarding knowledge by reading Section 10 of his Enquiry.
Hume admits that we can know some matters of fact. As I write this, there is a hazelnut latte in front of me. My perception allows me to know how things are in front of me right now. I can also use my memory to recall what was in front of me last night—a delicious bowl of Ramen. However, sometimes people also want to know about the relationships between the past, present, and future. Here is a simple example of how we try to connect the past to the present.
Section 4, Paragraph 22
A man finding a watch or any other machine in a desert island, would conclude that there had once been men in that island. All our reasonings concerning fact are of the same nature. And here it is constantly supposed that there is a connexion between the present fact and that which is inferred from it. Were there nothing to bind them together, the inference would be entirely precarious.
Upon considering the desert island scenario, we can easily draw a connection between thinking ‘I see a watch on this island’ and thinking ‘there was a man on this island beforehand.’ But what exactly is the connection? Intuitively, the connection seems to be causal: we want to say that the watch’s presence on the island was caused by some man putting it there. When we move between these two thoughts, we are engaging in what Hume calls inference. However, as we will eventually see, not all inference is a matter of reasoning. When we reason, we are moving from one thought to the next using logic or evidence. Hume thinks that there are inferences that do not involve logic or evidence, hence the need to distinguish inference from reasoning.
It might seem like we are reasoning about the watch and the man that caused it to be on the island. After all, reasoning is an attempt to explain the presence of the watch on the island, and explanations tend to require logic and evidence. As we will see, however, Hume thinks that we do not really have any logical or evidential justification for this alleged explanation.
If our reasoning about causal relationships is to be justified, it must be possible for it to give us knowledge. So, what kind of knowledge is knowledge of causation? In other words, into what category does knowledge of causation fall – relations of ideas or matters of fact?
First, do our causal beliefs involve relations of ideas? Hume quickly dismisses this possibility.
Section 4, Paragraph 23
Let an object be presented to a man of ever so strong natural reason and abilities; if that object be entirely new to him, he will not be able, by the most accurate examination of its sensible qualities, to discover any of its causes or effects. Adam, though his rational faculties be supposed, at the very first, entirely perfect, could not have inferred from the fluidity and transparency of water that it would suffocate him, or from the light and warmth of fire that it would consume him.
Causes and effects must be different from each other. Fire is different from the heat that it allegedly causes, and vegetables are different from the nourishment that they allegedly cause in those who eat them. The effects of different causes can be quite varied as well. Bread may be fine nourishment for a man, but not for a lion or tiger. From these points, Hume offers the following observation about a game of billiards.
Section Four, Paragraph 25
Motion in the second Billiard-ball is a quite distinct event from motion in the first; nor is there anything in the one to suggest the smallest hint of the other. A stone or piece of metal raised into the air, and left without any support, immediately falls: but to consider the matter a priori, is there anything we discover in this situation which can beget the idea of a downward, rather than an upward, or any other motion, in the stone or metal?
The point here, which Hume makes through rhetorical questions, is that the only way to know what one event will lead to is through experience. If you have never experienced a certain object’s behaviour, it will be impossible to accurately predict it unless you make an extremely lucky guess. We can imagine just about anything happening after dropping a stone in the air. This shows that there is no necessary relation between the stone and its falling to the ground when dropped, even though our own past experiences all involve the stone’s falling to the ground. Knowledge of causation cannot be knowledge of relations of ideas.
Imagine that you have been transported to an alien planet, without any understanding of its different substances or the physical forces that govern them. An alien presents you with a ball of green slime, made from chemicals that do not exist on Earth. You observe the slime ball as carefully as you can, but without any direct interaction. Now the alien asks you to predict what will happen when you touch it. Can you ever know with certainty what will happen?
Is knowledge of causation part of our knowledge of matters of fact? You might think that experience can justify our reasoning about causal relationships because we can remember how often one event follows from another. For example, every time I have clapped my hands together it has been followed by a sound. By remembering this, it might seem easy to make a prediction about the future as well: clapping my hands will cause a sound. But does my past experiences really prove a causal relationship between sound and clapping? Once again, Hume says no!
Section 4, Paragraph 29
As to past Experience, it can be allowed to give direct and certain information of those precise objects only, and that precise period of time, which fell under its cognizance: but why this experience should be extended to future times, and to other objects, which for aught we know, may be only in appearance similar; this is the main question on which I would insist. The bread, which I formerly eat, nourished me; that is, a body of such sensible qualities was, at that time, endued with such secret powers: but does it follow, that other bread must also nourish me at another time, and that like sensible qualities must always be attended with like secret powers? The consequence seems nowise necessary.
As we can see, Hume does not simply want a justification for saying that one type of event has tended to happen after another. For example, if the connection between flames and heat is not a mere coincidence, then we can reliably predict a relationship between them in the future. But how can remembering that flames were followed by heat in the past tell us anything about the relationship between flames and heat in the future? What makes our reasoning from past to future justified? Without an answer to this question, we cannot really be sure that there is a causal relationship between flames and heat, nor between any other types of objects or events.
If Hume is right, there is no necessary connection between the idea of one object in the world and another object in it: we can imagine a cold flame, or a stone that falls upward rather than downward. Perhaps, though, we simply need a good argument for why some objects will probably cause others. After all, even if we can imagine a cold flame or even actually experience one, we could still argue that flames will probably cause heat rather than cold.
However, Hume has essentially given us two major arguments—one to show that causal relationships are not known as relations of ideas, and another to show that they are not known as matters of fact. Notice that both arguments share a similar first premise.
Argument 1: Causation vs. Relations of Ideas
Premise 1: If causal relations are known as relations of ideas, then we are justified in believing that one thing caused another by demonstrating a necessary connection between cause and effect
Premise 2: We can always imagine one event happening without another happening afterwards
Premise 3: If we can always imagine one event happening without another happening afterwards, then we are not justified in believing that one thing caused another by demonstrating a necessary connection between cause and effect
Conclusion 1: Therefore, we are not justified in believing that one thing caused another by demonstrating a necessary connection between cause and effect
Conclusion 2: Therefore, causal relationships are not known as relations of ideas
Argument 2: Causation vs. Matters of Fact
Premise 1: If causal relations are known as matters of fact, then believing that one thing caused another is justified by perceiving these relations or remembering these relations
Premise 2: We do not perceive causal relations—we only perceive one event happening after another
Premise 3: If we do not perceive causal relations, then believing that one thing caused another is not justified by perceiving causal relations
Conclusion 1: Believing that one thing caused another is not justified by perceiving causal relations
Premise 4: We do not remember causal relations—we only remember one event happening after another
Premise 5: If we do not remember causal relations, then believing that one thing caused another is not justified by remembering causal relations
Conclusion 2: Believing that one thing caused another is not justified by remembering causal relations
Conclusion 3: Therefore, causal relationships are not known as matters of fact
In this second argument, Hume considers whether we can use our past experiences of a consistent connection between two events to prove that one will probably cause the other. Hume argues that past experience and memory do not reveal causal relations to us. He also adds that we cannot simply assume that the past will resemble the future, because such reasoning “must be evidently going in a circle, and taking that for granted, which is the very point in question.” (Section 4, Paragraph 30). This is because such reasoning makes sense only if we assume “…that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities” (Section 4, Paragraph 32). The problem with this assumption is that it is precisely what we are trying to prove! If we assume that the past will resemble the future, we are simply assuming that there are predictable causal relationships between different types of objects and events.
