HWP Recap Jan 2023
Introduction:
1. The Goal of History of Philosophy
HWP 1 seeks to know the reasons why the ancient philosophers of the West formulated
their doctrines or teachings, and the reasons also why their teachings were important to us as
Filipinos (Asians) in particular, and to philosophy in general.
HWP 1 covers the philosophical thoughts of western philosophers from the ancient
(ca.100 BCE-500 CE) down to medieval period (800-1200 CE); from 5th 8th c. is the infamous
Dark Ages. HWP 2 includes thoughts of philosophy from the modern period (1200-1800 CE) to
contemporary philosophical theories (1800 CE to present); from 12th to 16th is the so-called
Renaissance or transition period, and from 16th to 17th is the Enlightenment or early modern
period.
As a student of philosophy, it is worth tracing the present theories to the past to find ways
of self-criticism and learning. According to the Teacher himself, the wise steward is that one
who is able to derive something from his old storage, and to blend it with the new discovery.
2. Learning from the Past, Connecting to the Present
All history is not a matter of the past, but is a looking with critical eyes to the past in
order to shed light on the present. Man is the creature tasked to connect his rational capacities
with the continuing search for the ways to adapt to the environment (world). Through history
man continues to manifest himself as the steward of God’s treasures until he leaves this world to
finally enter HWP the eternal categories of love and freedom.
PRELIMINARY TERM
3. Proposed Schema of the Study
The ancient and medieval periods of HWP contain many philosophers, but what is
important is to find the common issues or problems that they dealt with, and how these issues
were continued to be relevant in the succeeding eras. Sometimes it is good to study the thinkers
as groups and be familiar with their main teachings (areas of study), or point out some main
angles of stress in philosophy in general, or to particular aspects of study.
3.1 Ionians or Milesians: Angle of Stress—what is the world made up of? What is the
nature or composition of the world (which includes man) so that if we had known it, we will also
know who we are, and the capacity (power, function) that we are capable of.
A. Related Theories:
1. In the law of cause and effect, does it follow that if we know the effect of something
we would know its cause? Example: If God is the cause of the world, then this world should
have a kind of similarity with its creator.
1
, 1.1 How do we know that these two are connected?
1.2 Is there a kind of reciprocity (two-way) between cause and effect, such that
one becomes indebted to the other?
2. Law of similarity or likeness (like recognizes like). Since at birth we do not know our
relation with the world (which is the effect or sign of creation) there seems to be a reason to
approach and know it because we are not entirely different from it.
2.1 We can know the world because there is a law of reason (natural law) in their
composition that reveals or manifests itself to us.
2.2 If there is collaboration between man and the world, is this also true with or
among fellowmen (intersubjectivity)?
3.1.1 The common makeup of the world can be seen as the common cause or
origin from which all of the things we see now came from is endowed with. But, as principle, do
we refer to the kind or nature (material, nonmaterial, or both) of creatures? The Milesians—
Thales, Anaximenes, and Anaximander were interested in knowing the composition of all reality,
or whether something or someone affects (immanent or transcendent) them in their life and
existence. If they looked up, they saw the skies littered with heavenly bodies (mainly stars)
which moved in a regular pattern or order; do these heavenly lights affect those under? Or is
there down below—the seas and oceans—some kind of force or power that keeps all those in this
world together in place, and, also, somewhat regularly or permanently, in order, doing their own
thing (natural law)?
3.1.2 Thus, the primary principle (nature, composition) is not enough to explain
the world. Having one kind of nature (material) does not explain why there is inequality
(rational, nonrational) among creatures, and that, because it seems that all are finite or mortal,
how is the world to be maintained—if, for instance, all of a sudden everyone died? So, there is a
need to explain the existence of a transcendent arranger, maintainer or steward—somebody not
dependent on the limited (finite) nature of the creatures.
3.1.3 What is the primary principle made up of? Are there several (pluralist) or
just one (monist)? What were the reasons why these three philosophers suggested such a
principle: Thales—water, Anaximenes—air, and Anaximander—apeiron (infinite)? With the
variety and multiplicity of the things around us, why did these wise men not think of several (in
number and in kind)?
3.14 Even if the suggested principle was sufficient to answer the properties or
functions attached to them, each principle would need another principle or power to activate the
first principle; perhaps they were not self-moving or automatic. Among the three, Anaximander
was deemed to be greater, because he was able to propose an outside power (infinite, boundless)
which both made the material and the power to activate it (immanent and transcendent). Or
2
Introduction:
1. The Goal of History of Philosophy
HWP 1 seeks to know the reasons why the ancient philosophers of the West formulated
their doctrines or teachings, and the reasons also why their teachings were important to us as
Filipinos (Asians) in particular, and to philosophy in general.
