Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity and its philosophical cum scientific implications by Ejezie Bernardino Ugoo

INTRODUCTION

            The special theory of Relativity, proposed by the Jewish physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) in the early part of the 19th century, is one of the most significant scientific advances of our time. Einstein discussed his special theory of Relativity in his third 1905 paper entitled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." Although this paper challenged the foundation notion about space and time, each of its parts was simply a response to an important problem facing the physics community of Einstein's time. For, Einstein's work on relativity, the photoelectric effect and blackbody radiation, Einstein received the Noble Prize in 1921. However, this paper attempts to discuss the special Relativity theory of Albert Einstein together with its philosophical cum scientific implications.

SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

            Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates, stated by Einstein in the opening section of his 1905 paper. The first is the Principle of Relativity. It just asserts that the laws of physics hold equally in every inertial frame of reference. That means that any process that can occur in one frame of reference according to these laws can also occur in any other. This gives the important outcome that no experiment in one inertial frame of reference can distinguish it intrinsically from any other. For that same experiment could have been carried out in any other inertial frame with the same outcome. The best, such an experiment can reveal is motion with respect to some other frame; but it cannot license the assertion that one is absolutely at rest and the other in true motion. In other words, this postulate holds that all physical laws are the same in whatever constant velocity you are moving at.

            Einstein's second postulate, The Light Postulate, asserts that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity C which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. In other words, the speed of light is always the same, independent of the motion of the observer or light source. These mean that there is no absolute motion. If you are in a car going at 50 mph, there is no way you can prove you are even moving. It could be the earth and everything on it except you and the car is moving backwards at 50 mph, and if you wanted to say that was happening, you would not be wrong, the law of physics would back it up. All you can say is that one thing is moving RELATIVE to another.

SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

            Albert Einstein's special theory of Relativity though it is a classic, connotes some implications which can be viewed from scientific and philosophical standpoints. Scientifically speaking, one implication of relativity is the famous 'Twin Paradox', a hypothetical situation in which one twin embarks on a journey through space while the other twin stays on earth. When the first twin returns home after travelling at a velocity close to the speed of light, he finds that he has aged by merely a couple of years, while his brother on earth has been long since dead. This is because the twin on earth has been travelling through space at a constant time (as the earth orbits the sun), whereas the twin in the spaceship has had to decelerate and then accelerate in order to turn back home, so he has not remained in an inertial (non accelerating) reference frame. This paradox runs counter to our commonsense view of time , but it is a natural consequence of relativity theory.

            On another note, unlike in the Newtonian tradition where "a body in motion possesses an amount of energy that is equal to one-half the mass of the body multiplied by the square of its velocity,"[1] Einstein's special relativity makes energy to be equivalent (or interchangeable) with mass. Even a body at rest possesses 'rest energy' and the convertibility of energy with mass is represented in his famous equation: E= MC² (where E is energy; M= mass and C= speed of light).

            Furthermore, if the speed of light is always the same, it means that an astronaut going very fast relative to the earth will measure the seconds ticking by slower than earth bound observer will. Time essentially slows down for the astronaut,- a phenomenon called Time dilation.

            On the other hand, one of the philosophical implications of Einstein's special theory of relativity is the substitution of space-time for space and time. This is consequent upon the notion that time is somehow similar to the spatial dimensions. In other words, space and time cannot be conceived separately because the notion of space implies time.

EVALUATION

            Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is 'Special' in that it only applies in the special cases where the curvature of space-time due to gravity is negligible. However, special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified. They include; length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass-energy equivalence, a universal speed and relativity of simultaneity. It has replaced the conventional notion of an absolute universal time with the notion of a time that is dependent on reference frame and spatial position. Rather than invariant time interval between two events, there is an invariant space-time interval.