At this point, we seem to face a startling conclusion: we do not have any knowledge of causal relationships! At the very least, we face the problem of explaining how such knowledge is possible. One version of this problem has been referred to as the problem of induction in contemporary philosophy.
Should we simply stop believing that there are causal relationships between fire and heat, water and thirst-quenching, and so on? Interestingly, Hume does not think that we could stop having these beliefs even if we wanted to. He merely concludes that our causal beliefs cannot be based on reasoning. To explain himself, he points out that infants will quickly learn to keep their hands away from a hot flame even though they lack the capacity to reason about a connection between heat and flame (Section 4, Paragraph 33). How could an infant form a causal belief even if she does not use reasoning to do so? If we can answer this question, then maybe we can also explain why adults have causal beliefs.
Hume says that there is a principle which explains the origins of our causal beliefs. The origin of these beliefs may not be human reasoning, but it is an important principle that explains quite a bit about human psychology according to Hume. He calls this the principle of “Custom” or “Habit”.
Section 5, Paragraph 36
For wherever the repetition of any particular act or operation produces a propensity to renew the same act or operation, without being impelled by any reasoning or process of the understanding, we always say, that this propensity is the effect of Custom.
In life, we repeatedly encounter heat after encountering a flame, and we become accustomed—habituated—to the thought that one is the cause of the other. This mental habit is all there is to it: there is no deeper reason for why we should associate flames and heat together as cause and effect: “All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning” (Section 5, Paragraph 36).
Section 5, Paragraph 38
[…] having found, in many instances, that any two kinds of objects—flame and heat, snow and cold—have always been conjoined together; if flame or snow be presented anew to the senses, the mind is carried by custom to expect heat or cold, and to believe that such a quality does exist, and will discover itself upon a nearer approach. This belief is the necessary result of placing the mind in such circumstances. It is an operation of the soul, when we are so situated, as unavoidable as to feel the passion of love, when we receive benefits; or hatred, when we meet with injuries. All these operations are a species of natural instincts, which no reasoning or process of the thought and understanding is able either to produce or to prevent.
Hume acknowledges that this is a proper resting point for our philosophizing about the epistemology of cause and effect. However, he does not end his discussion here. Instead, he discusses the nature of belief and uses his theory of belief’s nature to help explain how the principle of Custom manages to work so effectively within our psychologies.
Hume begins with a discussion of how imagination differs from belief. One major difference is that imagination seems freer than belief. I can easily imagine joining “the head of a man to the body of a horse” in my imagination, but I have a much harder time believing that such a creature really exists. This tells us that imagination is a voluntary mental act that we can begin and end at will, whereas belief “depends not on the will, nor can it be commanded by pleasure” (Section 5, Paragraph 39).
Unlike imagining, we cannot voluntarily believe things. One reason for this is that beliefs come from memory, perception, and reasoning, whereas imagination does not require any of these processes. But the fact that imagination is freer than belief does not really tell us what fundamentally distinguishes these two mental states. For this reason, Hume proposes to distinguish imagination from belief by arguing that belief involves a distinctive kind of feeling.
What is the feeling of belief? Hume says that it is difficult to describe in a universally recognizable way, just as it would be difficult to describe feeling cold to somebody who had never felt it for themselves. But we get some attempts from Hume anyway.
Section 5, Paragraph 40
[…] belief is nothing but a more vivid, lively, forcible, firm, steady conception of an object, than what the imagination alone is ever able to attain
In other words, even though we can imagine and believe many of the same things, they still differ because belief involves a feeling of deeper confidence than imagination does. The confident feeling associated with belief can help explain its being more “vivid, lively, forcible, firm, and steady” than imagination. I can imagine a three-eyed frog and then abandon this thought easily because I have no confidence in the reality of such a creature, but I cannot so easily abandon my belief that my name is Benjamin. My belief about my name is far too confident to be easily abandoned.
Consider the idea that there are at least 1000 centaurs living in New York City right now. Now consider the idea that there are at least 1000 people living in New York City. Do you feel differently, or the same, about each of these ideas? Is the second more vivid, lively, forcible, firm, and steady than the first, or not?
What does all of this have to do with causation? Quite a lot, as it turns out. This is because Hume thinks that our vivid, firm, and stable feelings about causal relationships comes from our experience of constant conjunctions between events in the world. I come to feel a firmer and more stable conception of the relationships between flame and heat, rain and thunder, and so on, every time I notice one happening after the other. The more conjunctions between these events that I encounter, the firmer my confidence about the causal relationship between them. This is still just a habit: it is not really based on logic or argument. Still, it still helps to explain why I believe in causal relationships rather than merely imagine them.
Section 5, Paragraph 44
When I throw a piece of dry wood into a fire, my mind is immediately carried to conceive, that it augments, not extinguishes the flame. This transition of thought from the cause to the effect proceeds not from reason. It derives its origin altogether from custom and experience. And as it first begins from an object, present to the senses, it renders the idea or conception of flame more strong and lively than any loose, floating reverie of the imagination. That idea arises immediately. The thought moves instantly towards it, and conveys to it all that force of conception, which is derived from the impression present to the senses. When a sword is levelled at my breast, does not the idea of wound and pain strike me more strongly, than when a glass of wine is presented to me, even though by accident this idea should occur after the appearance of the latter object? But what is there in this whole matter to cause such a strong conception, except only a present object and a customary transition to the idea of another object, which we have been accustomed to conjoin with the former? This is the whole operation of the mind, in all our conclusions concerning matter of fact and existence; and it is a satisfaction to find some analogies, by which it may be explained. The transition from a present object does in all cases give strength and solidity to the related idea.
This passage applies Hume’s general theory of belief to our causal beliefs. He thus explains how the sentiment of confidence about one event comes from perceiving it, and how this feeling carries over to one’s belief about whatever happens after that event. One is accustomed to expecting the second event to follow from the first through habitual association. In this way, one’s beliefs can extend over time, from one event to the next, without any interruption.
