Readings in Ethics: modular type

SECOND SEMESTER 1905

Talk and I could sense what is in your soul.

Grace Edmar Elizar-del Prado

Iloilo Science and Technology University

Tel 320 7190 local 215 Lapaz, Iloilo City [Link]
Fax [Fax]
 Table of Contents

Contents
Existentialism is a Humanism – by Jean Paul Sartre____________________________
The Beautiful – by Plato_________________________________________________1
The Ineffable – by Abraham Heschel_______________________________________2
Third Meditation: God – by Rene Descartes_________________________________3
The Subtle Essence – from the Upanishads__________________________________4
The Book of TAO_______________________________________________________5
Proofs of the Existence of God – by St Thomas Aquinas________________________6
The Sacred and the Profane - by Mircea Eliade

Ethics and Economics - by Philip Wogaman

Political Ethics

a. The State, the Person, the Government

b. The Ethics of Power

c. The Ethics of Protest

d. Liberty and Freedom

Sexual Ethics and the Crisis of Love

 to my studentsto my students

“Make the body

and spirit willing to my students
to do good; all
else will simply be introduction
wonderful.” there is one simple rule in life – ‘only the fit, survives.’ Our bodies and faculties need to find
their perfect sync and tune to stay alive, so to live a longer and meaningful life. A little
divergence from the standard ‘fit’ drives the whole system to start disintegrating and further
aberrations lead to a faster rate of disaster and death.

A sub- layer truth to this dictum is that the mind drives the body and the soul. A healthy mind
makes body and actions healthy and life supporting which consequently advances wholesome
relations that ultimately create a fully functioning and responsible society – a supportive and
progressive humanity.

Grading System
. the grades are calculated in the following manner:
40% - Midterms and Finals
60% -quizzes, assignments, papers, and other activities
Transmutation calculation: scores/HPS * 40 +55

House rules
There are two paths we rate performance; one is through the VLE and the other way is face to
face. Quizzes, midterms and finals and other assignments are uploaded in the VLE. Submit all
requirements, quizzes, midterms, and finals in hard copies. On the other hand, you are also
given another set of measures of performance face to face. These two shall be averaged
using. face to face the grading system. quizzes are given every meeting.

Looking Ahead
I am looking forward to enjoying this semester with you. Readings shall be uploaded for you
and thus you are expected that you come to class prepared.
 Existentialism is a
HumanismExistentialism is a

Existentialism is a Humanism
Existentialism is Humanism
Man is No-thing.
He can be both a Jean Paul Sartre
being for itself
and a being in 1. Jean-Paul Sartre was born in 1905, in Paris. He was to become one of
itself the most famous writers and philosophers of the twentieth century,
eventually declining the Nobel Prize for literature in 1964.
2. He differentiated the ideas on : being in itself and being for itself. The
being in itself is the essence found in objects. A can opener derives its
essence from its use of opening cans. It cannot be used to scrub the
floor. A rock is a rock in itself no matter what you do to it. The essence is
locked into their uses.
3. The human person can be both a being in itself and being for itself. It is
a being that is locked into its form like height, weight, race, and gender
but the same person can be a being for itself because that person can
have the freedom and the choice sets to choose his essence and
purpose of existence. This process is a by-product of discerning – a
fundamental trait of consciousness.
4. Man is No-thing-ness. This implies the higher level of man’s position
among the creation. Man is not a thing and possesses NO distinct
essence and meaning in itself and thus not designed by a God. The
being of the person is a by-product of man’s decisions created on a
moment basis.
“What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We
mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the
world – and defines himself afterwards […] He will not be anything until
later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no
human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man
simply is. […] Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.
That is the first principle of existentialism.”
Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism
5. If there is no designer (i.e., God), there is no intrinsic essence of human
life, therefore there can be no human nature (what humans are
 Existentialism is a
HumanismExistentialism is a

supposed to be). Instead, we must invent our purpose, our own

“essence”. So
 What is the BeautifulWhat is the
Beautiful

6. whereas a can-opener’s essence precedes its existence, the opposite is

“Make the body true for the being-for-itself. We exist first and then we must create our
and spirit willing essence later. It is for this reason that Sartre proclaimed that we are
to do good; all “condemned to be free”.
else will simply be 7. One of Sartre’s most controversial contributions to philosophy is his
wonderful.” claim that we are “radically free”; radically free to define our essence but
also free to choose, act, and even change our emotions. Of course,
radical freedom is not exactly a pleasant experience. Realizing we are
free to choose means that we are entirely responsible for our lives,
which creates angst — a feeling of anxiety or even despair.
Nevertheless, to deny our radical freedom is what Sartre referred to as
“bad faith”. Accordingly, we act in bad faith any time we refuse to take
responsibility for our actions, beliefs, or emotions. He likened it to a kind
of self-delusion. In this way, he controversially claimed in Being and
Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology, that even slaves
are free since they could choose to run away or end their own lives. To
believe otherwise is to deny one’s radical freedom — to act in bad faith.
8. However, not everyone agrees with Sartre’s view on radical freedom.
Are we free to choose when our choices are limited or coerced? If we
are so radically free as Sartre suggests, what does it mean for someone
to be a victim? Are they, in some sense, responsible for what happens
to them? These unsavory aspects of Sartre’s philosophy contributed to
the apprehension that many felt about existentialism at the time.
9. Sartre considered some of these concerns in his formulation of the
being-for-itself. He believed that there are certain facts about ourselves
which we cannot change no matter how radically free we are, which
make up our “facticity”. These conditions include where a person was
born, their social class, and their bodily condition. These form the
background against which we make choices, the unchosen situation of
the for-itself.
10. For Sartre, temporality refers to our connection with the past, present,
and future. Temporality is a process. The past is what the being-for-itself
has been, the present is the being-for-itself being formed and the future
is projection, what the for-itself is not yet. Our temporality is a unique
feature of the being-for-itself.
 What is the BeautifulWhat is the
Beautiful

11. Sartre proposed that even though we cannot change our facticity
(including aspects of our temporality), we can choose to not let those
“Make the body things define us. For example, if a person was bullied in school they can
and spirit willing choose to transcend those past experiences in a way such that instead
to do good; all of shying away from the world they choose to become stronger and
else will simply be more courageous. Of course, there are some things that we cannot
wonderful.” change, such as our skin color or body type. However, we can —
according to Sartre — choose not to be defined by the stereotypes
ascribed to us; instead, we define ourselves.

12. Defining ourselves — our essence — is a unique feature of Sartre’s

philosophy, which can be empowering. However, it also comes with
responsibility.
13. For Sartre, there is no human nature for there is “no God to have a
conception of it”. Human nature implies that there is an essence of being
human, which Sartre refuted. Therefore, human nature is something we
must individually decide upon. We define what human nature is, and
therein lies our responsibility. If we choose to allow suffering and
inequality in the world we are responsible. If you know about inequality
in your neighborhood and do nothing about it, you are defining human
nature and are responsible for it. In this way, Sartre suggests that we
each carry the burden of being free for with it comes responsibility. To
shy away from that responsibility would be bad faith.
14. Lastly, synthetic unity is a term that Sartre used to describe the
relationship between the for-itself and the in-itself. According to Sartre,
meaning emerges from our conscious interrelations with things in the
world. Take an illustration of a car, for example. Here the illustration is a
being-in-itself, it is simply there. To take a reductionist point of view, the
object is made up of matter. Whatever meaning we ascribe to the object
(e.g., that it is an “illustration” of a “car”) comes from our conscious
relationship with that object. The interesting point that Sartre raised,
however, was that the illustration of the car did not exist just in the mind
of the being-for-itself. Rather, the illustration (e.g., of a “car”) exists
within the synthesis between the being-for-itself and the being-in-itself,
whereby it could not exist without both. For this reason, Sartre proposed
that there are objective facts about the world that exist only within the
relationship between the for-itself and the in-itself.
 What is the BeautifulWhat is the
Beautiful

15. As we have seen here, Sartre helped to define some of the defining
differences between conscious beings and things; therefore contributing
to our understanding of ourselves. He proposed ideas that not only
relate to consciousness but also to how certain facts emerge between
the conscious and the non-conscious. Furthermore, his most significant
contributions were about what it means to be a self, which he concluded
to be one of no-thing-ness. From nothing, we henceforth create
ourselves in an image of our own making. In doing so we find our
freedom, which is radical and full of responsibilities.

[Link]

Group Activity

Instructions: Group yourself into five in a group and do the assignments during
our off face to face classes. Put your answers in white bond paper, typewritten,
single spaced, 11 font size, times new roman. Submit all assignments during
the face to face meetings.