            Furthermore, Einstein's relativity theory was presented as a principled, rather than a constructive theory. A principled theory is one that begins with principles and then uses these principles to explain the phenomena; a constructive theory starts with the observations and culminates in theories that explain and reconcile those observations. Nonetheless, Einstein's special relativity theory showed that time and space are not a priori categories of human understanding; rather, they are relative quantities that are defined operationally.

CONCLUSION

            The special  theory of relativity has a central place in modern physics. It is the first port to call for philosophers and other thinkers, seeking to understand what Einstein did and why it changed everything.  Also, it's essential content can be grasped fully by someone merely with a command of simple algebra. In a nutshell, Einstein's theory of relativity describes how to figure out what a set of events will look like from one point of view, based on what it looks like from another point of view.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BRAITHWAITE, R. B., Scientific Explanation: A Study of the Function of Theory, Probability and

                                    Law in Science. Cambridge: The Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1953.

Encyclopedia of Philosophy: vol. 5 & 6; Edited by Paul Edwards. New York: Macmillan                                                         publishing Co., Inc. & The Free Press, 1967.

OGBOZO, C. N., Philosophy of Science: Historical and Thematic Introductions. Enugu: Claretian  

                          Communications, 2014

PHILIPP, F., Philosophy of Science. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1957.

---

[1] Cf. Gustave Weigel, Knowledge: Its values and limits, 95. in Ogbozo (2014)

St Anselm's proof of God's existence by Ejezie Bernardino Ugoo

INTRODUCTION

The issue of God’s existence has been a controversial issue among philosophers and non-philosophers alike from the middle ages (scholastic epoch) to the contemporary period. Among those who deny God’s existence include the Atheists, Empiricists, et cetera. For the empiricists, “Esse est percepi”, meaning “To be is to be perceived”. For them, whatever is, must have been perceived by the senses, so, whatever is not perceived by the senses does not exist. Thus, since God for them, cannot be perceived through the senses, therefore, God does not exist.

Nevertheless, many other philosophers believe in God’s existence and some of them made meritorious attempt to prove it rationally. Among these philosophers were Saints Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, et cetera. These scholastics were outstanding in their philosophical and theological thoughts on the existence of God. Such thoughts include the teleological argument, cosmological argument, ontological argument, et cetera. Thus, this paper seeks to present and appraise Saint Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the existence of an all perfect God, its criticisms and his reply. Prior to that, we shall consider briefly his biography to give a clue to his ingenious personality.

SAINT ANSELM- LIFE AND WORK

Saint Anselm, a famous medieval philosopher and a renowned theologian, was born of a noble family at Aosta in Northern Italy in 1033. Against his father’s wishes, he decided to become a monk at the Benedictine Monastery. He eventually became the Abbot of the monastery and was later called to be the Archbishop of Canterbury. He died in 1109. Generally speaking, the thoughts of Anselm is said to belong to the Augustinian tradition. His philosophical goal is concerned with providing rational support (rationes necessariae) for the doctrines of Christianity, which he already accepted as a matter of faith. He holds that one should first of all believe certain truths by faith and then try to penetrate these mysteries of faith with reason. This gave rise to the saying, “Credo ut intelligiam” which means “I believe in order that I may understand”. Like his predecessor, the great African doctor, Saint Augustine, he was particularly concerned with using dialectical method to providing rational support to the doctrines of the Christianity and for defending the Church. Interestingly, this merited him the title “The father of Scholasticism” (Pater Sacrum).

Also, Saint Anselm’s popularity in the history of thought lies in his famous and celebrated Ontological Argument for the existence of God, which appears in his work entitled Proslogion. Prior to this work, he formulated three other arguments in an earlier work called Monologion. These three arguments show his overall philosophical orientation namely, his acceptance of Realism and his rejection of Nominalism. Stated briefly, his three early arguments are these;

People seek to enjoy what they consider good and they compare things to be good in relation to a Being which is good-in-itself and consequently, such is the supreme God.