Hume concludes Section Five of his Enquiry by emphasizing the importance of our habit for relating events to one another as causes and effects. This habit helps us to follow the order of events in nature even if we do not really understand nature through the use of our logical, rational intelligence. Indeed, he thinks it is good that our causal beliefs do not depend on our intellect.
Section 5, Paragraph 45
[…] this operation of the mind, by which we infer like effects from like causes, and vice versa, is so essential to the subsistence of all human creatures, it is not probable, that it could be trusted to the fallacious deductions of our reason, which is slow in its operations; appears not, in any degree, during the first years of infancy; and at best is, in every age and period of human life, extremely liable to error and mistake.
If we did not expect heat to follow from fire, or rain to follow from thunder, we would risk imperilment by the natural forces of the world. This is true even though Hume is skeptical about our capacity to truly understand the forces of nature.
Hume’s confidence about human knowledge and understanding is quite mixed. He believes that we can know some things without using perception or memory, such as mathematics and geometry. He also believes that we can know about the world through perception and memory. But he does not believe that we can understand the fundamental reasons for why we perceive and remember the things that we do.
It is mysterious, ultimately, why things move, explode, grow, die, love, fear, and so on. We all have beliefs about these things due to our repeated exposure to consistent patterns in nature, but we lack a rational understanding of these patterns. This is certainly a somewhat pessimistic view of human knowledge and poses a serious challenge to scientists as well as anybody else who thinks that they can transcend the limits of their senses and memory in order to understand our universe. Though pessimistic, it may also be a picture that humbles us by encouraging us to not overstep the boundaries of our intelligence.
In Sections 4 and 5 of Hume’s Enquiry, we saw him introduce a distinction between knowledge of relations of ideas and of matters of fact. We then discussed Hume’s pessimism about our justification to treat our causal beliefs as either type of knowledge. Rather than despairing about our limited knowledge, however, we saw Hume argue that our causal beliefs are not founded on any sort of knowledge-giving process; instead, they are ingrained in us by habit. These habits are formed through repeated exposure to patterns of events in the world—patterns which we cannot prove will continue in the future, but which nevertheless structure our behaviour and do so successfully, at least for now!
If you want to know more about Hume’s philosophy, you can hardly do better than by continuing reading from his Enquiry, especially beyond the sections discussed here. You can also consider reading from one his most important earlier works, A Treatise of Human Nature, in which many of the ideas discussed here were first developed. For entry-level secondary resources, there is much to learn from this Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Hume’s work. There is also this short podcast, featuring the philosopher Peter Millican, in which Hume’s views about religion are connected to his epistemological projects. Finally, readers who want to learn more about epistemology in general can check out this helpful entry from the 1000 Word Philosophy anthology.
This work has been adapted from An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, a title from the Project Gutenberg Ebook library, by David Hume and L. A. Selby-Bigge. This work is in the public domain. All images were created using Midjourney.
Winokur, Benjamin. 2025. “Can We Know the Causes of Things? David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Sections IV and V.” The Philosophy Teaching Library. Edited by Robert Weston Siscoe, <https://philolibrary.crc.nd.edu/article/the-causes-of-things/>.
Monarchy – A monarchy is a state where political deliberation is performed by one person (generally a king or queen).
Phalaris (c. 570-549 BCE) was, by most accounts, the very opposite of Cyrus, and he was used as an example of tyrannical cruelty in antiquity. He was tyrant of Acragas (now Agrigento) in Sicily. Diodorus Siculus records an infamous account of Phalaris’s torturing his enemies in a bronze bull placed over a roaring fire.
Cyrus the Great (d. 530 BCE) was the first emperor of the Persian Empire and a commonly used exemplar of the “enlightened monarch” in antiquity. He was renowned for his tolerance and care for his subjects. Xenophon, a student of Socrates, wrote a partly fictionalized biography of Cyrus called The Education of Cyrus (Cyropaedia). Peter Drucker, an influential 20th-century management theorist, called the Cyropaedia the best book on leadership.
Republic (res publica) – Cicero’s short definition of res publica is res populi (the ‘people’s thing’). Later in the Republic, Cicero famously defines a republic (1.39) as an assemblage of people associated with each other by consensus on justice (ius) and mutual benefit (utilitas).
Scipio Aemilianus Africanus was a hero among many Romans, but his reputation today is far less straightforward. Scipio Aemilianus led a Roman military campaign resulting in the utter destruction of the city of Carthage in 146 BCE. The Carthaginians were a prosperous Phoenician people in North Africa and rivals to Roman power. It has been argued that this act of ‘national extermination’ meets the modern definition of genocide. How should this knowledge impact how we view Scipio’s political philosophy expressed here?
This famous phrase, known by the abbreviation SPQR (senatus populusque Romanus), served as something like the official title of the Roman state (compare ‘USA’, ‘USSR’, ‘UK’), and encapsulated the ideal of a res publica (common property in public hands shared between the people and a council of elders).
Contemplation: The activity of human beings’ rationality. Contemplation is more than just thinking; it’s thinking excellently about ultimate truths. Contemplation is the ultimate activity associated with human flourishing.
Eudaimonia: Often translated as ‘happiness’ (in this text) or ‘flourishing’, eudaimonia is the activity of living the best possible life for a human being. Eudaimonia is more than just feeling happy or contented – it’s the idea that there is a best way to live for human beings.
Virtue: Virtues are cultivated tendencies to perform our function excellently, which allow us to reliably do the right thing, to the right extent, for the right reasons, given the demands of a specific circumstance. There are three components of virtues: virtues involve (a) skillful activity – they’re excellences after all!, (b) proper motivation, and (c) appropriate judgment – they often lead to judgments about what is the right thing to do, which requires careful attention to the circumstances.
Pleasure: The enjoyable feeling that accompanies some activities. Some philosophers (but not Aristotle!) think that pleasure is the only thing that is good in itself
Endoxic Method: An argumentative structure that begins by laying out the endoxa, or the beliefs of the many or the wise, then raises apparent problems for those views and develops a resolution to those problems.
The Problem of Induction: A problem for reasoning about the future based on past experiences. How can we be justified in believing that patterns of events in the past will continue into the future?
A Priori: Hume is using the term ‘a priori’ to denote the kind of reasoning that allows one to gain knowledge as relations of ideas—in other words, reasoning from one necessary, definitional truth to another.
Justification: the concept of justifying one’s thinking, or one’s beliefs, is important in epistemology. Roughly, one’s thinking or belief is justified when there is good reason for it, or when it is well supported or well evidenced. All of these are ways of referring to some connection between what we think or believe and what is, or to some way of at least making ourselves think that we are closer to the truth.
Inference: The psychological process of moving from one thought to another, such as moving from the thought “it’s raining, and I don’t want to get wet” to “I should get my umbrella”, or from “I am tired, and it’s getting late” to “I should get some sleep”. Nowadays, philosophers tend to use the term ‘inference’ to mean the same as ‘reasoning’, and tend instead to use the term ‘association’ to refer to movements between thoughts that are not based on any logic or evidence.