1. How do you understand the being in itself? How is this different from the
being for itself? Give examples in your experiences where these
situations have been applied differently.
2. What do you understand by the thought that man’s existence is
determined by non-God beings but by the little choices made by man?
3. Discuss how Sartre described ‘man’ as No-thingness? How do you
relate this to yourself?
4. How is being in itself for say a house and being for itself established its
meaning? What things or beings do you have in mind where the
objective facts of beings exist in the relationships of being in itself and
being for itself. How does consciousness come into play into these
relationships?
5. How do we explain the idea that existence precedes essence?
 What is the BeautifulWhat is the
Beautiful

What is the Beautiful

What is the Beautiful

Plato

1. According to Plato, Beauty was an idea or Form of which beautiful

things were consequence. Beauty by comparison begins in the domain
of intelligible objects, since there is a Form of beauty. The most
important question is: what do all of these beautiful things have in
common?. To know that is to know Beauty.
2. The theory of forms maintains that two distinct levels of reality exist: the
visible world of sights and sounds that we inhabit and the intelligible
world of Forms that stands above the visible world and gives it being.
For example, Plato maintains that in addition to being able to identify a
beautiful person or a beautiful painting, we also have a general
conception of Beauty itself, and we are able to identify the beauty in a
person or a painting only because we have this conception of Beauty in
the abstract. In other words, the beautiful things we can see are
beautiful only because they participate in the more general Form of
Beauty. This Form of Beauty is itself invisible, eternal, and unchanging,
unlike the things in the visible world that can grow old and lose their
beauty.
3. Plato’s account in the Symposium connects beauty to a response of
love and desire but locates beauty itself in the realm of the Forms, and
the beauty of particular objects in their participation in the
Form. Beauty’s distinctive pedagogical effects show why Plato talks
about its goodness and good consequences, sometimes even its
 What is the BeautifulWhat is the
Beautiful

identity with “the good” (Laws 841c; Philebus 66a–

b; Republic, 401c; Symposium 201c, 205e).
4. In Plato´ Symposium, Socrates claims to be quoting his teacher Diotima
on the subject of love, and in her lesson she calls beauty the object of
every love’s yearning. She spells out the soul’s progress toward ever-
purer beauty, from one body to all, then through all beautiful souls,
laws, and kinds of knowledge, to arrive at beauty itself.
5. By going through these stages, one will ascend from loving particular
kinds of beauty to loving Beauty itself, from which all beautiful things
derive their nature. Diotima suggests that a life gazing upon and
pursuing this Beauty is the best life one can lead. In
the Symposium, the Form of Beauty is the final stage in the lover of
knowledge’s ascent toward Beauty.
6. He begins by loving particular bodies, moving from there to bodies in
general, to particular minds, to minds in general, to laws and practices,
to knowledge, and finally to the knowledge of the Form of Beauty. The
ascent is one of increasing generalization where one’s love of beauty
comes to embrace more and more things. Ultimately, however, one’s
love of beauty will embrace only one thing, the Form of Beauty, but one
will recognize in this Form all that is beautiful. There is, besides, a
sense of what Beauty may be: the signs of measure and proportion
signal its presence and it is linked with goodness and justice.
7. Beauty here is conceived as perfect unity, or indeed as the principle of
unity itself. Plato´s Beauty Theory, as it appears
in the Symposium, holds that the Beautiful is an objective quality which
is more or less intensified in and exemplified by beautiful or less
beautiful objects respectively. Beauty itself exists independently of the
object’s relationship to a perceiver or of its being a means to some end.
 What is the BeautifulWhat is the
Beautiful

8. The Beautiful, then, regardless of what it is, exists as a thing in itself,

separate from and supreme in relation to the beautiful objects which are
beautiful by somehow sharing in its being. There is something innate
and yet external to a beautiful object. Its beauty is there independently
of a perceiver, and its being beautiful or not does not depend upon
personal evaluations.
9. Plato´s ideas could be considered as a sample of the prevailing
classical conception. According to it, Beauty consists of an arrangement
of integral parts into a coherent whole, according to order, proportion
and symmetry.
“The ancient Roman architec Vitruvius gives as good a
characterization of the classical conception in its underlying unity:
Order is the balanced adjustment of the details of the work
separately, and as to the whole, the arrangement of the
proportion with a view to a symmetrical result. Proportion implies
a graceful semblance: the suitable display of details in their
context, when everything has a symmetrical correspondence.
Symmetry also is the appropriate harmony arising out of the
details of the work itself: the correspondence of each given detail
to the form of the design as a whole. (Vitruvius, 26–27)”
10. Plato regarded beauty as objective in the sense that it was not localized
in the response of the beholder. In spite of Plato´s theories, we should
now wonder if Beauty is an Universal Quality recognizable per se … In
other words… Is Beauty a relative assessment, which lies in the eye of
the beholder…If we believe so, then we should conclude that Beauty is
created by a subjective judgment, in which each person determines
whether something is beautiful or not.
11. If we agree with Plato, and therefore state that Beauty is pattern or form
from which all beautiful things are derived, then we are assuming that
 What is the BeautifulWhat is the
Beautiful

Beauty is an objective feature. By that our postulate would be that most

perceivers would agree when it comes to determine whether something
or someone is beautiful or not. Without needing to take a side, we can
say that it is both things…
12. Beauty couldn´t be entirely subjective—that is, if anything that anyone
holds to be or experiences as beautiful is beautiful then it seems that
the word has no meaning, or that we are not communicating anything
when we call something beautiful except perhaps an approving
personal attitude. In addition, though different persons can of course
differ in particular judgments, it is also obvious that our judgments
coincide to a certain extent.
13. Either way, what we can certainly state is that our attraction to another
person’s body increases if that body is symmetrical and in proportion.
14. In this sense, there are certain aesthetical features which might entail
Beauty. Scientists believe that we perceive proportional bodies to be
more healthy. This is suggested in the following famous image showing
an idealized human body within a square and a circle.
15. Leonardo da Vinci‘s drawings of the human body emphasized its
proportion. The ratio of the following distances in the above Vitruvian
Man image is approximately the Golden Ratio (Φ = 1.618033…).With
the math behind it, the symmetry of your face can be measured. The
closer this number is to 1.618, the more beautiful it is…
16. Following up with the previous philosophical introduction, I would like to
bring to the spotlight a few Greek mythological myths and certain
thoughts, with regard to the idea of Beauty. Firstly, the most well known
case of the Judgement of Paris and the story of the Golden Apple of
Discord. The Judgement of Paris was a contest between the three most
beautiful goddesses of Olympus–Aphrodite, Hera and Athena–for the
prize of a golden apple addressed to “the fairest”.
 What is the BeautifulWhat is the
Beautiful

17. While Paris inspected them, each of the goddess attempted with her
powers to bribe him; Hera offered to make him king of Europe and Asia,
Athena offered wisdom and skill in war, and Aphrodite, offered the
world’s most beautiful woman.
18. On a side note, It is worth noting how mant times “Beauty” appears in
this myth. At the end, Paris chose Aphrodite, who was the Goddess of
Love and Beauty, and Helen of Troy, who was considered the most
beautiful woman, was bestowed on him, in exchange. As to the
beautiful Helen of Troy, she was also known as the face that launched
a thousand ships, therefore somehow associated with features such
as discord and betrayal.
19. The reason behind such reputation is that Helen of Troy was married by
the time of the deal among the Prince of Troy and Aphrodite. Hence
Paris decided to abduct her, event which would eventually lead to
the Trojan War… In this sense, the Golden Apple was the biggest but
also the most controversial prize. Besides and presumably, in the
mythology surrounding “the Judgement of Paris”, the goddess of
Discord Eris managed to enter The Garden of the Hesperides, which
was Hera´s orchard, and plucked one of the fruits . We can therefore
see why that golden apple go was also known as the Apple of Discord.
20. As to other quarrels originated due to similar smug assumptions
involving Beauty, I would like to mention two cases, which are very
similar when it comes to events and their consequences. The first one
features Myrrha, who was Adonis biological mother. Myrrha’s mother
had said that her daughter was even more beautiful than Aphrodite
which angered the Goddess of Love, who cursed Myrrha to fall in love
and lust after her father.
21. Thus, Myrrha became pregnant and gave birth to Adonis, who
was raised by Aphrodite. Adonis was very handsome, so, further on,
 What is the BeautifulWhat is the
Beautiful

Persephone was taken by his beauty, reason which brought a new

quarrel among goddesses. In this case, between Aphrodite
and Persephone. Secondly, we have the well known myth of Perseus
´beloved, Andromeda. Her mother, Cassiopeia had offended the
Nereids by boasting that Andromeda was more beautiful than they, so
in revenge Poseidon sent a sea monster to ravage Andromeda´s father
kingdom.
22. In all cases, Beauty causes troubles. We could say that it puts in the
seeds of conflict. Its counterpoint and collateral effect is jealousy. But
also, a sense of unnecessary pride and vanity seems to be present
here. Beauty claims to be defined in an extended way beyond itself… It
needs to be recognized. We could say that Beauty is defined by and to
the Other.
23. Thus, in this order of ideas, we could think that Beauty seems to be
an existentialist way to experience the Beautiful. Intersubjectivity
defines Beauty and the Other’s look constitutes the world and the
beautiful as objective. This is because the Look tends to objectify what
it sees. Undoubtedly, there are subjective elements which help us
define Beauty… But those ones, as Social Constructivists would state,
are not necessarily individual but collective and cultural.
24. On the other hand, one can not deny that certain general and universal
features, are linked to the idea of Beauty. Therefore and figuratively
speaking, it is believed that Beauty would be a sui generis concept,
constituted mainly by objective and intersubjective variables, which may
vary according to time and contexts.