Everything that is, exists either through something or by itself. Obviously, it cannot come out of nothing, for out of nothing comes nothing (ex nihilo nihil fit). Thus, there must therefore be one thing that alone is from itself and that, causes all other things to be and this is God.

There are various degrees or levels of being, whereby animals have a higher being than plants, and people have a higher being than animals. Using this line of reasoning, Anselm concluded that unless we continue to move up through an infinite number of levels, we must arrive at a highest and most perfect being, than which there is none more perfect.

The later work, Proslogion, contains the famous Ontological Argument for the existence of God, which he developed following the request of his contemporary Christian brethren. In proving the existence of God, Anselm distinguishes himself from other philosophers; in that, other philosophers argued from the creatures to God but Anselm argued from God to creatures.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Saint Anselm’s Ontological proof for God’s existence proceeds from the idea of God as a reality or as existent. This argument attempts the method of a priori proof that uses intuition and reason alone which can be presented in a syllogistic form to prove God’s existence. Anselm starts with a definition of God, or necessary assumption about God’s nature. Thus, his argument states;

I have within my understanding, an idea of God,

This idea of God is the idea of a being that is the greatest that can be conceived.

A being is greater if it exists in reality than if it exists only in the understanding.

If God (the greatest conceivable being) exists in the understanding alone, then a greater being can be

  conceived, namely one that also exists in reality.

So if I have an idea of the greatest conceivable being, such a being must exists both in my

  understanding and in reality;

Therefore, God exists in reality.[1]

Now, we believe that God is that which no greater can be thought (aliquid que nihil maius cogitari posit). Thus, He is the greatest conceivable being. The question then is; does the greatest conceivable being really exist in reality?  However, if such a being does not exist in reality but only in ideas; we could conceive still, a greater being which does not exists simply mentally but in extramental reality. A being that exists in reality is greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God, for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater, to the greatest possible being that can be imagined. If follows then, that the idea of God as absolute perfection is necessarily the idea of an existent being. Therefore, the Supreme Being greater than which it is impossible to think of any other, necessarily exists in reality.

Furthermore, Saint Anselm argues that it is not possible even to imagine God as not existing; for him, “one who denies God’s existence is guilty of plain contradiction”, it is only the fool (insipiens) who has said in his heart; there is no God above (cf. Psalms 14:1); for when the fool hears the words “the greatest conceivable being”, he understand what he hears, and what he understands can be said to be in his intellect. But it is one thing for something to be in the intellect; it is another to understand that something actually exists. A painter, for example, thinks in advance what he is about to portray. At this point, there is in his intellect an understanding of what he is about to make, though not an understanding that the portrait, which is still to be made, actually exists. But when he has finally painted it, he both has in his understanding and understands it to be in existence the portrait he has finally made. What this proves, according to Anselm is that something can be in our intellects even before we know it to exists. There is then, in the fool’s intellect an understanding of what is meant by the phrase “the greatest conceivable being”, even though the fool does not necessarily understand that this being does in fact exists. It is in his intellect because when the fool hears this phrase, he understands it, and whatever we understand is thereby in our understanding. Hence, even the fool knows that there is at least in his intellect a greatest conceivable being.

Therefore, Anselm asserts that “there exists beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be thought, both in understanding and in reality”. Conclusively, Anselm thanks God because through His Divine Illumination, he now truly understood that, which through His generous gift, he formerly believed.