Matters of Fact: Knowledge that is gained by experience, such as by observing or experimenting with objects in the world. For example, knowing whether all swans in the world are white requires somebody to examine the many swans in the world and make sure they do not happen to discover a black one (and in fact, there are black swans!).
Relations of Ideas: Knowledge that is gained just by sufficiently clear thinking, without having to observe or experiment with objects in the world. For example, knowing that a triangle has three sides is something you can know just because of what it means to be a triangle, hence without having to carefully examine triangular objects that you find throughout the world.
Reasoning: Developing arguments to try and support the truth of one’s beliefs.
Causation: A relation between events, where one event (cause) is responsible for another (effect). Eating too much chocolate can cause the effect of having an upset stomach, and not getting enough sleep can cause someone to be grumpy.
Epistemological Theories: Theories about the nature and possibility of knowledge – whether, when, how, and to what extent we can know about reality, such as the physical world, or our own consciousness. For example, one epistemological theory says that we can gain understanding of our own consciousness by studying the brain, whereas other theories say that we can only gain knowledge of consciousness by reflecting on our own inner experiences.
Aristotle means “happy” in the sense of a person who has developed a complete character, lived a full life, and become a true example of human goodness.
Happy Person – Someone who has developed her entire self well and lived a complete and flourishing life. She is a real and positive example of how we should live.
This is where Aristotle defines virtuous friends. These are friends who you actually answer the phone for. These are the friends who you ask for advice on work, love, and life. They are the friends that celebrate you for being you, but they also tell you when you’re messing things up. Not only do they love you, but you love them and try to be the same kind of friend to them too.
This is where Aristotle defines pleasurable friends. These are your TikTok, Snap Chat, or Instagram friends, the ones you post to social media when you’re having a good time.
This is Aristotle’s explicit definition of useful friends. These are your LinkedIn friends, those who you like networking with at events or enjoy working with on projects.
Virtuous Friendship – A friendship where people set as their goal for their friendship becoming good people together and living happy lives just because they value the good of their friends as persons. These are also known as “perfect” or “true” friendships. They are usually between people who are equally good. And they might be limited to people of equal social status, wealth, and power. Aristotle doesn’t think that any happy person will lack virtuous friends. But he thinks it’s likely that we’ll only have a few of this sort.
Pleasurable Friendship – A friendship where people set as their goal for their friendship some pleasant goal, such as friendship between people who go out on the town together. These friendships are plentiful and easy to form and dissolve.
Useful Friendship – A friendship where two people set as their goal for their friendship some useful or utilitarian purpose, such as friendship between work colleagues. These friendships are plentiful and easy to form and dissolve.
Aristotle uses “friend” broadly for any relationship between people who like each other, wish good things for each other, and get something out of spending time together.
Friendship – A relationship between two people who like each other, generally wish each other well, and have a goal for their interactions.
Happiness – The final end and highest good of human life. The perfect good that objectively fulfills human nature and subjectively satisfies desire.
Happiness Criteria – The conditions that the true object of happiness must satisfy. They are: finality, intrinsic value, purity, internality, authenticity, stability, self-sufficiency, completeness.
Object of Happiness – The thing in which happiness essentially consists, the attainment of which will make us truly happy.
Highest Good – The greatest good for a human being.
Final End – The ultimate goal of human life. All of our other goals are chosen for the sake of this final end.
Constituent Principles – Parts of a material object that cause the object to be the sort of thing that it is, but that cannot be removed from that object (in the way that some properties can be gained or lost). For Aquinas, this would include things such as form (the structure of a material object) and matter (that which is structured). For example, Dylan’s form is his soul, and his matter is his body. His soul and body are distinct, but Dylan could not exist if he were not composed of both.
Accident/accidental property – A property that something can possess or not possess while still remaining the thing that it is. For example, Dylan could grow taller, or he could stop being musical, without becoming a different person. By contrast, rationality is an essential property of Dylan, since being rational is part of the “what it is to be” of a human being.
Subject/Suppositum – Something or someone that can bear properties but is not itself a property that something else can bear. Dylan can have properties, like being short or being musical, but no one can have Dylan as a property.
Property – A feature that an object has. For example, a ball could be orange, which means that the ball has the property of orangeness. In many cases a property can be gained or lost. The ball could be painted green, in which case it would gain the property of greenness and lose the property of orangeness.
Actuality – The being, or act of being, of a thing. For example, hot water is actually hot (the water is hot), even though it is potentially cold. Likewise, a boy is actually a human being (he is a human being), even though he is also potentially a full-grown man (and he will still be an actual human being when he becomes a full-grown man).
Potentiality – Ways a given thing can become different from the way it is now. For example, cold water is potentially hot, since it can be heated up, and an acorn is potentially an Oak tree since it can grow to full size under the right conditions.
Essence – The “what it is to be” of a thing. For example, the essence of a human being is to be a rational animal, and the essence of a cheetah is to be the fastest land animal.
Principle of Specialization – The idea that work is more efficient and more effective if each worker specializes in exactly one task.
Extrinsic Value – Value a thing has that is dependent on something else. Extrinsically valuable things are worth pursuing because they get you something else that is valuable. Money, for instance, is only useful because it can be exchanged for other things.
Intrinsic Value – Value a thing has independently or inherently. Intrinsically valuable things are worth pursuing for their own sake.
Adeimantus and Glaucon were Plato’s older brothers (along with an older sister, Potone). They were both honored for military valor at a battle with Megara. We know little about their lives otherwise. Potone had a son, Speusippus, who inherited leadership of the Academy upon Plato’s death.
Thrasymachus was a real person, who lived about 459-400 BCE moved to Athens from Chalcedon to become a sophist (a professional teacher and public speaker). Only a few fragments of his work survives
Prudence – Prudence is virtue wherein a person is able to choose, in any given situation, the course of action that will lead to greater happiness. For example, a prudential person knows when it is appropriate to continue a difficult conversation and when it is best to wait for a more appropriate time.
Pleasure – Epicurus would have us think about pleasure as coming in two forms: moving and static. Moving pleasures are the type that we experience in the process of satisfying a desire (this coffee tastes amazing!). Static pleasure is the feeling of being satisfied — no longer experiencing need or want (I am feeling so peaceful sitting in the park). Epicurus thinks these static pleasures are the best sort.
Epicurus believed that reality is composed of matter. This sets him apart from other philosophers of the time who, often influenced by Plato, believed that reality is composed of both the material and immaterial (like the soul, or the Platonic forms).
