Key Concept
Monarchy – A monarchy is a state where political deliberation is performed by one person (generally a king or queen).
Have you ever wondered why you adopt others’ opinions without questioning them? Perhaps you follow trends on social media, rely on the recommendations of influencers, or accept the opinions of your friends without thinking about them in depth.
It was precisely this phenomenon that concerned Immanuel Kant over 200 years ago. In his groundbreaking essay “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?”, he challenges us to overcome our “self-imposed immaturity” and to have the courage to use our own understanding.
Kant’s message is more relevant today than ever. In a world of filter bubbles, fake news, and algorithmically-curated content, how do you decide when to use your own head and when to let others do the thinking for you? Kant would encourage you to keep asking critically: “Why do I think this? Is it really my own conviction?”
Let’s dive into Kant’s revolutionary thought and discover how his ideas from over two centuries ago are directly connected to your daily life!
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was born and died in Königsberg, Prussia. He was a well-known philosopher of the 18th century, an important representative of the Enlightenment, and at the same time a perhaps surprising critic of reason. In his major works Critique of Pure Reason (1781/87), Critique of Practical Reason (1788) and Critique of Judgement (1790), he analyzes the grounds and limits of human knowledge and morality. Kant also published numerous articles in important Enlightenment journals, including the influential essay “Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?” in the Berlinische Monatsschrift (1784).
Kant’s essay serves as an answer to a question that was raised by Pastor Johann Friedrich Zöllner (1753–1804) several months earlier in an article in the same magazine. In his article, Zöllner criticized other scholars who demanded that pastors should no longer contract marriages at church because religious weddings contradicted the spirit of Enlightenment. Zöllner, on the other hand, argued that many moral principles already had become uncertain and that, therefore, people should not be confused any further in the name of Enlightenment.
In a footnote, he critically remarks: “What is the Enlightenment? This question, which is almost as important as the question ‘What is truth?’, should really be answered before one begins with the Enlightenment! And yet I have found no answer to it anywhere.” It was precisely this provocative remark that prompted Kant to publish his article. While he does not address the question whether marriages should be contracted at church or at a civil office, he does give a definition of Enlightenment and states conditions that have to be met in order for an individual, a group, or a state to become enlightened. We will read a selection of paragraphs from Kant’s essay. If you’re interested in reading the whole piece, have a look here.
Enlightenment – In German, ‘Aufklärung’ refers to a historical period (17th and 18th) as well as to a process of intellectual and institutional progress in individuals and institutions. Central ideals of this period were an emphasis on scientific knowledge, reason, and individual rights in contrast to superstition, authority, and tyranny.
Immaturity – The inability to use one’s reason in a legal and a figurative sense. In the legal sense, immaturity is due to minority of age, being less than 21 years old. When Kant was writing, it also applied to the entire female sex regardless of age. In both cases, fathers, brothers, and husbands served as guardians. In the figurative sense, immaturity can be self-imposed or imposed by others, and it can be overcome by enlightenment.
Understanding – A conceptual faculty that, together with our senses, structures our cognition of the sensible world. This faculty is also broadly construed as the ability to consider and give reasons.
Private Use of One’s Own Reason – The use of one’s reason in a professional or civic post or office — as a teacher, nurse, or a postal clerk.
Public Use of One’s Own Reason – The use of one’s reason as a scholar in exchange with the reading public through which the rules and principles of institutions and governments are critically examined.
Freedom – A condition of enlightenment which refers to the ability and right to discuss controversial topics and to justify one’s own point of view.
Kant does not hesitate to give us a straight answer to the question of the article. Right off the bat, he declares that Enlightenment is growing out of our mental immaturity by making use of our own reason.
Paragraph 1
Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance. This immaturity is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use it without another’s guidance. Sapere aude! “Have courage to use your own understanding,” is therefore the motto of enlightenment.