GAUNILO’S REBUTTAL

Even though Anselm’s Ontological Argument was considered a classic in his epoch, it was not devoid of criticism. The weirdest antagonist of the argument was a contemporary of Anselm, a Benedictine monk, by name; Gaunilo. He did not want to deny God’s existence but only intended to argue that Anselm had not constructed an adequate proof. Gaunilo in his work; “liber proinsipiente adversus Anselm rationcianationem”, came to the defence of the fool. He argued that the proof is impossible to achieve. It requires that there be in the understanding an idea of God, that upon hearing this word the fool is expected to have a conception of that than which there is no greater. But, Gaunilo says, the fool cannot form a concept of such a being since there is nothing among other realities he experiences from which this concept can be formed. Indeed, Anselm himself already argued that there is no reality like God. Actually, if the human mind could form such a concept, no “proof” would be necessary. To criticize Anselm’s argument, he introduces an idea of the greatest conceivable island we can think of, yet that would not imply that there is any such island in reality, outside the mind.                                               

ANSELM’S REPLY TO GAUNILO

Firstly, Anselm said that we, along with the fool, are able to form a concept of the greatest conceivable being. We do this whenever we compare different degrees of perfection in things and move upward to the maximum perfection; than which there is no more perfect. Secondly, he thought Gaunilo’s reference to a perfect Island showed that he had missed the point of the argument. Anselm replied that the two cases are not the same; the idea of the most beautiful Island does not necessarily imply its existence since it is not an absolutely perfect being. However, the idea of God, according to Anselm is one of an absolutely perfect being which involves existence, and in God alone is essence and existence Identical; since if He does exist, it would not be an absolutely perfect being. Hence, it is a contradiction to posit such argument. An Island does not have to be, it is a contingent kind of being. This would be similarly true of every finite thing. There is only one thing which everything else was, its being is not derived from anything else, but has its existence necessarily from itself; that thing such Being is God.

THOMAS AQUINAS' CRITICISM

While Saint Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) believed that God’s existence is self-evident, he rejected the idea that it can be deduced from claims about the concept of God. Aquinas argued plausibly enough, that not everyone who hears this word ‘God’ understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. The idea here is that, since different people have different concepts of God, this argument works, if at all, only to convince those who define the notion of God in the same way. From my perspective, the problem with this criticism is that the Ontological Argument can be restated without defining God.

EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION     

From the foregoing, there is no doubt that Anselm’s Ontological Argument is a convincing one. The argument proposes to show that we can deduce God’s existence from the very definition of God; God is that than which no greater can be thought, consequently, He is the highest God, Who needs no other but is needed by all else.

Conclusively, though Gaunilo, Aquinas, Kant and other philosophers criticized Anselm’s argument; other philosophers like Bonaventure, Leibniz, and Descartes supported it. So, in the history of medieval philosophy, Anselm has attained a status quo by the fascinating and all time honored argument; and his ingenuity has earned him the title “the father of scholasticism”.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

STUMPF, S.E. & FIESER, J.,   Philosophy: History and Problems. New York: Mc Graw

                                                Hill  Press, 1971.

LAWHEAD, F.W.,                    The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to

                                                 Philosophy. Belmont: Wadworth Publishers, 2002.     

COPLESTON,  F.S.J.,                A History of Philosophy: Medieval Philosophy, vol. II. New

                                                York: Doubleday Publishers, 1993   

ENEREMADU, T.O.S.,              Unpublished lecture note.

                                                                                                 

---

[1] W. F. Lawhead, The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy (Belmont: Wadsworth Publications, 2002), p. 158.

Critique of Plato's Divided Line by Ejezie Bernardino Ugoo

INTRODUCTION

Like every other discipline, Philosophy is not devoid of problems. These philosophical problems are not issues that can be solved once and for all. The fundamental problems of philosophy are perennial problems. They are basically problems of conceptualization which cannot be solved in a dogmatic manner as in religion. One of these problems is the problem of knowledge. The issue of knowledge is really a thought-provoking one and it has been reflected upon and discussed through the ages and it still persists to our own day. Plato in his Metaphor of Divided Line discussedthis problem of knowledge in a metaphysical view. He presents it as a dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon.  However, this work is an attempt to give from my perspective, a critical critique of Plato’s Divided Line; but before I delve into the work, I wish to give a rundown of Plato’s analogy of Divided line which will serve as a requisite for better understanding of this work.