HWP 1 covers the philosophical thoughts of western philosophers from the ancient
(ca.100 BCE-500 CE) down to medieval period (800-1200 CE); from 5th 8th c. is the infamous
Dark Ages. HWP 2 includes thoughts of philosophy from the modern period (1200-1800 CE) to
contemporary philosophical theories (1800 CE to present); from 12th to 16th is the so-called
Renaissance or transition period, and from 16th to 17th is the Enlightenment or early modern
period.
As a student of philosophy, it is worth tracing the present theories to the past to find ways
of self-criticism and learning. According to the Teacher himself, the wise steward is that one
who is able to derive something from his old storage, and to blend it with the new discovery.
2. Learning from the Past, Connecting to the Present
All history is not a matter of the past, but is a looking with critical eyes to the past in
order to shed light on the present. Man is the creature tasked to connect his rational capacities
with the continuing search for the ways to adapt to the environment (world). Through history
man continues to manifest himself as the steward of God’s treasures until he leaves this world to
finally enter HWP the eternal categories of love and freedom.
PRELIMINARY TERM
3. Proposed Schema of the Study
The ancient and medieval periods of HWP contain many philosophers, but what is
important is to find the common issues or problems that they dealt with, and how these issues
were continued to be relevant in the succeeding eras. Sometimes it is good to study the thinkers
as groups and be familiar with their main teachings (areas of study), or point out some main
angles of stress in philosophy in general, or to particular aspects of study.
3.1 Ionians or Milesians: Angle of Stress—what is the world made up of? What is the
nature or composition of the world (which includes man) so that if we had known it, we will also
know who we are, and the capacity (power, function) that we are capable of.
A. Related Theories:
1. In the law of cause and effect, does it follow that if we know the effect of something
we would know its cause? Example: If God is the cause of the world, then this world should
have a kind of similarity with its creator.
1
, 1.1 How do we know that these two are connected?
1.2 Is there a kind of reciprocity (two-way) between cause and effect, such that
one becomes indebted to the other?
2. Law of similarity or likeness (like recognizes like). Since at birth we do not know our
relation with the world (which is the effect or sign of creation) there seems to be a reason to
approach and know it because we are not entirely different from it.
2.1 We can know the world because there is a law of reason (natural law) in their
composition that reveals or manifests itself to us.
2.2 If there is collaboration between man and the world, is this also true with or
among fellowmen (intersubjectivity)?
3.1.1 The common makeup of the world can be seen as the common cause or
origin from which all of the things we see now came from is endowed with. But, as principle, do
we refer to the kind or nature (material, nonmaterial, or both) of creatures? The Milesians—
Thales, Anaximenes, and Anaximander were interested in knowing the composition of all reality,
or whether something or someone affects (immanent or transcendent) them in their life and
existence. If they looked up, they saw the skies littered with heavenly bodies (mainly stars)
which moved in a regular pattern or order; do these heavenly lights affect those under? Or is
there down below—the seas and oceans—some kind of force or power that keeps all those in this
world together in place, and, also, somewhat regularly or permanently, in order, doing their own
thing (natural law)?
3.1.2 Thus, the primary principle (nature, composition) is not enough to explain
the world. Having one kind of nature (material) does not explain why there is inequality
(rational, nonrational) among creatures, and that, because it seems that all are finite or mortal,
how is the world to be maintained—if, for instance, all of a sudden everyone died? So, there is a
need to explain the existence of a transcendent arranger, maintainer or steward—somebody not
dependent on the limited (finite) nature of the creatures.
3.1.3 What is the primary principle made up of? Are there several (pluralist) or
just one (monist)? What were the reasons why these three philosophers suggested such a
principle: Thales—water, Anaximenes—air, and Anaximander—apeiron (infinite)? With the
variety and multiplicity of the things around us, why did these wise men not think of several (in
number and in kind)?
3.14 Even if the suggested principle was sufficient to answer the properties or
functions attached to them, each principle would need another principle or power to activate the
first principle; perhaps they were not self-moving or automatic. Among the three, Anaximander
was deemed to be greater, because he was able to propose an outside power (infinite, boundless)
which both made the material and the power to activate it (immanent and transcendent). Or
2
