In this lecture, we're going to make the move from medieval philosophy to modern

philosophy. Now is a good time to remember that philosophy does not exist outside
of history or context. That philosophy actually grows out of very concrete
circumstances. And between medieval philosophy and modern philosophy are a
number of really significant events that give some shape or influence to the
direction that modern philosophy takes.
I'll mention three of them. The first of these is the Renaissance, which originates
in Florence in the 14th century and the Renaissance involves a desire to recover the
classical sources of learning, especially modernism. Especially Latin and Greek and
the humanities. That field of study poses something of a challenge to the scholastic
approach to understanding theology and philosophy.
The second major event is the Protestant Reformation. In 1520, roughly, we see a
major fracture in Christendom. And it's not just a political fracture. It's not just
a religious fracture. It's a deep theological fracture. That is very complex and
involves bringing all kinds of different ways of thinking about reality into play.
Thirdly, we have the roots of scientific inquiry in a new way and we might trace this
to Nicholas Copernicus as a convenient starting point. Of course, he doesn't
originate all of this himself. Science is like philosophy.
It's part of a tradition. But Copernicus, who is a Polish mathematician and
astronomer and a Catholic priest, is studying astronomy. And he's trying to figure
out how to explain what's called the retrograde motion of planets.
The previous Ptolemaic system of astronomy has a very complex way of trying to
account for this. And it's Copernicus.
Copernicus, who comes up with the idea, which is actually kind of an ancient idea,
but gets covered over, that perhaps we could think about the motion of the planets
not as a function of all of the stars and planets moving around the Earth but what
if we think about the Earth as generating its own kind of motion and changing our
perspective about the planets? So that's the first thing Copernicus does.
And the second thing he does... is he comes up with the idea that it would make a
lot of sense to apply mathematics to understanding those motions. And he comes
up with a very sophisticated mathematical theory for helping explain astronomy.
And these two things have explosive effects.
They pass down to names that you know in science, like Johannes Kepler and like
Galileo. So these are the backgrounds.
The Renaissance, the Reformation, and new discoveries within science that are in
the background of Francis Bacon. Who is the philosopher we're going to treat in
this lecture? Why Francis Bacon? That's a great question. Behind it is a question,
what is modern philosophy?
How do we demarcate the beginning of modern philosophy? There's no convenient
place to do this. There's no... find... a uniform line by which we can say that's
medieval, that's modern.
There are several places that people often locate as the kind of benchmark for
demarcating this transition.
One of them, William of Ockham. Ockham is a 14th century Franciscan who comes
up with a theory about essences called nominalism. Nominalism is basically the idea
that... that essences aren't real. That the world that we classify out there doesn't
exist in those classifications.
[05:01 - 05:11] We impose those classifications. And Ockham, therefore, offers a
number of writings in logic that are slightly different from the Aristotelian logic.
But Ockham doesn't generate a whole new philosophical system the way that people
after him do.
Another thing that I think is important is that... a possible starting point would be
Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli is an Italian politician, statesman, something of a
humanist. He's from Florence, where the Renaissance begins. And one of his most
famous books is The Prince, which is written in about 1510. It's not published until
after his death, although copies circulate. And I suspect most of you know the name
Machiavelli. Perhaps even just used as an acronym. Or an adjective, as in, that was
very Machiavellian for him to do. Machiavelli is associated with a kind of realism,
pragmatic realism, even unethical realism in politics. So Machiavelli could be a
starting point.
Another starting point could be René Descartes. And we are going to treat
Descartes in the next lecture, so I won't say anything about him now, except that
he is a plausible starting point.
But I'm going to start with Francis Bacon. Why? It is strange, as I said, because
Bacon himself is known as a statesman. His life was in politics. He was a
parliamentarian. He eventually rose to be Lord Chancellor of England. Bacon lived
from about 1561 and died in 1626. And he never held a position in a university. And
this is a good time to let you know that philosophy, at its core, is not an academic
discipline. Socrates never taught in a university. Bacon did not. Nor did the next
two thinkers that we treat who are hugely influential. René Descartes never taught
in a university. David Hume never taught in a university. And yet they were
philosophers who strongly impacted the Western philosophical tradition.
