Goal: To acquaint you with some basic philosophical perspectives and to allow you to define yourself in relationship to them.

Dogmatism--the view that some beliefs should be be taken for granted and not challenged.

Epistemological optimism--the view that we can know or have a high degree of certainty about some things as a result of inquiry.

Let's take an example. To oversimplify, there are three positions you might hold on the existence of God: (1) theist, (2) atheist, (3) agnostic. Theist says God exists. Atheist might say, there is no God. Agnostic says, I don't know.

Now, a theist, an atheist or an agnostic may just be reporting her own view. But suppose she goes on to insist that her view is the correct one, the one that should be held. Now, suppose further that the theist says that theism should be taken for granted and not challenged. She is a dogmatist theist.

Suppose instead it is the atheist who says that atheism should be taken for granted and not challenged. He is a dogmatist atheist.

Suppose theists or atheists believe that people should investigate these issues and that if they do and consider everything that is relevant to determining the right answer, they will arrive at theism or atheism. This position is epistemological optimism about God's existence or non-existence.

When agnostics state that not-knowing is the proper stand for everyone to take on this issue, they are advocating skepticism. Agnostics won't be philosophical skeptics about God's existence unless they believe that we can never know either way. If an agnostic thinks he might one day find strong evidence that God exists or does not exist, then he is not a skeptic but an epistemological optimist.

An important point about philosophical skepticism is that skeptics do not merely doubt a statement. They doubt it and its opposite. A skeptic is firmly entrenched in the middle between truth and falsity without leaning either way..

Sometimes when we strongly disbelieve what others say, we say we are skeptical. We may be thinking, "she's wrong and I'm pretty sure of it," but we want to avoid outright disagreement, so we may merely say, "I am skeptical about that." But this is not skepticism in the philosophically interesting sense. Skepticism in the philosophically interesting sense is not a mild form of doubt, it is not a way of leaning against a view because one leans toward the opposite view. Philosophical skeptics are definitely in the middle. They are prepared to suspend judgment either way.

Now if somebody says, "there is a God," she is a theist, but we do not yet know whether she is a dogmatist about the existence of God. She might be an epistemological optimist on the existence of God. Likewise if somebody says, "there is no God," she is an atheist, but we do not know whether she is a dogmatist.

How do you decide? Let us clarify the meaning of "epistemological optimism."

Epistemological optimism says that we can know, or have a great deal of certainty, about some things. Dogmatists hold that we should accept what authority figures say and let the matter rest there. That is their reason for rejecting skepticism. But epistemological optimists insist that there is value to questioning, researching, exploring, testing, and investigating, you can achieve results, you can add to your knowledge and maybe to society's also. Epistemological optimists may have doubts about this or that, but they think these doubts can be largely or entirely overcome. They reject skepticism for a reason other than the dogmatists'.

The theist who is an epistemological optimist about God's existence thinks it can be rationally proven true. The theist who says we must just affirm God's existence even though it cannot be proven is a dogmatist on this issue. Note that the dogmatist has no monopoly on faith. You can believe something on faith and yet think that it is possible eventually to prove it.

Philosophy works a lot with language; after all, language is our tool for describing and understanding experience and belief.

We cannot put off talking about it. Contrary to what some think, philosophy is not mainly about language. However, without language we cannot describe reality, experience, or belief. We cannot inquire about truth. Language is our human instrument. We need to be conscious of how it works and learn to use it well.

The views S, D, and EO can be restated more precisely in terms of language. It is useful to focus on the units of language and meaning called statements.

We need a detour about statements.

Roughly, a statement is the same thing as a declarative sentence, the kind of sentence to which truth or falsity can be attached. Not a question, not a command. See the Statements handout for many examples of statements.

Singular

singular subject, what the statement is about, and a predicate, which says something about the subject

Examples:
Philosophy is challenging.
Joan is (a person who is) asleep.

Universal
predicates something about whole classes, either affirmatively or negatively

Examples:
All agnostics are bald persons. (Universal Affirmative)
No Buddhists are Moslems. (Universal Negative)

Particular
predicates something about at least one member of a class, either affirmatively or negatively

Examples:
Some agnostics are bald persons. (Particular affirmative)
Some fundamentalists are not Moslems. (Particular negative)

Conditional
States that something is true on the condition that something else is true.

Example:
If it has been raining recently, then the roads are wet.

Conjunction
States that both of two simpler statements are true.

Example:
John is over 60 and Martha is under 30.

Disjunction
States that either of two simpler statements is true.

Example:
John will teach the Religious Education class or Martha will teach it.

Negation
A statement that denies the truth of another statement.

Example:
It is not the case that John will teach the class. ("John will teach the class" is being denied.)

Skepticism, dogmatism and EO could be put more accurately in terms of statements. Skepticism is the view that it is not possible to determine the truth or falsity of statements. Dogmatism is the view that the truth or falsity of some statements should be taken for granted and not doubted. EO is the view that we can actually find out, know or have a high degree of certainty whether some statements are true or false.

What statements are you pretty sure are false? What statements are you pretty sure are true? Are you a dogmatist about this or an EO? What do you think we can never decide one way or the other?

Do we have any general skeptics?

If you are not a general skeptic you might be a skeptic about particular areas, subject-matters or issues, for example, about metaphysics (see the examples) or about beauty or ugliness (aesthetics).

Skepticism about a particular area is the view that the truth or falsity about any statement that might be made about [that area] cannot be determined

Epistemological optimism about a particular area = the view that we can know (have certainty about) some statements about that area.