Happiness – Epicurus uses the Greek word “eudaimonia,” which is typically translated into English as “happiness.” Whereas today happiness is most often used to describe a momentary feeling (this new notebook makes me happy!) Epicurus means something more like a consistent state of well-being and contentment.
Unconditioned: an ultimate explanation of reality. For example, if I explain why it is raining today by appealing to some atmospheric conditions, I can always ask for the cause of those conditions, and so on. Only a cause that is not caused by anything else (something unconditioned) would give us an ultimate explanation.
Transcendental Idealism: Kant’s mature philosophical position. It holds that appearances are not things in themselves, but representations of our mind. It is opposed to transcendental realism, which identifies appearances with things in themselves.
Appearances (vs. things in themselves): things as they are experienced by us (also known as phenomena). They should be distinguished from things as they are independently of our experience (things in themselves or noumena).
Metaphysics: the study of what there is. Traditionally, metaphysics is divided into general metaphysics and special metaphysics. The former investigates the general features of reality and asks questions such as ‘What is possible?’. The latter studies particular kinds of being and asks questions such as ‘Does God exist?’ or ‘Is the soul immortal?’.
Reason: the faculty that knows a priori. Kant uses this term in a general sense (the knowing faculty as such) and in a specific sense (the faculty that demands ultimate explanations).
A priori: term denoting propositions that can be known independently from experience. For example, propositions such as ‘All bachelors are unmarried’ or ‘The whole is greater than its parts’ can be known without recourse to any experience.
Make sure not to think that ‘unjustified’ means ‘false.’ Even if they are true, the point is just that this would not be something that had been shown.
‘Absolute’ might be a confusing word, here. Socrates means that the geometers are not reasoning about their drawing of the square, for example, but of the square itself. They do not conclude that, for the square they drew, the area is equal to the square of a side – they conclude that this is true for squares as an intelligible object, or, as Plato would say, the Form of the square.
By ‘science’, Plato means to be talking about all rational disciplines, including mathematics.
The form of the beautiful has to be perfectly beautiful because all instances of beautiful things are explained by it, so it has to be responsible for the highest possible degrees of beauty possessed by anything. Moreover, it has no trace of ugliness in it.
The form of the beautiful has to be immaterial because all the many beautiful things do not share any material – that is, they are all made of different stuff.
Form (εἶδος / ἰδέα) – Intelligible, immaterial, perfect entities that explain the unity among the many things which share the feature named by the entity (e.g., Beauty, Squareness, Oddness). For example, think of a square. There might be many different squares, but they all share features like having four sides of equal length. So, the Form of Squareness would include all of those features that make something a square.
Guardian – This is the name Plato gives to the ruling class in his ideal city. Think of them as philosopher kings – they have complete control over the organization of the state. The Republic is partially about why Plato thinks they would be needed for an ideal system of government and what they would need to learn to do the job well.
Plato has previously argued that we are made up of different parts. The first part is the appetitive which is responsible for our desires for food, sex, and other bodily needs. Then there is the spirited part, which longs for fame and honor. Finally, he identifies the rational part, which discerns what is good and bad for us through reason. The parts can all come into conflict with one another, and managing their relations is what Plato thinks justice is all about.
Soul (ψῡχή) – What Greeks meant by this word is controversial. For now, think of it as the thing that makes you different from a rock or other objects, the thinking and experiencing part of you as well as the part of you that acts and makes decision. You might use the word ‘mind’ or ‘self’ to talk about this.
Virtue – Virtues are the character traits that make a person good. For example, most people consider courage and generosity to be virtues. English-speakers usually reserve the word ‘virtue’ for human beings, but in ancient Greek the word can be more comfortably applied to other beings as well.
Was it his burly physique, his wide breadth of wisdom, or his remarkable forehead which earned him this nickname?
Aporia – A Greek term for “being at a loss” or “clueless.” Socrates often questions people until they have no idea how to define something that they thought they understood.
You might be confused by the word ‘attention’ below. In Greek the word is therapeia, from which we get the English word ‘therapy.’ It primarily means the same as ‘service’ as in ‘to serve,’ but shades into ‘worship,’ ‘take care of,’ and ‘attend to.’
Meletus – A poet and citizen of Athens and one of Socrates’ accusers. Amongst other things, Meletus accused Socrates of impiety and corrupting the youth.
Divine Voluntarism – The idea that God is free to determine even the most basic truths. If divine voluntarism is true, then God could have made it so that 2+2=5 or so that cruelty and blasphemy are holy and good.
Euthyphro Dilemma – The question, “Is a thing holy because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is holy?” The general idea of a forced choice (or “dilemma”) about the true order of explanation occurs often in philosophy and gets referred to by this term.
Essence – What a thing fundamentally is. A square might be red or blue without changing the fact that it’s a square, but a square must have four sides, so having four sides is part of a square’s essence.
Definition – The perfect description of a thing. A definition should pick out all and only examples of a thing. For example, ‘bachelor’ might be defined as ‘unmarried man,’ because all unmarried men are bachelors, and only unmarried men are bachelors.
In Disney’s retelling of the Hunchback of Notre Dame, the clergyman Claude Frollo orders the death of many Roma on religious grounds. It is clear, however, that he is really motivated by spite and his unrequited lust for the Romani woman Esmerelda.
Spanish conquistadors were shocked by the scope of ritual human sacrifice among the Aztecs, as hundreds or even thousands of people were sacrificed each year. The Aztecs thought that the sacrifices could repay the sacrifices the gods had made in creating the sun and earth.
Zeus – The god of sky and thunder in ancient Greek mythology, Zeus was depicted as chief among the gods and called the father of the gods and men.
Forms – The perfect, divine, and intelligible entities that exist independently of the physical world. They are comprehensible only through reason, not through our senses, and their existence explains the properties of objects in the physical world.
Recollection – The soul existed prior to birth; during this time it learned everything, and hence all learning is only recalling what we already know.
Immortality of the Soul – Unlike the body, the soul is not subject to physical death, because it is immortal and indestructible.
Philosophy – The practice of preparing the soul for death by training it to think and exist independently of the body
Death – Plato understands this as the soul’s separation from the body
Human Identity Across Time – Locke’s notion that any human stays the same across time if, and only if, it maintains the same (distinctively human) organizing structure of parts.
Substance Identity Across Time – Something is the same substance across a segment of time if, and only if, it continuously exists across the relevant segment of time without gaining or losing any of its parts.
Immaterial Soul – A personal thinking substance without any physical constitution.
Personal Identity Across Time – Whatever makes someone the numerically same person (i.e., that very person) at different times; according to Locke, it is a relation of first-person consciousness via memory.
Person – Locke’s forensic definition of person (pertaining to courts of law regarding the justice of praise, blame, reward, or punishment): a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places.