Kant begins his text with the word “enlightenment”, by which he means a process that derives its name from the verb “aufklären” (to enlighten/to clear up) in the sense of gaining clarity or understanding. Making use of a metaphor of light, enlightenment is made possible by a self-directed, intellectual activity that leads out of the darkness of ignorance and prejudice and into the bright realm of clear thought. To drive his point home, Kant quotes the Roman poet Horace, “Sapere aude!” or “Have courage to use your own understanding!” Other ways to translate this famous quote include “Dare to be wise!” or “Dare to know!”.
Having defined “enlightenment”, Kant now gives us some of the reasons why people remain immature, both causes that are self-imposed and ones that come from others.
Paragraph 2
Laziness and cowardice are the causes why such a large part of men, long after nature has freed them from external guidance, nonetheless gladly remain immature all their lives; and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so comfortable to be immature. If I have a book that serves as my understanding, a pastor who serves as my conscience, a physician who assesses my diet, and so on, then I need not make any effort. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have ever so kindly taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the largest part of them, among them the entire fair sex, regard the step to maturity as weary and also as very dangerous. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully prevented the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk by themselves. Now this danger is actually not so great, for after falling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. But an example of this kind is intimidating and discourages all further attempts.
Kant offers us examples of situations in which it can be comfortable to not think for oneself. These could include deciding how to be healthy or what religion (if any) to adopt. How about you – when is it comfortable for you to rely on the reasoning of others? And do you think that all of these occasions are somehow flawed as Kant suggests, or could there be good reasons to trust the reasoning of others?
Kant here draws a conclusion from the above-mentioned causes of immaturity. According to him, it is difficult to walk the path of enlightenment by yourself. This is because it is easier for individuals to adhere to dogmas and conventions than to free themselves from them.
Paragraph 3
Thus, it is difficult for the individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even grown to like it and is for the time being indeed incapable of using his own understanding because no one has ever allowed him to attempt it. Dogmas and formulas, those mechanical tools for a rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of an everlasting immaturity. Whoever threw them off would still make only an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to this kind of free movement. That is why there are only a few who have succeeded, by cultivating their own minds, in freeing themselves from immaturity and nevertheless pursuing a secure course.
Kant continues with the claim that a group of people will eventually enlighten itself if it is given freedom. Furthermore, he emphasizes how he believes societal change should take place – rather slowly and peacefully.
Paragraph 4
But that the public should enlighten itself is more likely; indeed, it is almost inevitable, if the public is given freedom. For even among the established guardians of the great masses there will be a few independent thinkers, who, after having thrown off the yoke of immaturity themselves, will spread the spirit of a rational appreciation for their own value and for the calling of each man to think for himself. It is to be noted that the public, which was earlier brought under the yoke by these men [the guardians], itself afterwards forces them to remain under it, in case it is incited to do so by some of its guardians who are themselves incapable of any enlightenment. So pernicious is it to implant prejudices, for they eventually will take revenge upon their originators, or on their predecessors. Therefore, a public can achieve enlightenment only slowly. A revolution may bring about the end of personal despotism and profit-seeking or domineering oppression, but never a true reform of modes of thought; instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones, will serve as guidelines for the thoughtless great mass.
In his critical works, Kant analyzes the dogmas of traditional metaphysics, including questions about the immortality of the soul and the existence of God. He claims that while we can have rational faith in these ideas, theoretical knowledge about them is impossible. With his radical criticism, Kant claimed to have initiated a “revolution in the way of thinking” (Critique of Pure Reason, BXII-XVI). The famous German-Jewish poet and writer Heinrich Heine therefore regards Kant as the “great destroyer in the realm of thought” (Concerning the History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany 1833).
However, when it comes to political change, he explicitly warns against spontaneous upheavals or revolutions and instead calls for long-term reform in cultural ideas and practices. Other philosophers, on the other hand, doubt that slow cultural reform can lead to an improvement in political conditions. Karl Marx, for example, criticizes Kant’s approach as ineffective and claims: “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it” (Theses on Feuerbach, 1845). According to Marx, there are circumstances in which people are so degraded and disadvantaged that only revolutionary upheavals can bring about change.