[Link]
allegory-of-the-cave-and-the-analogy-of-the-divided-line/
 What is the BeautifulWhat is the
Beautiful

You might want to learn Plato’ s Life’s Lessons

[Link]

Group Activity: Do the activity with the same members of the group you
have previously. Answer the following questions following the
instructions presented in the previous activity.

[Link] do you understand by the word ‘Form’ mentioned by Plato?

How do beautiful things and beings become consequences of this
Form? Where do all things derive its true nature?
2. What do all beautiful things have in common? How do you feel or
sense what is beautiful? Why do you consider a thing or a person
beautiful? What is the nature of The Beautiful?
3. What are the two distinct levels of realities that exist? How do they
relate with each other? Which world is superior and why should it be
more paramount and supreme?
4. What is the measure of beauty? How do we reconcile the conflicting
idea that beauty is a subjective matter and beauty requires an objective
measurement? Give your own definition of beauty and argue why you
agree or disagree with Plato’s idea of The Beautiful .
5. How do you understand the idea that beauty is an existentialist way
of experiencing the Beautiful?
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

The Ineffable

Reflection: The Sense of the Ineffable

By Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907-1972)

1. The world presents itself in two ways to me. The world as a thing I own,
the world as a mystery I face. What I own is a trifle, what I face is
sublime. I am careful not to waste what I own; I must learn not to miss
what I face. We manipulate what is available on the surface of the world;
we must also stand in awe before the mystery of the world. All we have
is a sense of awe and radical amazement in the face of a mystery that
staggers our ability to sense it.
2. Awe is more than an emotion; it is a way of understanding, insight into a
meaning greater than ourselves. The beginning of awe is wonder, and
the beginning of wisdom is awe. Awe is an intuition for the dignity of all
things, a realization that things not only are what they are but also stand,
however remotely, for something supreme. Awe is a sense for the
transcendence, for the reference to everywhere to mystery beyond all
things.
3. Awe enables us to perceive in the world intimations of the divine, to
sense in small things the beginning of infinite significance, to sense the
ultimate in the common and the simple; to feel in the rush of the passing
the stillness of the eternal. What we cannot comprehend by analysis, we
become aware of in awe.
4. Faith is not belief, an assent to a proposition; faith is attachment to
transcendence, to the meaning beyond the mystery. Knowledge is
fostered by curiosity; wisdom is fostered by awe. Awe precedes faith; it
is the root of faith. We must be guided by awe to be worthy of
[Link] your sense of awe, let your conceit diminish you ability to
revere, and the universe becomes a marketplace for you.
5. "The beginning of faith is not a feeling for the mystery of living or a
sense of awe, wonder, or fear. The root of religion is the question what
to do with the feeling for the mystery of living, what to do with awe,
wonder, or fear. Religion, the end of isolation, begins with a
consciousness that something is asked of us. It is in that tense, eternal
asking in which the soul is caught and in which man's answer is elicited.
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

6. "Wonder is not a state of esthetic enjoyment. Endless wonder is endless

tension, a situation in which we are shocked at the inadequacy of our
awe, at the weakness of our shock, as well as the state of being asked
the ultimate question.
7. "Endless wonder unlocks an innate sense of indebtedness. Within our
awe there is no place for self-assertion. Within our awe we only know
that all we own we owe. The world consists, not of things, but of tasks.
Wonder is the state of our being asked. The ineffable is a question
addressed to us.
8. "All that is left to us is a choice — to answer or to refuse to answer. Yet
the more deeply we listen, the more we become stripped of the
arrogance and callousness which alone would enable us to refuse. We
carry a load of marvel, wishing to exchange it for the simplicity of
knowing what to live for, a load which we can never lay down nor
continue to carry not knowing where.
9. "At the moment in which a fire bursts forth, threatening to destroy one's
home, a person does not pause to investigate whether the danger he
faces is real or a figment of his imagination. Such a moment is not the
time to inquire into the chemical principle of combustion or into the
question of who is to blame for the outbreak of the fire. The ultimate
question, when bursting forth in our souls, is too startling, too heavily
laden with unutterable wonder to be an academic question, to be equally
suspended between yes and no. Such a moment is not the time to throw
doubts upon the reason for the rise of the question."
— Man Is Not Alone

[Link]

[Link]
21248

Group Activity:

Find other members of the group not your original grouping. Group
yourself into 7 in a group. Answer the following questions during our off
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

face to face classes. All work shall be submitted during the face to face
meeting the following week.

1. Heschel mentioned that the world presents into himself into two
ways, what are these? How are they different?
2. How come awe is not an emotion to Heschel? Describe the
evolution experienced by man experiencing awe. To what realities
should man be feeling in awe? How come the things we face are
considered mysterious? What mystery do you see at home?
3. How does awe being experienced by man? What is the feeling of
wonderment? How does this link with faith?
4. What is the Ineffable? When you experience the ineffable what is
contained in your soul? Write a few lines about this part.
5. How does indebtedness being unlocked by endless wonder? How do
you explain this part of Heschel’s reflections?
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

Third Meditation: God

Third Meditation: God

Rene Descartes

1. Descartes now knows that he is a thinking thing that doubts,

understands, affirms, denies, wants, imagines, and performs sense-
perception. Even though it is entirely possible that the objects of his
sense-perceptions are fictitious, it is undeniable that these mental
events occur as part of being a thinking thing.
2. Descartes is certain without a shadow of a doubt that he exists and that
he is a thinking thing. Therefore, based on this first piece of reliable
knowledge, any other knowledge that is true must meet this same
standard. Thus, as a general rule, whatever Descartes perceives very
vividly and clearly must also be true.
3. Descartes once thought that he vividly and clearly perceived many
things through his senses. However, this has been proven wrong.
Descartes concedes that he did not perceive the things themselves, but
only the ideas, or thoughts, of those things, which appeared before his
mind. In other words, Descartes only perceived ideas about things in his
mind and he admits that it is false to infer from these ideas of things that
they actually exist.
4. Descartes then wonders if he could vividly and clearly perceive basic
calculations in arithmetic such as two plus three makes five. He states
that the only reason he could be wrong is if there were a supremely
powerful God who is continuously deceiving him even in such obvious
things. Descartes reiterates that no matter how hard God tries to
deceive him, God can never make him question that he exists and that
he is a thinking thing. Furthermore, there is not much evidence for the
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

supposition of a deceiving God. However, Descartes states that for him

to know anything with certainty, he must take time to tackle the question
of whether God exists and whether he can be a deceiver.
5. Descartes proceeds to categorize his thoughts into three categories.
This is to determine which kinds of thought can be said to be true and
which can be said to be false. First, there is the images or pictures of
things such as the image of a man. Second, there is the thoughts that
represent more than the likeness of things such volitions and emotions.
Third, there are judgements.
6. When images are considered alone and not connected to anything, they
can not be false for it is always true that Descartes thinks of them. In the
case of volitions and emotions, it is also true that he wants them. In the
case of judgements however, they are the most vulnerable to
error because he often connects his ideas with things outside of him.
7. There are three ways ideas originate. First, there are ideas that are
innate. Second, there are ideas that are caused by an outside source
such as the hearing of a noise . Third, there are ideas that are invented
such as the idea of a siren.
8. Descartes first focuses on the ideas that come from an outside source.
Why is it that he thinks his ideas resemble the outside world? He thinks
it is because of his natural impulses. He acknowledges that many times,
ideas come into his mind involuntarily such as the idea of heat coming
from the fireplace. And it just seems natural to think that the fireplace
must exist and that it must therefore also be warm.
9. Descartes moves on to differentiate between his natural impulses and
what is revealed by natural light. Things that are revealed by natural
light such as the fact that he is a thinking thing are not open to doubt,
but his natural impulses have often led him astray on moral questions
for instance.
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