PLATO’S ANALOGY OF THE DIVIDED LINE 

Explaining the world in which we live has been the essential pursuit of Philosophy since the beginning. Plato’s “Divided Line” is one of the most studied and famous explanations of the world. It not only explains its essence but it discusses the theory of knowledge. This ideology is demonstrated through a line, which separates four metaphysical models of knowledge and the world.

  OBJECTSYMODES OF THOUGHT

THE GOOD   [FORMS]	KNOWLEDGE
MATHEMATICAL OBJECTS	THINKING
THINGS	BELIEF
IMAGES	IMAGINING

INTELLIGIBLE WORLD

           [KNOWLEDGE]

VISIBLE-WORLD

[OPINION]
X

The line divides reality into two unequal fields; opinion and knowledge, or the visible and intelligible world, respectively. This unequal division symbolizes the lower degree of reality and truth found in the visible world as compared with the greater reality and truth in the intelligible world. The visible world is perceived by the senses and subject to change. The intelligible world cannot be perceived by the senses, but only known and understood. This world is not subject to change, but rather is eternal and within it holds universal ideas. These two fields are then divided once more; Opinion is divided into “Imagining” and “Belief”. Knowledge or the intelligible world is divided into “Thinking and “Knowledge”. These models are more or less arranged in form of ladder which journey from Ignorance to True Knowledge. Recalling the allegory of the Cave,we can think of this line as beginning in the dark and shadowy world at X and moving up to the bright light at Y. Going from X to Y represents a continuous process of the mind’s enlightenment.

IMAGINING: This model maintains the lowest level of reality. The mind at this level only confronts images. Here, imagining for Plato means the sense experience of appearance which is taken as true reality but is only mere illusion. Obvious examples of these are; shadows, images and words used in rhetorics and by poet. Plato considered these things to b deceptive. Imagining, however, implies that a person is not aware that he is observing an image and might have misconceived this image to be the reality. However, imagining amounts to illusion and ignorance.

BELIEF: As beings that exist within the sphere of the visible world, we tend to feel a strong sense of certainty when we observe visible and tangible things. In other words, there is a degree of certainty that “seeing” gives us but not absolute certainty anyway. “Seeing” however, constitutes believing. For Plato, belief based upon “seeing” is still in the stage of opinion because it is devoid of reasoning. However, belief maintains the second level of reality within the visible world because here, we believe things without investigating it through the exercise of the mind (rationale).

THINKING: The movement from believing to thinking is the movement from visible world to intelligible world or rather from the realm of opinion to the realm of knowledge. In this model, Plato illustrates the kind of mental activity engaged here by referring to “The Mathematician”. The mathematician deals with abstract concepts by using visible signs such as triangle, circle etc. in other words, the visible objects are more or less used as symbols. By using a triangle, a mathematician goes beyond the visible triangle to think of the intelligible triangle. However, this requires that we “let go” our senses and rely instead upon our intellect. Thinking therefore represents the power of the mind to abstract from visible object, “the core of the object” or “the object as such”

PERFECT INTELLIGENCE: The mind is never satisfied with abstracting the core of objects but it seeks for perfect knowledge which would require that the mind should grasp the relation of everything to everything else which is the unity of the whole of reality. Thus, the universal can be apprehended here. In this model, the mind is completely released from sensible objects; it is dealing directly with the forms. However, perfect knowledge means the synoptic view of reality and this for Plato implies the unity of knowledge.

Furthermore, Plato explains a situation in which there are human beings, kept chained, facing a cave wall since childhood, who have never seen the light of the sun and cannot see each other. Between the people and the mouth of the cave is a fire, in front of which men pass carrying statues shaped like animals and other objects. The people in chains can only see the shadows cast from these objects. If one of the people were released and allowed to see the objects that had cast the shadows his whole life, he would then have a new knowledge of the realty of the images he had been seeing. If he were to look at the fire itself, he would certainly be blinded momentarily, but once used to the light he would be able to understand that the fire was the source of the shadows. Thus, moving from believing the shadows to be the reality; to believing that the objects and fire casting the shadows are the reality.Imagine further that the man were to be let out of the cave all together. First he would be blinded, as with the fire inside the cave, and would take a while to acclimate to this new reality. After adjusting to such illumination, the man would be able to see clear objects of the world as reality. After this, the man would be able to look at the sun, and realize it is the source and reason for all he is seeing.

