Philosophical Ideals: Socrates to Kant
Socratic Ideal
Socrates questioned some values and practices of his time. He asked his fellow citizens questions of human, social, and political importance but never found any answers. The ideal life, according to Socrates, was taking care of the soul and finding the truth because we believe that the truth will illuminate our lives. Socrates said that living life is okay with righteousness, and truth must be sought within us. Through dialogue, we can find the truth.
Aristotelian Ideal
Aristotle believed that the greatest happiness comes from rational activity, which provides welfare and happiness. There are other conditions to be happy: some material resources, family, friends, health, physical beauty, and personal freedom.
Ideal of Epicurus
Epicurus thought that pleasure was the only truly good thing. He noted that to have a happy life, one does not need to abide by momentary pleasures, but those that last a lifetime. If we can live without the constant concern for pleasure and avoid body aches, we could enjoy the calm spiritual life that is happiness. There are necessary natural desires: food, friends, freedom, protection from danger, and those that are neither natural nor necessary: fame, power.
Stoic Ideal
The Stoics taught that virtue is the only good thing in life that gives us peace of mind, good mood, and happiness. Virtue is living in accordance with nature. Knowing, accepting, and living consciously in compliance with this cosmic order makes us virtuous. If virtue is the only good, everything else is either bad or indifferent.
Ideal of Skepticism
Skepticism taught that humans cannot know how things truly are in themselves. We can only know things as they relate to us. Skepticism does not invite us to make any judgments on how things are. This suspension of judgment leads to the quiet soul, which is happiness. Skeptics recommend following the customs and laws of the place where we live because it gives us a spiritual calm that gives rise to happiness.
Skepticism
Skeptics believe it is impossible to ever reach absolute certainty. There are two degrees of skepticism:
Radical Skepticism
Radical skepticism states that no human has any capacity for knowledge. The only thing we can know is the appearance of things, never the things themselves. Different people manifest things in different ways, and from this come different opinions. This kind of skepticism is contradictory because if someone says you cannot say anything, they are, in fact, saying something.
Moderate Skepticism
Moderate skepticism believes that it is impossible to reach any knowledge, not because there is no capacity to attain it or because our statements are not true, but because we do not have a definitive criterion for knowing when our statements are true and when they are not. The only thing we can say is that some statements are more likely based on the reasons they have in their favor.
Dogmatism
Dogmatism is the position contrary to skepticism. Dogma means a fixed doctrine. The dogmatic person accepts, without any criticism, that human beings can attain absolute truth. Therefore, they feel much more certain and indubitable than a person can reasonably sustain. Dogmatism can lead to intolerance of opinions that oppose it, which can be dangerous in some areas of religion and politics.
Relativism
Relativism refers to those positions that consider real knowledge to be attainable, but not valid for all subjects and for all times. There are three types of relativism: social, individual, and historical.
Criticism
Criticism is the doctrine that is primarily a critique of the powers of knowledge and an attitude that draws on both rationalism and empiricism. According to Kant, knowledge comes from experience and reason. They have in common that if there is no experience, there is no knowledge. Experience is not a sufficient source of knowledge because it tends to be disordered.