10. Descartes believes that the type of ideas that come from an outside
source and which do not depend upon his will actually come from within
him. This is similar to his natural impulses and the thoughts that he has
when he is dreaming which also come from within Descartes. As a
result, this provides evidence that he can cause things that his will does
not cause. In other words, there are ideas that arise that Descartes does
not actively think of using his will, but which originate such as the
thoughts he has when he is dreaming. He thinks that the type of ideas
that come from an outside source which often come into his mind
involuntarily originate from the same place as the involuntary thoughts
he has when he is dreaming. Thus, if this were true, then the type of
ideas that come from an outside source also originate within the mind.
All ideas therefore originate in the mind.
11. Even if these ideas did not come from within and do not from an outside
source, they still do not necessarily have to resemble those things. For
instance, Descartes has two different ideas of the sun. Based on his
senses, the sun appears to be very small. But based on astronomical
reasoning, the sun is many times larger than earth. Thus, this
demonstrates how ideas that come from an outside source often do not
resemble the thing that they represent at all.
12. Therefore, this blind impulse to use the senses instead of reason has
led Descartes to think that there are things outside of him that give ideas
or images of themselves through sense organs.
13. As mental events, all his ideas are on par. However, ideas that
represent substances other than themselves have more representative
reality compared to ideas that only represent modes which is another
way to say qualities. Furthermore, the idea of a supreme God, an infinite
substance, certainly has more representative reality than an idea that
represents a finite substance such as the idea of a human.
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

14. The total cause of something must contain at least as much reality
as does the effect. Two things follow from this: Something can not
arise from nothing and whatever is more perfect which means whatever
that contains more reality can not arise from something less perfect and
which contains less reality. These two conclusions are true for both
intrinsic reality and the representative reality of ideas. For instance, a
stone can not come into existence unless it is produced by something
that contains everything that is found in the stone. Similarly, the idea of
a stone can not come into existence unless it is produced by something
that contains at least as much reality or perfection as is conceived to be
in the stone. Any idea that has representative reality must surely come
from a cause that contains at least as much intrinsic reality as there is
representative reality in the idea. In sum, something cannot come from
nothing, and this includes ideas too! Intrinsic reality can also be termed
formal reality. Representative reality can also be termed objective
reality. Only ideas can have representative reality!
15. It is possible for an idea to originate from another idea, but there can not
be an infinite regress of idea. At one point, it must come back to an idea
whose cause is not an idea, and this cause must be a kind of archetype
containing intrinsically all the reality or perfection that the idea contains
only representatively. Ideas can easily fall short of what they represent,
but they can never exceed the perfection or contain more reality than
the things they represent.
16. Descartes finds that there are some ideas of his that have so much
representative reality that he is sure the same reality doesn’t reside in
him. Because everything must have a cause, it necessarily follows that
Descartes is not alone in the world. This is because something else
must exist that is causing these ideas which do not originate within
Descartes.
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

17. Among Descartes’ ideas, there is the idea of God, inanimate bodies,
angels, animals, and [Link] ideas of angels, animals, and humans
can easily be put together from the ideas that he has of himself even if
no such things exist. Similarly, bodies or corporeal thing also contain
nothing so great that it could not originate in him.
18. From the reasoning of the Wax Argument, he has concluded that he
can only clearly and distinctly perceive properties like size, extension,
shape, motion, duration, number, and substance when examining
corporeal things. Most of these properties the Meditator himself also
possesses. And even if, as a thinking thing, he may not have size,
extension, shape, or motion, these properties are modes of the
substance of body, and, as a thinking thing, he is a substance, and
therefore has more reality than these modes (SparkNotes)
19. Sensible qualities like color, sound, smell, taste, heat, cold, and so on
are only perceived in a confused and obscure way, and the Meditator is
not even certain as to whether or not they are things or non-things. If
they are things, they must have such a small degree of reality as to
originate unproblematically from the Meditator himself (SparkNotes).
20. Descartes states that his ideas of bodies probably come from his ideas
of himself. Although he is something that thinks and is not extended and
a stone for instance does not think and is extended, they are still both
substances. As for other elements that make up the ideas of bodies
such as extension, shape, position, and movement, they are not
contained in Descartes because he is only a thinking thing, but because
he is a substance, he is metaphysically higher than these mere modes
or properties.
21. According to Descartes’ metaphysical worldview, there are three “levels”
of formal reality: the level of infinite substance, the level of finite
substance (as defined by its principal attribute), and the level of mode.
The level of formal reality of an infinite substance is greater than that of
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

a finite substance, and the level of formal reality of a finite substance is

greater than that of a mode. This is understood in terms of ontological
dependence. A mode depends for its formal reality on the formal reality
of a finite substance, and a finite substance depends for its formal reality
on the formal reality of an infinite substance. An existent idea, in
possessing the level of formal reality of a mode, is less “real” than a
finite substance.
22. Among Descartes’ ideas, his idea of angels, animals, humans, and
bodies have all been proven to have originated from within himself.
However, there remains his idea of God. Descartes understands God as
a substance that is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, independent,
supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, which created himself and
anything else that may exist. It is impossible that this idea or any of
God’s attributes could have originated from within Descartes. Therefore,
God necessarily exists!
23. Descartes is a finite substance, so his idea of an infinite substance must
come from a substance that is itself infinite.
24. Objection 1: Descartes counters the argument that he might conceive
of an infinite being through negation, that is, through conceiving of it in
contrast to his own finite being. Doubts and desires come from an
understanding that we lack something, and we would not be aware of
that lack unless we were aware of a more perfect being that has those
things which we lack (SparkNotes). Put differently, Descartes would only
realize his imperfections and lacks because he is aware of a more
perfect being.
25. Objection 2: While he can doubt the existence of other things, he
cannot doubt the existence of God, since he has such a clear and
distinct perception of God's existence. The idea has infinite objective
reality and is therefore more likely to be true than any other idea
(SparkNotes).
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

26. Objection 3: Descartes then entertains the possibility that he may be

supremely perfect, that all his deficiencies are potentialities within him,
and that he is slowly improving toward perfection. If perfection is a
potentiality within him, then it is plausible that the idea of God could be
conceived in him without any outside cause.
27. Objection 3 (cont.): Descartes rejects this possibility for three reasons:
first, God is all actual and not at all potential; second, if he is constantly
improving, he will never attain that perfection where there is no room for
improvement; and third, potential being is not being at all: the idea of
God must be caused by something with infinite actual being
(SparkNotes).
28. Descartes then proceeds to ask himself the following question: If the
more perfect being did not exist, could he exist?
29. Descartes states that if God did not exist, then he could only derive his
own existence from either himself, his parents, or some being that is
less perfect than God.
30. If Descartes indeed derived his existence from himself, there is no
reason that he should have doubts and desires for he would have given
himself all the perfections of which he has an idea of. He also cannot
escape this reasoning by supposing he has always existed and never
had to come into being. There is no reason that he should continue to
exist unless there is some force that preserves him, that creates him
anew at every instant. As a thinking thing, he should be aware of that
power of preservation if it came from within him.
31. However, it is evident that Descartes is unaware of this power to
preserve which means he depends for his continued existence on some
other being other than himself.
32. If his parents or some other imperfect being created him, this creator
must have endowed him with the idea of God. If this creator is a finite
being, we must still ask with respect to it how it came to possess the
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

idea of an infinite God. We can trace this chain back through countless
creators, but we must ultimately conclude that the idea of God can
originate only in God, and not in some finite being.
33. Some may argue that several partial causes contributed to his creation
and that Descartes received the idea of one of the perfections of God
from somewhere and another from somewhere else. Each of these
attributes are separated from each other and nothing has them all.
However, one of the perfections of God is precisely the unity of all his
attributes. The fact that Descartes has this idea of God’s perfections as
united proves this argument to be false.
34. Descartes states that it is certainly not his parents who caused him
because it is definitely not them that are keeping Descartes in existence.
35. “Given the failure of every other candidacy for the role of cause of me
and of my idea of a most perfect being, I infer that the only successful
candidacy is God’s·. Thus, I conclude that the mere fact that I exist and
have within me an idea of a most perfect being—that is, God—provides
a clear proof that God does indeed exist.”
36. Having concluded that God must necessarily exist, Descartes asks how
he received the idea of God. The idea cannot be adventitious because
this idea never came to him unexpectedly like the other ideas that come
to him through his sense. This idea also can not have come from
Descartes’ imagination because he can not add or subtract anything
from this idea. Therefore, the only possibility is that the idea of God is
innate just like how the idea of himself is innate.
37. Final Two Paragraphs of Meditations 3:
It is no surprise that God in creating me should have placed this idea in me,
to serve as a mark of the craftsman stamped on his work. The mark need
not be anything distinct from the work itself. But the mere fact that God
created me makes it very believable that I am somehow made in his image
and likeness, and that I perceive that likeness in the same way that I
perceive myself.
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