The Prophet Muhammad is a central figure in Islam. He is viewed as the last of a long line of prophets, which includes Moses and Jesus. He is responsible for writing the Quran, which was dedicated to him by the angel Gabriel. His life and sayings are recounted in the Hadith; he is viewed as an exemplary role model of Islamic life and faith.
Exhortation — The method of understanding and interpreting Truth available to the common people. The majority of people take scripture literally and understand truth and right action based upon this understanding. They are persuaded by the vivid imagery of the Quran and the rhetorical exhortations of religious leaders. Averroes takes this to be lowest form of understanding
Dogmatic Discourse — The method of understanding displayed by those who, through natural ability and habit, are able to have a deeper understanding of the Quran, and of the truths it illuminates. These people know that not all of the scriptures are to be taken literally, and that greater underlying Truths are revealed by interpreting some elements allegorically. Still, they err on the side of dogmatism and literal interpretation whenever uncertainty arises. Averroes associates this way of thinking with Muslim theologians and views this to be the middle level of understanding.
Philosophical Inference – The type of understanding associated with philosophical demonstration or argument. This is the highest level of understanding, accomplished by a select few, who have a natural capacity for philosophy and proper philosophical training.
Law — The Quran (the central religious text of Islam) and, to a lesser extent, the Hadith (reports of what the prophet Muhammad said and did). Averroes is concerned with explaining how philosophy relates to what Muslims take to be the unerring Truth regarding God and the nature of existence, as they are expressed in Scripture.
Occasionalism — a theory claiming that God is the only true cause of changes in the world. For example, when you high-five me, you’re not really the cause of the stinging sensation I experience. God is the cause. Your high five is just the occasion on which God causes it.
Interactionism — a theory claiming that things in the world can truly cause changes in each other. For example, when you high-five me, you truly cause me to experience a stinging sensation in my hand.
Substance Dualism — a theory claiming that the mind (or soul) and body are two distinct and very different things.
Body — what it sounds like! The body is the physical part or aspect of a thing and has characteristics like shape, size, etc.
Soul — that part or aspect of a thing involving mental aspects of their existence, e.g., thoughts, feelings, decisions, etc. The “soul”, in this sense, is more or less just the mind.
Causal Interaction — When one thing acts (i.e., itself does something) and in so acting makes another thing change. For example, when you high-five me, you cause me to experience a stinging sensation in my hand.
God as God – The phrase “God as God” is basically a synonym for “God the subject.” In other words, it refers to God precisely in God’s status as an incomprehensible divine Other.
Incarnation – The Christian doctrine of the incarnation is the notion that the word of God became fully human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It is closely associated with the doctrine of the trinity, which asserts that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus as the word made flesh), and God the Holy Spirit are one God.
Religious Fanaticism – In Feuerbach’s use of the term, a religious fanatic is someone who is unwaveringly faithful to God as an utterly mysterious superhuman being. They subordinate other things—especially the love of other humans—to submission before this divine other.
God the Subject – When Feuerbach refers to God as a subject, he is referring to the commonplace religious belief that God is a being who has various attributes, like a loving nature.
Faith Separates Man From God – Faith separates God from man in this sense: it treats God as a mysterious other, a being radically distinct from us.
Faith – Belief in and fidelity to a transcendent divine subject like God.
Orthodoxy – Orthodoxy refers to “right belief,” and it is concern with identifying heresies and ensuring that people believe and practice correctly.
Indirect Form of Self-Knowledge – Feuerbach’s view is that religious belief is a naive way of relating to our human nature and its perfections. It is naive or childlike because it treats these as external realities that belong to God. He believes a mature and contemplative person realizes these don’t belong to God, but rather to our species, abstractly conceived.
Above the Individual Man – The human perfections are “above the individual” insofar as no particular individual ever perfectly realizes them. They are abstractions.
Divine Trinity – Feuerbach is having fun here. He is using the theological phrasing of the Trinity to talk about human perfections. In calling reason, love, and freedom of the will “divine,” he means they are absolutely good; they are activities whose goodness is intrinsic to their practice or exercise. This isn’t a novel philosophical view. For example, Immanuel Kant argued that autonomy or a good will is the only thing which is unconditionally good.
Perfections – The end to which a faculty or power is ordered. For example, omniscience would be the perfection of the intellect. Traditionally, God is said to possess all perfections.
Love – When Feuerbach writes about love, he is referring to unconditional concern for others and the desire for fellowship with them. He is here asserting that love, understood in this sense, is the perfect activity of the affective faculty. In other words, our feelings and passions are fully actualized and engaged in an intrinsically valuable activity when we genuinely love others.
Infinite – The infinite is whatever can be understood as unbounded or unlimited. Human nature in the abstract is unbounded and unlimited. It is only bounded or limited in its concrete form as it is realized by particular material individuals.
Higher Consciousness – The sort of consciousness that mature human beings possess, but which other animals do not. It is “higher” than animal consciousness because it involves thinking abstractly about the form or essence of things.
Science – Feuerbach uses the term science in its classical sense, meaning systematically organized knowledge. Any body of knowledge founded on an understanding of first principles and the essences of things is a science in this sense.
Popular Sovereignty – The view that a government’s authority to rule comes from the people, making a ruler subject to the will of their citizens.
The Divine Right of Kings – The theory that kings are chosen by God and thus that political revolt is a rebellion against the will of God.
Synthesis – The prefix ‘syn-’ means “together,” so a synthesis “brings together” or combines elements of both a thesis and its antithesis.
Antithesis– An antithesis is the contradiction of a thesis. For example, internationalism could be understood as the antithesis of nationalism.
Thesis – In Hegelian terms, a thesis can be understood as a position or theory. Examples include any of the “-isms” that we discuss in science, history, and philosophy, such as Darwinism, capitalism, nationalism, etc.
Progressor’s Temptation – a unique temptation for those making progress in which pride impedes their further progress and leads to backsliding.
Progressors – those who are not yet expert Stoic practitioners, but who are also aware of the fact that they must change their lives in that direction. They are working on making progress.
Intellectualism – the philosophical view that our motivations and emotions are all judgments. The reason why you do something, your motivation, is because you believe it’s the right thing to do. The reason why you feel good or bad about something, an emotion, is because you believe that something good or bad happened to you.
Duties – acts of service, obedience, and respect that we owe to each other. The duties we owe to each other depend on what kind of relationship we have.
Askeses – exercises of Stoic thought and practice that make the lessons and habits of Stoic philosophy second-nature for Stoic practitioners.
Externals – things that are not under our control but that are all-too-easily confused with things that should be important to us, like wealth, status, and pleasure. Too many people believe externals like these are necessary for the good life, and the Stoic path is to focus not on these things but rather what is up to us.
The Fundamental Division – the division between things that are under our direct control and those that are not. The important lesson is to care only about the things we can control.