In other words, the life inside the cave represents Plato’s idea of the visible world. The shadows cast on the cave wall and the prisoners knowing only those shadows represent the majority of humans. Most people go through life only seeing imitations of the truth, or reflections, but not the real thing. The man set free to see the objects and fire causing the shadows transcends from the subset of illusion to the subset of beholding the material objects, while still residing in the visible world. The latter is a better cognitive state to be in, rather than merely seeing shadows of true objects. The progression from visible to intelligible world takes place when the man exits the cave and steps into blinding sunlight. The intelligible world is that in which true understanding begins. The initial segment people enter into in the intelligible world is that of mathematical theory and reasoning. In this world, conclusions are made from axioms; only true conclusions and valid reasoning exists in this division of the intelligible world.  This is where abstract and metaphysical ideas would live.Such ideas include; the Pythagorean Theorem or the Quadratic Equation; something that holds true in any situation. 

CRITIQUE

Plato had his allegory of the cave before he wrote on the divided line. In his idea of the cave, he opines that reality as a whole exists within two spheres; the world of forms and the physical world. He holds also that the human soul (which is his definition of man) exists previously in the world of form and is now being caged in the human body. In the same line of thought, he notes that we cannot know anything in this physical world that we can only remember the things which we knew previously in the world of forms where our souls formerly existed. For Plato, our perception of images in this world helps us to recall these things which we already knew. However, contrary to his position in the Allegory of the Cave, Plato in the lowest level of his Divided Line maintains that our perception of images leads us to illusion and ignorance and that these images are deceptive. To drive home my argument, I think Plato’s work at this point lacks some clarity because he elaborated in his Allegory of the Cave that the images in the physical world help us to recall the things we knew before while in his later work; Divided Line, he holds a counter view that images lead us to ignorance and illusion.

Again, it is quite obvious that Plato based on his ideas on divided line is more or less a rationalist as par dealing with the sources of knowledge. In other words, his position is in opposition with that of the Empiricists. However, it is on this note that I stand to observe that there are many sources of knowledge depending on what is to be known and the context within which the knowledge is to be acquired and no knowledge is absolutely certain to the extent that it cannot be invalidated. Nonetheless, Plato’s Divided Line is a serious effort made towards the problem of knowledge which seems to be a hard nut to crack and it facilitates sincere dialogue among critical minds.

CONCLUSION            

Plato’s metaphysical and epistemological doctrines are difficult to completely separate. He explains the metaphysical or abstract concepts of knowing by asserting that they belong to the intelligible world rather than the visible world. The purpose of Plato’s Divided Line is to demonstrate the levels of knowledge a human can and should aspire to attain. It seems that majority of people spend their lives living in the world of illusions, only seeing traces of truth in their lives. Humans desire the Good, and if they wish to attain it they must transcend from one world to the next, namely from the shadow world to the material world, from that to the world of mathematical reason, and finally to the world of the Forms. In a nutshell, the Divided Line is a journey of no return. Once you know and understand the next world, you cannot revisit your earlier ignorance.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABANUKA, B.,     Unpublished lecture note, 2014.

HORNBY, A. S. & Co.,   Oxford Advance leaner’s Dictionary; 7th Edition. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2006.

LAWHEAD, F.W.,    The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to

Philosophy. Belmont: Wadworth Publishers, 2002.

STUMPF, S.E. & FIESER, J.,   Philosophy: History and Problems. New York: McGraw

Hill  Press, 1971.