That is, when I turn my mind’s eye upon myself, I understand that I am a
thing that is incomplete and dependent on something else, and that aspires
without limit to ever greater and better things; but I also understand at the
same time that he on whom I depend, has within him all those greater
things—not just indefinitely but infinitely, not just potentially but actually—
and hence that he is God. The core of the argument is this: I couldn’t exist
with the nature that I have—that is, containing within me the idea of God—if
God didn’t really exist. By ‘God’ I mean the very being the idea of whom is
within me—the one that has no defects and has all those perfections that I
can’t grasp but can somehow touch with my thought. This shows clearly
that it is not possible for him to be a deceiver since the natural light makes it
clear that all fraud and deception depend on some defect.

But before examining this point more carefully and investigating other truths
that may be derived from it, I want to pause here and spend some time
contemplating God; to reflect on his attributes and to gaze with wonder and
adoration on the beauty of this immense light, so far as the eye of my
darkened intellect can bear it. For just as we believe through faith that the
supreme happiness of the next life consists in contemplating the divine
majesty, so experience tells us that this same contemplation, though much
less perfect, provides the greatest joy we can have in this life.

This summary was based upon Jonathon Bennett's translation of René

Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy.

[Link]
meditations-on-first-philosophy-3

Group Activity

1. What is the definition of God? Is God residing in specific place in man?

2. Where does the idea of God coming from? How can God be infinite?
3. How did Descartes argue that God should exist? What if God does not
exist? How could existence be explained?
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

4. How come that nothing comes from nothing, and thus something cannot
come from nothing?
5. What is his argument on God being not only potential but actual?
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

The Subtle Essence

Essence of the Chhandogya Upanishad
by Swami Sivananda

1. 1. Hari Om! May my limbs, speech, Prana, eye, ear, strength and all my
senses grow vigorous. All (everything) is the Brahman of the
Upanishads. May I never deny Brahman. May Brahman never spurn
me. May there be no denial of Brahman. May there be no spurning by
the Brahman. Let all the virtues recited by the Upanishads repose in me,
delighting in the Atman! May they in me repose!

Om Peace! Peace!! Peace!!!

Unitary Origin of Phenomena

1. Just as by a single clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, all
modification being only a name, but the truth being that all is clay; Just
as by a single nugget of gold, all that is made of gold is known, the
difference being only a name arising from speech, but the truth being
that all is gold; Just as by the knowledge of a single pair of scissors, all
that is made of iron is known, all modifications being only a name based
upon words, but the truth being that all is iron;

2. Thus is that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by

which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what
cannot be known.
In the beginning, all this was Pure Being, One without a second. It
thought: 'May I be many, may I grow forth.' It created fire. The fire
thought: 'May I be many, may I grow forth.' It created water. Therefore,
whenever anybody is hot, he perspires and water is produced on him
from fire alone. The water willed: 'May I be many, may I grow forth.' It
created food. Therefore, whenever it rains anywhere, food is then
produced. From water alone eatable food is produced. The being
thought: 'Well, may I enter into all these three things with this living self
(Jivatma). Let me appear under different names and forms.'
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

3. He made each of these tripartite. The Tri-Colour Analysis The red

colour of the sun is the colour of fire. The white colour of water. The
black of the earth. Thus vanishes what we call the sun, being only a
modification which is a mere name based upon words, the only truth
being that there are three elements. So are moon, lightning, fire, etc.,
mere combinations of these elements. Knowing this the ancient
knowers of the Vedas, knew all. For everything is just these three things
alone.

4. Whatever appeared red, they knew it to be the colour of fire.

Whatever appeared white, they knew it to be the colour of water.
Whatever appeared black, they knew it to be the colour of earth.
Whatever appeared to be unknown, they knew it to be a combination of
these three.

5. Now learn from me how those three Devatas, when they reach man,
become each of them tripartite. Food, when eaten, becomes threefold:
the grossest part becomes faeces; the middle part flesh and its subtlest
part mind. Water, when drunk, becomes threefold: Its grossest part
becomes urine, its middle part blood and its subtlest part Prana.

6. Fire (i.e., in oil, butter, etc.) when eaten becomes threefold: its
grossest part becomes bone, its middle part marrow and its subtlest part
speech. When food that is eaten is led away by water, there is hunger.
When water that is drunk is led away by fire, there is thirst.

Tat Tvam Asi

7. Learn from me, the true nature of sleep. When a man sleeps here, he
becomes united with pure being; he is gone to his own Self. Therefore
people say he sleeps (Svapiti), because he is gone (Apiti) to his own
(Sva). All these creatures have their root in Being. They dwell in Being.
They rest in Being. When a man departs from hence, his speech is
merged in the mind, his mind in Prana his Prana in fire, and fire in the
Highest Being.
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

8. That which is the subtle essence (the root of all), in that all that exists
has its Self; that is the Truth. That is the self, that thou art, O Svetaketu!

9. Just as bees make honey by collecting the juices of distant trees and
then reduce the juice to one uniform fluid, and as these juices have no
discrimination so that they might say; I am the juice of this tree, or that
tree. In the same manner, all these creatures, when they have reached
the Being, do not know that they have reached the Being. That which is
the subtle essence of all, in that all exists. That is the truth. That is the
Self. That thou art.

10. Some rivers flow to the east; others to the west. They become one
with the sea. They become the sea. And, just as these rivers, when they
are in the sea, do not know: I am this river or that; in the same manner,
these creatures, when they have come from the Being, do not know that
they have come from the Truth. That which is the subtle essence, in that
all that exists has its Being. That is the truth. That is the self that thou
art.

11. If someone cuts a branch of a tree, it would bleed, but it would live.
Pervaded by the living self, the tree stands firm, drinking in nourishment
and rejoicing. But if the life (the living Self) leaves one of its branches
that branch withers; and if it leaves the whole tree, the whole tree
withers. Similarly, this body dies when the living Self has left it, the living
Self dies not. That which is the subtle essence of all, in that all that
exists has its Being.
That is the Truth. That is the self that thou art.

12. That subtle essence which you do not perceive in a tiny Nyagrodha
(banyan) seed grows into the great Nyagrodha tree. Similarly, That
which is the subtle essence of all, in That all that exists has its Being.
That is the Truth. That is the Self. That Thou art.

13. Just as when you add salt to a tumbler of water, you do not perceive
it; but it is there, all the same; even so, in this body, though you do not
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

perceive the Sat or Pure Being, it exists. That which is the subtle
essence of all, in That all that exists has its Being. That is the Truth.
That is the Self. That Thou art.

14. Suppose a person is brought away blind-folded from his native land
and left in a foreign country. He realises that he has been so brought,
and is told by a kind-hearted man that his native land lay in a particular
direction. He proceeds in that direction and enquiring from village to
village, reaches his home. Even so, the seeker, with the help of the
Guru, understands his destination and arrives at the Truth. That which is
the subtle essence in all, in That all that exists has its Being. That is the
Truth. That is the Self. That Thou Art.

15. When a man is dying, his relatives surround him and ask: Do you
recognise me? He does. But when his speech is merged in his mind, his
mind in breath, breath in fire, and fire in the Highest Being, then he
knows them not. That which is the subtle essence of all, in That all that
exists has its being. That is the Truth. That is the Self. That Thou Art.

16. Suppose a man is charged with committing theft and is brought

before the Magistrate. The heated axe is held before him. He holds it. If
he has committed the theft and denies it, his hand is burnt. But if he is
truthful, he is not burnt. As that (truthful) man is not burnt, thus has all
that exists has that as its Self. That is the Truth. That is the Self. That
Thou Art.