So when you read standard textbooks in philosophy, you would not likely come across
Bacon in any kind of comprehensive way. He's kind of marked largely as the father
of modern science. So, if we call Aristotle the father of science, we might call
Bacon the father of modern science. But Bacon never made any distinct
philosophical or scientific decisions. Bacon never made any significant philosophical
or scientific discoveries. In fact, what Bacon offers is a new picture of the world,
a new way of seeing things. He offers a program for study. And that's one of the
reasons we're going to read him, is to see him not so much as a scientist, but largely
for the imaginative program and vision he gives to philosophy and the philosophical
enterprise.
Now, lest we underestimate Bacon's influence, I should tell you that two things.
Number one, when David Hume wants to credit the kind of work that he is doing,
and I'll repeat this in the lecture that I give later, Hume singles out his Lord Bacon
as the beginner of the new physical sciences, that Hume regards himself as
continuing.
In Immanuel Kant, when he writes his great work in philosophy, the three works, A
Critique of Pure Reason, A Critique of Practical Reason, A Critique of Judgment, he
begins that project with an epigraph from this book that we are reading, The Great
Instauration. So the epigraph for that monumental and influential work by Kanthas
a paragraph from Francis Bacon's work that we're treating in this lecture.
So, Hume and Kant both regarded Bacon as the pivotal figure for the transition to
modern philosophy, and so will we.
What I want to notice here, then, is that The Great Instauration, which was written
in 1620 and unfinished before Bacon died in 1626, is stylistically magnificent. And
this is one of those works that I would really encourage you to read on your own
because of the elements of style that are in it.
It's the figures of speech that Bacon uses. It's the metaphors. It's the rhetoric
that is really important to pay attention to in this work.
What I want to highlight about The Great Instauration are four points, four things
that are characteristic of almost the entire work. The entire philosophical tradition
after Bacon. These will help you to understand what is characteristic of modern
philosophy. What makes it different from medieval or ancient philosophy? These
four things we will largely find in all of the subsequent thinkers that we read, even
though there will be differences among them. We'll see these same elements in
René Descartes. We'll see them in David Hume. We'll see them in Kant. And to some
degree, you could say that it's all there in Nietzsche.
Nietzsche arguably sees all of these things originating in Bacon. So, to begin, what
are those four things I mentioned in The Great Instauration? I'm just going to
mention them somewhat briefly, and then I want to get into more detail in the text.
The first thing is a severe criticism of the previous tradition. Not just this thinker,
or that thinker, or this argument, or that argument. What I'm talking about is a
whole-scale repudiation of the entire pre-existing order of knowledge and inquiry.
And Bacon is very explicit about this. I would like to read for you just one passage
that exemplifies Bacon's understanding of this. " For let a man look carefully into
all the variety of books with which the arts and sciences abound, he will find
everywhere endless repetitions of the same thing, varying in the method of
treatment but not new in substance, and so much that the whole stock, numerous
as it appears at first view, proves on examination to be but scanty, and for its value
and utility, and for its value and utility, it must be plainly avowed, that the wisdom
which we have derived principally from the Greeks is but like the boyhood of
knowledge, and has the characteristic property of boys. It can talk, but it cannot
generate. See the style. For it is fruitful of controversies, but barren of works, so
that the state of learning as it now appears to be represented to the life, and the
old fable of Scylla, who had the head and face of a virgin, but her womb was hung
round with barking monsters, from which she could not be delivered.
Look at this analogy Bacon is giving us. He's just such a dynamic, engaging writer.
For in like manner the sciences in which we are accustomed have certain general
positions which are specious and flattering. But as soon as they come to particulars,
which are as the parts of generation, when they should produce fruit and works,
then arise contentions and barking disputations, which are the end of the matter,
and all the issue they can yield. So, I hope that gives you some impression of what
Bacon is saying about that tradition. Number two then. Bacon suggests because that
whole tradition is sterile and barren of works, and disputatious and unproductive,
therefore, we need a new foundation. And he proposes to give us a new foundation.
In his premium to the great instauration, which is just kind of like a preface, he
writes, there was but one course left therefore, to try the whole thing anew. Upon
a better plan, and to commence a total reconstruction of sciences, arts, and all
human knowledge raised upon the proper foundations. Wow.
He is proposing a total reconstruction of philosophy. So, when we talk about modern
philosophy, in some sense we're not just inventing that term. We're talking about
the explicitly expressed, ambition of some of its leading thinkers.