If you want to know more about Kant’s revolution in the realm of thought, see the Philosophy Teaching Library entry “What Can I Know?” by Lorenzo Spagnesi.
As we have just seen, it is important for Kant that a group of people that is in the process of enlightenment continues to critically question its own beliefs and preconceptions. In what follows, he explains in more detail what kind of freedom is required for the self-critical reform of thought that promotes enlightenment.
Paragraph 5
This enlightenment requires nothing but freedom; and the most innocent of all that may be called “freedom”: freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters. But I hear calls from all sides: “Do not argue!” The officer says: “Do not argue, drill!” The taxman: “Do not argue, pay!” The pastor: “Do not argue, believe!” (Only one ruler in the world says: “Argue as much as you please and about what you please, but obey!”) In all these cases there is restriction of freedom. But which restriction hinders enlightenment and which does not, but instead advances it? I reply: the public use of one’s reason must be free at all times, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among mankind. The private use of reason, however, may often be very narrowly restricted, without thereby hindering the progress of enlightenment. By the public use of one’s reason I understand the use which a man makes of reason as a scholar before the entire reading public. I call the private use that use of reason which a man may make in a civic post or office that has been entrusted to him.
Here, Kant distinguishes between a public and a private use of one’s reason. However, by “private use” he does not mean what we today consider to be the private sphere. According to him, the private use of reason does not take place within the family, or in close relationships with fellow human beings, but rather concerns the exercise of a specific professional activity – as an employee at a bank, a teacher at a school, a doctor in a hospital, or a soldier in an army. These professional activities often take place in areas that we today refer to as “public life.”
Furthermore, Kant also understands the public use of reason in a specific sense: he thinks of it as constituted by a group of “scholars” (today we speak of “experts” or “intellectuals”) who address an audience. Kant certainly had in mind the magazines and journals that had emerged in the 18th century, which facilitated intellectual exchange and thus contributed to the establishment of a bourgeois public sphere. He probably also thought of the gatherings of scholars who met in the parlors of wealthy families to discuss important issues about politics and law. Kant himself regularly invited scholars – exclusively male – to a dinner party at his home.
By giving definitions and examples for the private and the public use of reason, Kant leaves the impression that the two uses can be neatly separated. Whether this is always the case, however, is questionable. Kant himself intermingles the private and public use of his reason. He used his lectures at the university to communicate politically relevant ideas, bringing the private use of reason into the public sphere.
What do you believe – should it be part of the job description of a scientist to engage in public discussions about their field of research? And should an instructor stay neutral in class when it comes to moral or political values and norms?
In the following section, Kant considers an objection according to which a group of people, like a church council, should be allowed to issue unalterable doctrines and rules that are excluded from critical examination by the public use of reason. He denies the possibility of such unalterable decisions and explains why they would be so damaging to the process of enlightenment.
Paragraph 6
[…] One age cannot align and conspire to place a succeeding one in a position whereby it would be impossible for it to expand its knowledge, to purge itself of delusions, and generally to make progress in enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature, whose original destiny lies precisely in such progress. Therefore, succeeding generations are fully entitled to repudiate such decisions as unauthorized and criminal. The touchstone of everything that can be resolved as a law for people lies in this question: Could a people impose such a law upon itself?
For Kant, the fundamental principle of our moral duties is the categorical imperative, a touchstone of individual maxims or rules of moral action. A wellknown formulation of it is the principle of universalizability. This principle demands of rational beings: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (See Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals)
The touchstone “whether a people can impose a law upon itself” is reminiscent of the categorical imperative. Both emphasize that maxims and laws should be established in such a way that every rational being would formulate and also follow them after critical evaluation. Nevertheless, there is an important difference. The categorical imperative as a procedure to question one’s own rules of actions is intended to ensure that you can regard yourself both as legislator and subject to the law. For the touchstone formulated here, on the other hand, it does not seem necessary for the legislator (the enlightened monarch) to be identical with those who are subject to the law (the people).
Next, Kant refers to two meanings of ‘enlightenment’ – enlightenment as a state and enlightenment as a process of individual and institutional progress. He makes clear that he believes his contemporaries to be merely at the beginning of such a process.