17. Thus instructed? Svetaketu understood the Truth.

Steps to Infinite Bliss

1. Narada approached Sanatkumara and said: Teach me, Sir.

Sanatkumara said: Please tell me first what you already know. Narada
replied: O Lord! I know the four Vedas. I know the Itihasa-Purana,
grammar, all Sastras, all sciences and all the arts. But, sir, I am only like
one who knows many words. I am not a knower of the Self. I have heard
from great ones like you that he who knows the Self overcomes grief.
And I am in grief. Do help me over this grief of mine.
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

2. Sanatkumara said to him: Whatever you have studied is only a name.

Meditate on the Name. He who meditates on the Name as Brahman,
becomes independent as far as the Name reaches. Speech is greater
than Name. Speech makes us understand the Vedas, etc. If there were
no speech, neither right nor wrong could be known; neither the true nor
the false, neither the good nor the bad, neither the pleasant nor the
unpleasant. Meditate on Speech.

3. He who meditates on Speech as Brahman becomes independent as

far as speech reaches. Mind is greater than speech. Mind holds within it
both Name and speech. When one wishes in his mind to read the Veda,
he reads it. When he wishes in his mind to perform actions, he performs
them. Mind is the world. Mind is the Self indeed. Mind is Brahman.
Meditate on the Mind. He who meditates on the Mind as Brahman
becomes independent as far as the Mind reaches.

4. Will is greater than the Mind. For, when a man wills, he thinks in his
mind, then he sends forth speech, and then he utters it in name. All
these are therefore centred in will, consist of will and abide in will.
Meditate on Will. He who meditates on Will as Brahman, he being
himself permanent, firm and undistressed, obtains the permanent,
renowned and undistressed worlds appointed for him. He is independent
as far as Will reaches.

5. Intelligence is greater than will. For, when a man understands, then

he wills, then he thinks in his mind, then he sends forth speech, and
then he sends it forth in a name. All these centre in intelligence, consist
of intelligence, and abide in intelligence. Therefore, if a man is
unintelligent, even if he possesses much learning, people say of him, he
is nothing.

6. If a man is intelligent, even though he knows but little, to him indeed

do people listen gladly. Intelligence is the centre of all these.
Intelligence is their Self. Intelligence is their support. Meditate on
Intelligence. He who meditates on Intelligence as Brahman, is
independent as far as intelligence reaches. Meditation is greater than
Intelligence. The earth meditates, as it were: and thus do the sky, the
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

heaven, water, the mountains, gods and men. Therefore, those who
among men obtain greatness here on earth, appear to have obtained a
share of meditation.

7. While small and vulgar people are always quarrelling, abusing and
slandering, great men seem to have obtained a share of meditation.
Meditate on meditation. He who meditates on meditation as Brahman,
becomes independent as far as meditation reaches.

8. Knowledge is greater than meditation. Through knowledge you know

the Vedas and Sastras, arts and sciences. Meditate on Knowledge. He
who meditates on Knowledge as Brahman, obtains the worlds of the
knowing and the wise; he becomes independent as far as knowledge
reaches. Power is greater than knowledge.

9. One powerful man shakes a hundred men of knowledge. If a man is

powerful, he rises. If he rises, he visits wise people and by following
them, he sees, hears, reflects, understands, acts and knows. By power
the earth stands. By power stand the sky, the heaven, the mountains,
gods and men, cattle and animals down to ants, and worms. By power
the world stands firm. Meditate on power. He who meditates on Power
as Brahman,
becomes independent, as far as power reaches.

10. Food is greater than power. If a man abstains from food for ten days,
though he lives, he is unable to see, hear, reflect, understand, act and
know. Meditate on Food. He who meditates on food as Brahman,
obtains the worlds rich in food and drink. He is independent as far as the
food reaches. Water is greater than food. If there is no sufficient rain, the
vital spirits are troubled and then there will be less food.

11. It is only water that has assumed different forms earth, sky, heaven,
mountains, gods, men and beasts, down to ants and worms. Meditate
on water. He who meditates on water as Brahman obtains all wishes
and gets satisfaction. He becomes independent as far as water reaches.
Fire is greater than water. Through the medium of air, it warms the
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

ether. Then people say: It is hot, it burns, it will rain. Thus does fire, after
exhibiting this sign itself first, create water.

12. Thus again, thunderings come with lightning, flashing upward and
across the sky. Then people say: There is lightning and thunder; it will
rain. Then also does fire, after showing this sign first, create water.
Meditate on fire. He who meditates on fire as Brahman, being
resplendent himself, obtains resplendent worlds, full of light and free
from darkness; he becomes independent as far as fire reaches. Ether
(Akasa) is greater than fire. For, in the Akasa exists both sun and moon,
the lightning, stars and fire. Through the Akasa we call, through the
Akasa we hear, through the Akasa we answer.

13. In the Akasa all things are born; and towards Akasa all things grow.
Meditate on Akasa. He who meditates on Akasa as Brahman, obtains
extensive worlds, full of light, free from the troubles of overgrowing,
wide, and spacious; he becomes independent as far as Akasa reaches.
Memory is greater than Akasa. Where many are assembled together, if
they have no memory, they would not hear anyone, they would not
think, they would not know. Meditate on memory. He who meditates on
memory as Brahman, becomes independent so far as his memory
reaches. Hope is greater than memory. Fried by hope does memory
read the Mantras, perform sacrifices, desires sons and cattle, desire this
world and the next.

14. Meditate on hope. He who meditates on hope as Brahman, all his

desires are fulfilled by Hope. His prayers are never vain. He becomes
independent so far as hope reaches. Prana is greater than hope. Just
as the spokes of the wheel are fastened to the nave, so is everything
fastened to the Prana. Prana is the father. Prana is the Mother. Prana is
the brother. Prana is the sister. Prana is the teacher. Prana is Brahman.

15. If one says anything harsh to his father, mother etc. then people say:
Shame on thee! Thou has offended thy father, etc. But if after the Prana
has departed from them, even if one were to burn them together, by a
poker, they would not say: Thou hast killed thy father, mother, etc.
Prana is verily all these. He who sees thus, thinks thus and knows thus,
becomes an Ativadin. But verily he is an Ativadin who declares the
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

Highest Being to be the Truth. One should desire to know the Truth.
When one understands the Truth, then only one desires the Truth.

16. When one thinks, then he understands. When one has faith, then he
thinks. When one attends on his teacher, then one has faith. When one
performs all sacred duties (control of the senses and concentration of
the mind), then only one attends really on a teacher. When one obtains
Bliss then he does his duties. The Infinite is Bliss. There is no bliss in
anything finite.

17. Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands
nothing else that is the Infinite. Where, however, one sees something
else, hears something else, understands something else that is the
finite. That which is Infinite is Immortal. That which is finite is mortal.
The Infinite is indeed below, above, behind, before, to the right, and to
the left. It is indeed all this. He who sees thus, thinks thus, and
understands thus, loves the Self, delights in the Self, enjoys the
company of the Self. and rejoices in the Self; he becomes the Svarat
(Self-king); he becomes independent in all the worlds.

18. But those who know otherwise, are ruled by others and live in
perishable worlds; and they become dependent in all the worlds. For
one who sees thus, thinks thus and understands thus, Prana springs
from the Self; hope springs from the Self; memory springs from the Self;
so do Akasa, fire, water, etc. Everything springs from the Self for him.
He who sees thus, sees not death, nor disease nor pain; he who sees
thus, sees everything, and obtains everything, everywhere.

19. When food is pure, the inner nature becomes purified. When the
inner nature has been purified, the memory becomes firm. And when the
memory of the Highest Self remains firm, then all the ties which bind
man to belief in anything (but the Atman) are loosened.

The Three States and Beyond

1. Prajapati said: The Self or Atman which is free from sin, free from old
age, free from death, free from grief, free from hunger and thirst, with
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

true desires (Satyakama) and true will (Satya Sankalpa), that it is which
we must search out, that it is which we must try to understand. He who
has sought after this Self and understands It, obtains all worlds and all
desires. Indra, chief of Devas, and Virochana, chief among Asuras,
went to Prajapatji, with fuel in hands, as was the custom for pupils
approaching their Guru.

2. They dwelt there as religious students observing the vow of celibacy

for a period of thirty-two years. When questioned by Prajapati, they
said: It is with the purpose of knowing the Self that we have dwelt here.
Prajapati said: The person that is seen in the eye, that is the Self. This is
the Immortal, the Fearless. This is Brahman. They asked: Sir, He that is
perceived in the water, and He that is seen in the mirror which of these
is That?