The Greatest Happiness Principle – A principle which says that actions are right insofar as they promote happiness and wrong insofar as they promote unhappiness
Higher and Lower Pleasures – Types of pleasures that differ in terms of their quality. Things like food and drugs create lower pleasures. Things like intellectual pursuits and doing the right thing create higher forms of pleasure.
The Doctrine of Swine – An objection that utilitarianism entails that if people would be happy rolling in mud, that’s what would be morally best for them to do, so we should reject the theory.
Utilitarianism – A normative theory of which actions are right or wrong. Utilitarianism says the right action is that which maximises utility.
Jeremy Bentham – Considered by some as the father of utilitarianism, Bentham was a moral philosopher and one of John Stuart Mill’s teachers
Epicurus – an ancient Greek philosopher and one of the first to advocate that the ultimate good is experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain.
Utility – The thing that is ultimately valuable in itself. For Mill, this is happiness, which he then understands as pleasure and the absence of pain.
Contract Theory – a modern political theory identifying consent as the sole justification for government. Contract theory is associated with Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704), Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), and more recently, John Rawls (1921-2002)
Prejudice – a foundational, strongly held, unreasoned (but not necessarily irrational) moral opinion or belief. We might believe, for example, that parents have special obligations towards their own children.
A Priori – a philosophical term of art meaning (in Latin) “prior to experience,” which refers to knowledge that is innate or arrived at purely through reasoning, like the truths of mathematics.
Rights – moral claims invoking immunity from (or entitlement to) some specific treatment (or good) from others. Commonly recognized rights include the right to free speech or the right to healthcare.
Reform – a change in the social order that originates from the existing character of society. An example would be market-based healthcare reform in a capitalist society.
Conservatism – a modern political ideology that aims to preserve and promote the existing (or traditional) institutions of society. These institutions typically include the rule of law, property, the family, and religion.
Contingent Being – A being that can fail to exist. Its existence is not guaranteed. This being might come to exist or it might not.
Necessary Being – A being that can’t fail to exist. Its non-existence is impossible. This also means that such a being has always existed.
Want to read more about why the infinite regress option doesn’t work in the Second Way? Check out Sean Floyd’s entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Efficient Cause – An efficient cause is something that directly makes another thing exist or move. An example of this is when I kick a ball down a hill. I am the efficient cause of the ball rolling down the hill because I make it move down the hill.
Infinite Regress: Begin with some fact. We begin to explain that fact by appealing to another fact, where these facts are related by either causality or dependence. To create the regress, you keep appealing to more and more facts about causality and dependence without end.
Actuality – An ability or action something is currently exercising. Imagine that I am sitting comfortably at my desk, and then I stand up to take a break from reading. In this case, I am now actually standing.
Potentiality – What something has the capacity to do, but isn’t currently doing. Imagine I am sitting comfortably at my desk. Even though I’m not currently standing, I have the capacity to be standing. So, even while I’m not standing, I have the potential to stand.
Theists and Non-Theists – A theist is someone who believes that God exists, while a non-theist does not. Non-theists include atheists, who believe that God does not exist, and agnostics, who are uncertain about whether God exists.
Glaucon – one of Plato’s brothers and one of Socrates’ main interlocutors in the Republic dialogue. In that dialogue, he challenges Socrates to provide a compelling justification for why one should be a just person beyond merely following conventions or avoiding punishment. This sets up Socrates’ defense of justice as intrinsically worthwhile. Throughout the Republic, Glaucon prods Socrates to fully explain his theories of the ideal society, philosopher-kings, and the Form of the Good.
Aristotle – a Greek philosopher (384-322 BC) who studied under Plato and went on to be one of the most influential philosophers to ever live. Simply called “The Philosopher” by Thomas Aquinas and others in the medieval period, Aristotle’s views would eventually be synthesized with Christian theology, laying the intellectual foundation for later scholarly developments in Western Europe.
Understanding – Socrates describes education as turning one’s “understanding” in the right direction. The word “understanding” here translates the ancient Greek term “to phronēsai,” which means “understanding,” “being conscious,” or “having insight.” People who are wicked focus their “understanding” on how best to accomplish their selfish and narrow desires. Those who are wise, in contrast, have learned to focus their “understanding” on what is truly good and beneficial.
The Form of the Good – Socrates characterizes the ultimate goal of education as coming to know “the Form of the Good.” The Form of the Good is his technical term for the meaning of goodness: what it is to be good. Socrates is clear that this “knowledge of the Good” is not simply theoretical knowledge, but also knowledge in the sense of “knowing how”: knowing how to achieve what’s good, to do what’s good, to accomplish what’s good. Mere “book knowledge” or simply being smart is not enough.
The Intelligible – Socrates uses “the intelligible” to name the aspects of the world that we can only grasp through thinking or insight. With my eyes I can see the tree outside my window, but what it means to be a tree is something I can only comprehend in thought. Likewise, I can see the people around me, but human nature, human dignity, and what it means to be human is something I can only grasp conceptually. “The intelligible” is the world insofar as it “makes sense” and can be comprehended.
The Visible – By “the visible,” Socrates means those aspects of the world we can perceive with our five senses and our imagination—those aspects of the world we can see, hear, taste, smell, touch, and imagine. For example, with my eyes I can see the sky, trees, people around me, and so on as visible things. “The visible” is the world insofar as it can be perceived and imagined.
Education – Socrates says that the allegorical story he tells represents the effect of education on human nature. “Education” here is a translation of the ancient Greek word “paideia,” which means “education” in the widest sense of the term. “Paideia” doesn’t mean “education” in the sense of going to school or getting good grades. Instead, it refers to the process of becoming a wise, intelligent, good, and well-rounded human being.
Allegory – An allegory is a symbolic narrative where characters, events, and/or settings represent abstract ideas or convey deeper meanings beyond the literal story. Socrates tells such a symbolic narrative in the passages below. The characters, events, and setting of his narrative symbolize the effect of what he calls “education.”
Self-knowledge – Knowledge of the contents of one’s own mind, such as one’s own beliefs and desires. Self-knowledge can be gained through introspection, that is, by reflecting on what one thinks and experiences. Some philosophers believe that self-knowledge has special properties that our knowledge of the external world lacks, such as being clearer, more reliable, or more valuable.
Dualism – The view that the mind is entirely distinct from the body. This view is usually contrasted with different kinds of monism, which hold that the mind is ultimately just a part of the body (materialism) or that the body is ultimately just a part of the mind (idealism). Dualists hold that the mind and the body are fundamentally different aspects of reality, and both categories are needed to properly describe the universe, especially the human person.
The Self – What the ‘I’ in ‘I am, I exist’ refers to; the part of you that really makes you you. Many philosophers have provided rich accounts of what the self ultimately is, including the soul, the mind, one special feature of the mind (such as consciousness), a mixture of all these elements, or perhaps a mere illusion.