Paragraph 7
If it is now asked, “Do we presently live in an enlightened age?” the answer is, “No, but we live in an age of enlightenment.” As matters now stand, it is still far from true that men are already or can be put in a position where they are capable of using their own understanding in religious matters confidently and correctly without external guidance. But we do have clear indications that the way is open to them to work freely towards it and that the obstacles to general enlightenment or to the emergence from self-imposed immaturity are gradually diminishing. In this respect, this age is the age of the enlightenment, or the century of Frederick.
Kant distinguishes an enlightened age from an age of enlightenment and thereby a state from a process. He suggests that while his contemporaries are at the beginning of the process of enlightenment, they have not reached a state of enlightenment itself. What do you think: is it possible for an individual or a society to reach this kind of state, or is enlightenment rather something we are always striving for?
Kant mentions the merits of Frederick the Great at several places, praising him for granting religious freedom not merely out of tolerance but out of duty, which provided his people with certain claims and rights. In this last paragraph, Kant presents the prospect of a government that treats its people according to their inherent dignity.
Paragraph 10
But only a ruler who is himself enlightened, who is not afraid of shadows, and yet at the same time commands a well disciplined and numerous army to guarantee public peace — only he can say what a republic cannot dare: “Argue as much as you please and about what you please, but obey!” Thus, when considered in broad perspective, we observe here as elsewhere in human affairs, in which almost everything is paradoxical, a strange and unexpected course of events: a greater degree of civic freedom seems to be of advantage to the intellectual freedom of the people, yet at the same time, it establishes insurmountable barriers. A lesser degree of civic freedom, however, creates room to expand one’s abilities. Thus, once nature has unwrapped the kernel from its shell, for which she has most fondly cared, namely, the urge and the vocation for free thinking, this kernel then gradually reacts on a people’s mentality (whereby they become increasingly able to act freely), and it finally even acts on the principles of government, which finds it beneficial to itself to treat man, who is now more than a machine, in accord with his dignity.
Dignity is a central notion of Kant’s philosophy. He does not define it in this text, but in other works he declares that humans have an innate and inalienable dignity. Furthermore, he argues that dignity is grounded in autonomy as the ability of the rational human will to give itself laws independent of influences like desire or tradition: “Autonomy is thus the basis for the dignity of human nature and of every rational nature ” (See Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals). The Kantian notion of dignity has influenced today’s understanding of human dignity. If you would like to know how central the notion is for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, have a look at Article 1.
In his article “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?”, Kant formulates the famous definition of enlightenment as man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. He considers factors that hinder this emergence and argues that certain individual, social, and political conditions are needed for its success, amongst them the courage to think for yourself, a critical public, and freedom of opinion. For Kant, enlightenment is not a final destination that you can reach once and for all. Instead, it is an ongoing endeavor to critically reflect on your modes of thought and to shape society so that people can live according to their dignity.
If you would like to know more about how Kant’s ideas are still relevant today, and even where he might have contradicted his own thinking, check out this video:
For a more complete picture of the Enlightenment project that Kant envisions, keep on reading the complete text of What is Enlightenment?, and for the complete text in German, go here. For more detailed information about Kant’s philosophy, check out this entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Quoted passages have been adapted from Mary C. Smith’s translation of Immanuel Kant’s “What Is Enlightenment?”. This work is in the public domain. Slight adjustments have been made to the translation at several places to bring it into closer correspondence to the original German text. The image “Aufklärung” by Daniel Chodowiecki is in the public domain. Source: Wikimedia Commons. The image “Eleanor Roosevelt holding poster of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” is licensed under CC Attribution 2.0 Generic License. Source: Wikimedia Commons. All other images were created using Midjourney.
Wienmeister, Annett and Peggy H. Breitenstein. 2025. “Dare to Know! Immanuel Kant’s An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” The Philosophy Teaching Library. Edited by Robert Weston Siscoe, <https://philolibrary.crc.nd.edu/article/what-is-enlightenment/>.
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.