3. He said: He himself indeed is seen in all these. They went away

satisfied. Virochana with a satisfied heart went to the Asura and
preached this doctrine to them. The body alone is to be worshipped (as
the Self). Therefore, they call even now a man who does not give alms
here, who has no faith, and offers no sacrifices, an Asura, for this is the
doctrine of the Asura. But Indra, before he had returned to the Devas,
experienced this difficulty: As this body (seen in the water) is well
adorned when the body is well dressed, well cleaned when the body is
well-cleaned, that Self will also be blind, if the body is blind, and will
perish in fact as soon as the body perishes. Therefore, I see no good in
this doctrine.

4. He returned to Prajapati who asked him to remain with him for

another thirty-two years. At the end of this period, Prajapati said to
Indra: He moves about happy in dreams, He is the Self, the Immortal,
the Fearless, this is Brahman. Once again, Indra went away, but found
this difficulty: Thou the dream self is not blind when the body is blind, not
one-eyed, when this body is one eyed, nor is it destroyed by the
destruction of the body, yet they kill it, as it were. It becomes even
conscious of pain and sheds tears, Therefore, I see no good in this.

5. Again he returned to Prajapati and remained with him for another

period of thirty-two years. At the end of this period, Prajapati said to
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

Indra: When a man, being asleep, reposing, and at perfect rest, sees no
dreams, that is the Self, that is the Immortal, the Fearless, that is
Brahman. Once again Indra went away, but returned with this difficulty:
In truth he does not rightly know himself as 'This is I' nor does he know
these beings. He is gone to utter annihilation. I see no good in this.

6. At Prajapati's command, Indra remained with him for a further period

of five years. Then Prajapati said to Indra: Indra! This body is mortal. It
is subject to death. It is the abode of that Self which is Immortal and
bodyless. The embodied self is subject to pleasure and pain. But Self
without the body is not troubled by pleasure and pain. The wind is
without body; the cloud, lightning and thunder are without body. Now, as
these, rising above, appear in their own form, as soon as they have
approached the highest light.

7. Thus does this Being, rising above this body, and having reached the
Highest Light, appear in Its own form. This is the Uttama-Purusha, the
Supreme Person. He moves about there laughing, playing and
rejoicing, never minding that body in which he was born. Just as a
horse is attached to the cart, so also the Prana is attached to this body.
Now where the eye has entered into Akasa, (in the act of seeing), that is
the person in the eye, the eye itself is the instrument of seeing. He who
knows: May I smell this, he is the Self, the nose is the instrument of
smelling.

8. He who knows: May I think, he is the Self, the mind is his divine eye.
And it is by means of his divine eye of the mind that he sees desires and
rejoices. The Devas who are in the world of Brahman meditate upon this
Self (as taught by Prajapati to Indra, and by Indra to the Devas).
[Link]
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

The Book of Tao

The Book of TAO
Tao Te Ching Summary
Lao Tzu
1. The great master Lao Tzu’s teachings have stood the test of time. He
invented Taoism in 6th century BCE which has been passed on to
generations. The Tao Te Ching contains his core lessons, and it has
been translated into many languages across the globe.
2. Taoism philosophy is based on three pillars: simplicity, patience, and
compassion. Lao Tzu said that these three principles are our greatest
treasures. He further explained that by being simple in actions and in
thoughts, you return to the source of being. Through patience with both
friends and enemies, you accord with the way things are. And by being
compassionate toward yourself, you reconcile all beings in the world.
3. Here are three lessons from Taoism that will help you live a better life:
1. Fully accept whatever the current moment brings. Give yourself fully
to reality.
2. Admit your own faults and mistakes, because ultimately, they might
be your greatest source of strength.
3. Always compete in a spirit of play to stay in harmony with the Tao.
Lesson 1: Hold nothing back and surrender yourself to what is.
1. The Master surrenders himself to the moment. He knows the difference
between what’s in his control and what’s not in his control. He knows
that death is the final outcome, so he does not fear it. Instead, he
surrenders to it and prepares himself for it because he knows it may
arrive at any time. He doesn’t hold on to anything because he knows
nothing will last forever.

2. The master does what he can do best today and goes to sleep holding
nothing back. He knows that he may not wake up tomorrow. And if he
does, he rejoices and owns the only thing he can truly own: the present
moment. As a moment passes by, he lets it go and comes back to the
new moment life has offered him. What matters most to him is how
easily he can give himself up to whatever the moment brings while
letting go of whatever he’s too tight to.
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

3. The old wisdom applies today as much as it was true in the past or it will
be in the future. The more you resist to what is, the more you suffer. The
illusions in your mind make it hard for you to surrender. True wisdom is
being ready to give up anything you may be holding on and accepting
the present as it is.

Lesson 2: Seek to know your faults by observing yourself and how you
judge others.

1. When the master makes a mistake, he realizes it. Having realized it, he
admits it. Having admitted it, he corrects it. He doesn’t get offended by
the ones who point out his faults. Instead, he treats them as his
generous teachers. He catches himself when he’s not giving his best,
and then he fixes it. He treats every faulty realization as an opportunity
to increase self-awareness and become better, not an excuse to feel
down.

2. The master thinks of his enemies as shadows he himself cast. He

observes how he judges others. If he gets triggered by someone’s
behavior, he recognizes it as a trait he hasn’t embodied fully himself. If
he had embodied it, he may observe it, but he won’t get annoyed by it.
So he reminds himself of his own faults and corrects them when he sees
it in others. Accepting your own fault is one of the toughest things to do
because it hurts your ego. But remember, what hurts your ego may be
good for your soul. Whether it is through self-observation or through
observing other’s faults, find your own shortcomings to raise your
consciousness and improve yourself.

Lesson 3: The purpose of competition is to playfully create and improve.

1. The master doesn’t wish his opponents to have a bad day on the day of
competition. He wants everyone to bring their best to the table so that
they can raise the level of the game, have a good match and bring out
the spirit of play. He sees competition not as an ego-driven event, but as
an opportunity to play and improve his skills. At the end of the
competition, he wants everyone to leave better than before regardless of
the outcome.
2. The master does what’s best for the communal good and listens to the
will of his community. He considers his self-interest as one vote, not as
the only vote to drive his actions. He doesn’t want to be at the top for
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

power, fame or wealth. He uses power, fame or wealth when he has

them to be the creator of a better world, which has been his primary goal
all along.
3. As a sportsperson, leader or entrepreneur, your mission is to thrive as a
human and to bring out the best in the world. You can do it by
performing better, leading others towards a cause, providing inspiration,
creating a product, or serving your society. Wealth, fame and power are
your tools to do so, not the end goals to aim for.
Quotes and Teachings of TAO

1. Be patient with others and the environment. Be compassionate to

ourselves. Feel empowered to maneuver all life hurdles with ease
2. The Tao produces (all things) and nourishes them; it produces them
and does not claim them as its own; it does all and yet does not
boast of it; it presides over all, and yet does not control them. This is
what is called ‘The mysterious quality of the Tao.” - Lao Tzu
3. The Sage avoids extremes, excesses and complacency.
4. All things spring up and there is not one which declines to show
itself; they grow, and there is no claim made for their ownership; they
go through their processes, and there is no expectation (of a reward
for the results). The work is accomplished, and there is no resting in
it as an achievement.” – Lao Tzu
5. Once the whole is divided, the parts need names. There are already
enough names. One must know when to stop. Knowing when to stop
averts trouble.” – Lao Tzu
6. “He who knows other men is discerning; he who knows himself is
intelligent. He who overcomes others is strong; he who overcomes
himself, is mighty. He who is satisfied with his lot is rich; he who
goes on acting with energy has a (firm) will.”
7. “Who can (make) the muddy water clear? Let it be still, and it
will gradually become clear. Who can secure the condition of
rest? Let movement go on and the condition of rest will
gradually arise.” – Lao Tzu
8. Nature is a strong force, and only a master knows they
cannot fight the force. Lao Tzu says, “Tao abides in non-
action, yet nothing is left undone.”
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

Proofs for the Existence of God

Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways to Prove the Existence of God

1. The First Way: Motion.
2. The Second Way: Efficient Cause.
3. The Third Way: Possibility and Necessity.
4. The Fourth Way: Gradation.
5. The Fifth Way: Design.
General Remarks:
Later thinkers classed all five ways as variants of the cosmological argument
for the existence of God. Cosmology is the study of the origins and structure of
the universe; each of the five ways is a reflection on the conditions which must
have been in place in order for the universe, or some observed feature of the
universe, to come about.
* The fourth way looks, at first blush, like a variation on the ontological
argument. But like the other four ways, it's a posteriori. Anselm's argument is a
priori. It is criticized by Aquinas in Summa [Link].1 (p. 417). Further, says Aquinas
([Link].2), any demonstration of the existence of God must be from the effects of
God known to us; it must be a posteriori.
* The fifth way resembles a version of the teleological argument, or argument
from design. Though the canonical argument from design is of much later
vintage (17 Century), Aquinas might not object to this identification. The
teleological argument, after all, is a posteriori.
The First Way: Motion

1. All bodies are either potentially in motion or actually in motion.

2. "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by
something in state of actuality". Nothing can be at once in both actuality and
potentiality in the same respect.
4. Therefore nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality with
respect to motion
4.
5. Therefore nothing can move itself; it must be put into motion by
something else.
6. If there were no "first mover, moved by no other" there would be no
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

motion.
[Link] there is motion. Therefore there is a first mover, God.