Dogmatism about a particular area = the view that some statements about in that area should never be questioned but should always be taken for granted.

People are not usually skeptics or dogmatists about everything.

You might be skeptical that we will ever reach certainty regarding the morality of abortion, but be dogmatist about the basic ideas of arithmetic and geometry.

Or you might be a dogmatist or a epistemological optimist about morality (holding that we should not doubt, or we can know and prove, that stealing is wrong); but you remain a skeptic about religious statements. You may believe that we will never be certain whether or not the individual human soul is immortal.

You might be a skeptic about statements regarding God, but not about those made by scientists concerning ultimate particles; or you might be dogmatic regarding God but skeptical about claims made by scientists predicting asteroids colliding with the earth.

Relativism is the denial of any absolute or objective values (truth, moral goodness, beauty, etc.) and the affirmation of the individual, community or culture as the source of values.

Absolutism is the view that values (truth, beauty, and/or moral goodness) are independent of human opinion and have a common or universal application.

The absolutist's view is that some statements are "objectively true," that is, true independent of whether anybody recognizes their truth. Objectivism is another name for absolutivism.

The general relativist denies that are any objectively true statements; general relativism is the view that statements are true only from a point of view (individual, community, or culture).

Relativism and Absolutism About What?

As with skepticism and dogmatism, many people are relativists only about some areas, and dogmatists or epistemological optimists about others. You might be a relativist regarding ethical matters--saying that moral correctness is merely in the mind of the individual, or maybe the dominant group in the society, but remain an absolutist about mathematics, saying that 1+1=2 regardless of whether you or I or anybody else thinks so.

Relativism related to moral issues is called ethical relativism: the denial of any absolute or objective moral values and the affirmation of the individual, community or culture as the source of moral values. A relativist might say that there are no absolute moral rights for women to walk the streets unaccompanied by men; they do have that right in the U.S., but not in Afghanistan, and who are we to judge what another society believes?

The opposite of ethical relativism is ethical absolutism: there are universal moral standards--not in the sense that everybody accepts them, but in the sense that those who do not accept them are wrong. Thus, a person who defends universal human rights is an ethical absolutist, on at least some ethical issues. An ethical absolutist might say, "Women have the human or moral right to walk unaccompanied by men, even if this right is not recognized by others. So the current practice in Afghanistan is wrong."

There are aesthetic relativists too. An aesthetic relativist will say that beauty or coolness or awesomeness or whatever is in the eye of the beholder. "My kid may think Ace Ventura is cool, but that's his opinion, not mine. But nobody is absolutely right or wrong--it just depends on who you are, what your background is, your personal perspective, etc."

On the other hand, if your professor tells you that Plato's Republic is a well-crafted literary masterpiece, he is not merely saying "that's my view and opposite views are equally valid." He is trying to convey a truth that was true before people recognized it and would not stop being true if people fail to recognize it. His statement about Plato's Republic is meant to be objective. He is being an (aesthetic) absolutist at least about this one issue. (He can probably give you very strong reasons for his statement.)

Are absolutists necessarily dogmatists? I do not think so. An absolutist might be an epistemological optimist. She would believe that there are some truths that we can discover. She might even think that one way to find out which statements these truths are is to to challenge various statements and discover whether they can be successfully defended.

When two views are contradictories of each other, they cannot both be false, and they cannot both be true. Relativism and absolutism about the same thing are CONTRADICTORIES of each other. What this means is that if you are not a relativist about something, then you are an absolutist. And vice-versa. I either think that beauty is relative merely in the eye of the beholding individual, community, or culture; or I don't. If I do then I am a relativist about beauty. If I don't then I am an absolutist about it. Return to PHIL 120 Homepage

U=universal/general statements;
P=particular statements;
S=singular statements
A=affirmative
N=negative

Metaphysics

There is an all-knowing creator of the universe. (PA)
It is not the case that there is an all-knowing creator of the universe. (negation)
There is a conscious being powerful enough to change or suspend (what science calls) the laws of nature. (PA)
All individual human souls are immortal. (UA)
(All) minds are different from and independent of bodies. (U)
It is not the case that there is a smallest material reality. (negation)
The universe has a finite size. (SA)
Either there was a first moment of time or the universe is infinitely old. (disjunction)
If there was no first moment of time, then the universe is infinitely old. (conditional)
All events are completely determined by prior events and causal laws of nature. (UA)
No things are things that remain the same. (UN)
There is just one thing and nothing changes. (conjunction)

Mathematics

A point has no width.
No number is the largest number.
There is at least one prime number less than 10.

Natural Science

It is not the case that Ms. X's cancer was caused by chemicals to which she was exposed in the workplace. (negation)
Ms. X's cancer was caused by cigarettes or it was caused by birth control pills that she took over a ten-year period. (disjunction) .

Ethics

If Socrates does not fear death, then he is a virtuous person. (conditional)
Either the Aristotelian view of happiness is correct or the Stoic view of happiness is correct. (disjunction)
It is not the case that Socrates fears death. (negation)

Psychology/History/Description of Human Conduct

It is not the case that Richard Nixon was U.S. President when the Vietnam War ended. (negation)
Reagan bombed Libya and Clinton bombed Iraq. (conjunction)
Reagan bombed Libya or Reagan bombed Hanoi. (disjunction)
If the oil embargo of Iraq continues, then more Iraqi children will die for lack of food and medicine. (conditional)