The ‘Cogito’ – Descartes’ famous claim ‘I think, therefore I am’ is often referred to as the cogito. The name comes from the Latin rendering of this phrase, which is ‘cogito, ergo sum.’ Descartes held that one can always believe this proposition with certainty. We cannot doubt our own existence, so the cogito survives his exercise of intense doubt. The cogito appears several times in Descartes’ writings, and he often phrased it slightly differently each time. It appears in the Second Meditation as ‘I am, I exist.’
Certainty – When one believes something with certainty, one is maximally confident that it is true. A certainty is something that is beyond dispute or immune to doubt. Although this captures the basic idea, like many epistemological notions, clarifying precisely what the notion of certainty amounts to is an ongoing area of philosophical research.
Vice – A bad habit that we learn over time through instruction or instinct and that we develop through repetition. What makes the habit bad is that, once we have that habit, our tendency is to do the incorrect thing in certain types of situations. We may choose to do something entirely uncalled for in that situation, or we may act at the wrong time, in the wrong way, to the wrong degree, or with the wrong attitudes, or for the wrong reasons.
Relative Mean – The “Goldilocks amount” of some type of action or emotion. When you act in this way, according to Aristotle, you act exactly as is required under the current circumstances. This means that you do what is called for by the situation at hand, rather than doing something too extreme or not doing something extreme enough. You do something in the moderate amount (the mean amount) relative to the specific situation you are in when you need to act.
Excellence/Virtue – A good habit that we learn over time through instruction and repetition. What makes the habit good is that, once we have that habit, we have a strong tendency to do the right thing at the right time, in the right way, to the right degree, with the right attitudes, whenever we are confronted with a situation that we know calls us to exercise that habit.
Doxastic Voluntarism – the view that we have at least some control over what we believe.
Evidence – information that increases the probability that a claim is true.
Sufficient – enough of something for a particular purpose. Whether something is sufficient is context-dependent.
Solon – In the Histories of Herodotus, Solon visits Croesus, the king of Lydia. Even though Croesus shows Solon all of his wealth, Solon refuses to call him the happiest man who ever lived because he does not know how Croesus will die
Priam – According to Greek mythology, Priam was the final king of Troy during the Trojan War. Despite his wealth and political power, he was killed by Achilles’ son Neopotolemus during the Sack of Troy
Virtue – The consistent and reliable tendency to perform one’s function excellently. When a person has a certain virtue, like courage, they have spent time developing the habit, in this case reacting to danger well, using their human abilities. The virtues then make it possible for us to live a life of flourishing
Sardanapalus – An Assyrian king described by the historian Diodorus as living a life of extreme decadence. Sardanapalus indulged himself with food, alcohol, and many concubines, even going so far to say that physical gratification is the purpose of life. Chrysippus said that, on his tomb is inscribed the following: “Though knowing full well that thou art but mortal, indulge thy desire, find joy in thy feasts. Dead, thou shalt have no delight […] I have only what I have eaten, what wantonness I have committed, what joys I received through passion; but my many rich possessions are now utterly dissolved.”
Function – the characteristic activity of a given thing which makes it what it is. The function of a knife is cutting, while the function of a heart is to pump blood
Eudaimonia – Frequently translated as ‘happiness’, eudaimonia means the attainment of active human flourishing, and is the end Aristotle identifies as humanity’s highest final good
Final Good – A good that we pursue for its own sake. Common examples of final goods include happiness, knowledge, and friendship
Instrumental Good – A good that we pursue for the sake of some other good. A common example is money, as money allows us to purchase other kinds of goods
Anytus – an Athenian politician, war general, and one of the primary accusers behind Socrates’ prosecution. Anytus feared that Socrates would undermine the young Athenian democracy he had helped create and defend
Oracle of Delphi – the high priestess at the temple at Delphi, the oracle was one of the most sought after seers of the ancient world and was thought to relay messages from the god Apollo
Chaerephon – an ancient Greek from the city Sphettus, Chaerephon is remembered as a loyal friend of Socrates, also making an appearance in two other Platonic dialogues, the Charmides and the Gorgias
Meletus – A poet and citizen of Athens and one of Socrates’ accusers. Amongst other things, Meletus accused Socrates of corrupting the youth
Apollo – the ancient sacred site Delphi was dedicated to the god Apollo, an ancient Greek god and the god that Socrates refers to throughout the Apology
Virtue – a character trait, acquired through habitual practice, that enables one to act well. The virtues can also be thought of as excellences of human character, as they make it possible for us to live a life of flourishing. Examples of the virtues include courage, prudence, and justice
The Evil Demon Argument – Argues that we cannot hold any of our beliefs with certainty because we could be radically deceived by an evil demon. A classic argument given by Descartes for doubting the reliability of almost all of our beliefs
Philosophical Skepticism – The position that we do not know many things that we ordinarily take ourselves to know
A Posteriori Knowledge – Knowledge that can only be acquired through having particular, concrete experiences. Such knowledge can be gained simply through our everyday experiences, or through more complex means like controlled scientific experiments
A Priori Knowledge – Knowledge that can be gained without having any particular concrete experiences. Such knowledge is typically gained by rational insight or intuition
Cartesian Method of Doubt – A process employed by René Descartes of rejecting all beliefs that he had at least some reason to doubt in order to see if he had any beliefs that he could know with certainty
Revelation – Theological truths that have been made known by means of some religious text, testimony, authority, or experience, or the act or process in which such truths are made known.
Rationalism – The view that the only reliable means of coming to know truths about God is reason. As a result, what we might otherwise believe by means of faith ought to be disregarded or even rejected in favor of what we must believe by means of reason.
Fideism – The view that the only reliable means of coming to know truths about God is faith. As a result, what we might otherwise believe by means of reason ought to be disregarded or even rejected in favor of what we must believe by means of faith.
Faith – The act of accepting a proposition as true for which there is less than demonstrable evidence, which rises above mere opinion but falls short of logical or scientific demonstration. Faith can also refer to a particular religious tradition or the body of beliefs that are central to that religious tradition.
Virtue – a character trait, acquired through habitual practice, that enables one to act well. The virtues can also be thought of as excellences of human character, as they make it possible for us to live a life of flourishing. Examples of the virtues include courage, prudence, and justice
Socratic Ignorance – an awareness of one’s own ignorance, and the reason that Socrates was deemed wise by the Oracle of Delphi. A person who lacks Socratic Ignorance may believe they know many things they actually don’t, leading them to overestimate how well they understand the world
Apology – a formal defense of justification of an action or belief. A Christian apologist, for example, is someone who defends their faith and seeks to justify it through an appeal to reason.