The Second Way: Efficient Cause

1. Nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
2. If A is the efficient cause of B, then if A is absent, so is B.
3. Efficient causes are ordered from first cause, through intermediate cause(s),
to ultimate effect.
4. By (2) and (3), if there is no first cause, there cannot be any ultimate effect.
5. But there are effects. Therefore there must be a first cause for all of them:
God.
The Third Way: Possibility and Necessity
1. "We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be:" contingent
beings.
2. Everything is either necessary or contingent.
3. Assume that everything is contingent.
4. "It is impossible for [contingent beings] always to exist, for that which can
not-be at sometime is not."
5. Therefore, by (3) and (4), at one time there was nothing.
6. "That which does not exist begins to exist only through something already
existing."
[Link], by(5) and(6), there is nothing now.
8. But there is something now. .Therefore (3) is false.
10. Therefore, by (2), there is a necessary being: God.
The Fourth Way: Gradation

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better (hotter, colder,

etc.) than others.
2. Things are X in proportion to how closely the resemble that which is most X.
3. Therefore, if there is nothing which is most X, there can be nothing which is
good.
4. It follows that if anything is good, there must be something that is most good.
5. "Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of
their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God" (420).

The Fifth Way: Design

1. We observe that natural bodies act toward ends.
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

2. Anything that acts toward an end either acts out of knowledge, or under the
direction of something with knowledge, "as the arrow is directed by the archer."
3. But many natural beings lack knowledge.
4. "Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are
directed to their end; and this being we call God" (420).

from [Link]
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

Ethics and Economics

Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

ETHICS AND ECONOMICS

Economics is linked to both ethics and the theory of rationality. Economics

complements and intersects with moral philosophy in both the concepts it has
constructed and in its treatment of normative problems.

Rationality, Utility Theory, and Welfare

At the foundation of economics lies a normative theory of individual rationality. The

theory raises no questions about the rationality of ultimate ends and few questions
about the rationality of beliefs. It maintains that an agent A chooses (acts) rationally if
A's preferences are rational and A never prefers an available option to the option
chosen. A's preferences are rational only if they are transitive and complete—that is, A
can consistently rank all alternatives. If an agent's preferences are complete and
transitive and satisfy some technical conditions, they can be represented by numbers.
These numbers, which are arbitrary apart from their order, are "ordinal utilities." If an
agent's preferences satisfy additional conditions concerning risky or uncertain
alternatives, then they can be represented by a cardinal utility function. In
contemporary economic theory, utility is merely an index locating alternatives in a
preference ranking, not a substantive good.

Given economists' commitments to utility theory in explaining human choices, it is

natural that they would look to levels of utility (preference satisfaction) as the measure
of welfare. It is, however, difficult to justify identifying welfare with the satisfaction of
preferences, even as a simplification. Satisfying preferences that depend on false
beliefs is often harmful, whereas satisfying preferences that do not concern oneself is
typically irrelevant to one's welfare. Many philosophers endorse a more nuanced
identification of well-being with the satisfaction of "informed" and self-interested
preferences, and they can thus employ some of the framework of normative economics.
Even with these qualifications, it is questionable whether taking well-being to be the
satisfaction of preferences is suitable for assessing claims to scarce resources. Should
one measure the well-being of those who have learned—possibly quite rationally—not
to want what they have not gotten by the satisfaction of their preferences?

Some economists propose different conceptions of well-being. Of particular

contemporary interest is Amartya Sen's capability approach. In Sen's view, a capability
is the ability to achieve a certain sort of "functioning": literacy is a capability; reading
is a functioning. People may value capabilities for their own sake as well as for the
kinds of functioning they permit; someone who stays in his or her room may still be
glad to know that the door is not locked.
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

One advantage of more objective approaches such as Sen's is that they avoid the
problems of interpersonal comparison that derive from identifying well-being and
preference satisfaction. Formerly, economists such as Pigou cited diminishing marginal
utility of income to argue that a more equal distribution of income would increase total
welfare. This argument compares the contributions income makes to the well-being of
different people.
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

Political Ethics

1. Political Ethics Political ethics (sometimes called political morality or public ethics)
is the practice of making moral judgments about political action, and the study of that
practice.
2. It is divided into two branches: the ethics of process (or the ethics of office) that
focuses on public officials and the methods they use; and the ethics of policy (or ethics
and public policy) that concentrates on judgments about policies and laws.
3. Political Ethics of Process. The central question is the extent to which the ethical
principles that govern political office differ from those that govern moral life more
generally (Hampshire 1978; Thompson 1987). To what extent are politicians permitted
to take actions that would otherwise be wrong? Ethics requires political leaders to
avoid harming the innocent, but it may also obligate them to sacrifice innocent lives for
the good of the nation. A President may be morally obligated to order military action
even while foreseeing that civilians will be killed. (The question of immoral means
arises even if the war itself is just: See JUST WAR THEORY).
4. The ethical problems that public officials confront arise from two general features
of public office—its representational and its organizational character. Officials act for
us, and they act with others. Because officials act for us, they assume rights and
obligations that ordinary citizens do not have, or do not have to the same degree. For
the sake of those for whom officials act, the duties of office may permit and even
require officials to use force, lie, keep secrets, and break promises in ways that would
be wrong in private life. These and worse violations of our shared moral principles
create what is known as “the problem of DIRTY HANDS.” The problem originates in
the world of kings and princes, who for reasons of state transgressed the conventional
morality of their time (Parrish 2007). MACHIAVELLI provided the classic
formulation. The problem reappears in our time most dramatically in the dilemmas that
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

revolutionaries confront, as in JEAN-PAUL SARTRE’s play that gives the problem its
modern name.

5. The complete moral judgment we make of the politician combines at the same time
elements of CONSEQUENTIALISM and DEONTOLOGY. It should not be surprising
that this unstable mixture has been criticized from both sides (Rynard and Shugarman
2000). Consequentialists object that if the action is justified, then the politician is not
guilty of anything (though it might be useful for him to feel guilty). Deontologists
object that if the action is truly wrong, the politician should simply not do it.

6. The key question is how to punish or hold the dirty-handed official accountable. But
the leader who gets his hands dirty does so in the name of citizens and with their
implicit approval. (If his decision is not democratically legitimate, the problem is an
abuse of power, not a moral dilemma.) In the context of a democracy, the question is
not what citizens should do to the leader but what citizens and the state should do to
compensate the victims of the decision, or how citizens can hold leaders accountable
for decisions that are legitimately made in secret. (See e.g. COMPENSATORY
JUSTICE; LEADERSHIP ETHICS; PUBLICITY)

7. In the general form, the problem becomes the time-honored question: to what extent
does the end justify the means in politics? The most productive literature focuses on
particular means, such as VIOLENCE, deception, and secrecy that are morally
questionable but may be justified in some circumstances. Some argue that certain
means are never justified. But few theorists (though perhaps some politicians) are
prepared to follow Machiavelli to the other extreme and claim that “when the end is
good…it will always excuse the means” (Machiavelli 1883, Bk. I, ch. IX). The more
common view is that whether the means are justified depends on several different
factors including, but not limited to, the value of the end. For example, in judging
whether political deception is justified, we should consider the importance of the goal
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics

of the deception; the availability of alternative means for achieving the goal; the
identity of the victims of the deception (other officials, other governments, all citizens);
the accountability of the deceivers (the possibility of approving the deception in
advance or discovering it later); and the containment of the deception (its effects on
other actions by officials). (See LYING AND DECEIT.) In a democracy, the vices of
concealment (secrecy, MANIPULATION as well as deception) require special
attention. (Also see CONFIDENTIALITY.) They prevent citizens from reaching a
collective judgment about the other wrongs of government— including the vices of
violence (Thompson 1987)

[Link]
Pg. 03 Political EthicsPolitical Ethics