Third, Bacon tells us that the goal of this new foundation is not to understand
nature, but to command nature. That's a very important point. We've already read
that Bacon says the goal is generation, fruit, works, not understanding, but
production.
This is why Bacon essentially says, the father of modern science. Because he wants
to give us a way of knowing how to dominate and control nature for the assistance
of human beings. So, Bacon is at the front end of what today we call scientific
technology. Using science to promote technology. Here's a good place to let you
know that Bacon also is the author of the first work of science fiction. This is a
remarkable thing.
In this volume, which I'm recommending for the course, in the course guide, it
actually contains both the great instauration, part of the great instauration, and
New Atlantis. Think about that word, New Atlantis. The old Atlantis in the
mythology is populated by human beings who are proud of their technology. And
therefore, the old Atlantis is destroyed by the gods. Bacon calls his science fiction
New Atlantis. And the suggestion is that this Atlantis will not be overcome. And
the basic storyline involves a secret island in which scientistsin a university have
advanced technology to such a degree that they have achieved almost a complete
revolution. They have gained control over nature. New Atlantis is also an unfinished
work, but it launches a whole way of thinking about our relationship to nature, to
science, to technology. It's also worth pointing out this, a kind of paradox in modern
philosophy, in Bacon's work.
On the one hand, Bacon wants to accuse pre-modern philosophy of being unrealistic,
of being idealistic, about being disputatious. And so the suggestion would be that
modern philosophy deals with reality, with the tangible, with the sensible. It's much
more realistic. At the same time, he writes this book of science fiction called New
Atlantis, in which he hopes for a kind of utopia, a scientific utopia, created by
technology. The paradox is this.
Modern science simultaneously promotes a kind of realism about our place in the
world, but also unleashes utopian longings. And it's that paradox of realism and
utopian longings for health, for happiness, for relief from suffering and want, and
yes, even death, it's that combination and that dynamic that generates so many of
the difficulties and tensions that we see in our own culture.
Finally, fourth, the fourth element in modern philosophy that we find in the great
instauration is Bacon's promoting of a new way of knowing. Bacon is focused on
human knowledge. He's focused on the way in which humans know the world. And we
talked about this in a previous lecture on Plato's Republic. When we looked at the
divided line, if you go back and look at it, you'll notice that one side of that line,
one of those columns is epistemology.
Epistemology deals with how human beings know reality. It's a study of the ways
we know, our imagination, our reason, our intellect, our memory, how we engage with
reality. And Bacon is severely critical of our knowing powers, our natural knowing
powers. Because of his criticism of this, Bacon can be said to be the first person
who launches what can be called critical philosophy.
Critical philosophy is a technical term in philosophy. It refers to what is also
another technical term, the epistemological turn in philosophy. These two things go
together. The epistemological turn is the turn away from things to our knowing
powers. A turn away from ontology to epistemology.
Bacon initiates this epistemological turn. We're going to see this very clearly in the
next lecture with Descartes, and you'll see it very clearly in humankind. So, it's an
epistemological turn and also a critical turn. All of these thinkers will be, will write
under the belief that our knowing powers, our senses are deeply faulty, deeply
fallible. And so, they'll explore what that means for the human condition, for our
place in the world, and for our knowledge of reality.
Okay. So, in the remainder of this lecture, I just want to highlight a few parts of
The Great Instauration. Bacon gives us a plan of the work as a preface to the
remainder of the parts. As I mentioned, this was meant to be a massive project.
The Great Instauration, by the way, that's a strange word, instauration.
It actually means refounding, a new foundation. And Bacon begins The Great
Instauration by telling us that our knowing powers have been so corrupted by
various things that he thinks we need a new foundation. And he wonders if he can
restore the powers that we had in the state of original innocence. Bacon's structure
is a great inspiration. Bacon's structure is a great inspiration around the six days
of creation in Genesis.
This is part of the style he's following, and it's deeply suggestive of what he is
doing here with his project and his criticism of that whole intervening tradition
between the fall of Adam and Eve and his own writing in 1620. Now, the second
part, day two, if you will, of The Great Instauration,
Bacon gives the name The New Organon. That's notable. If you remember,
Aristotle's works in logic were called The Organon, the works of logic.
Bacon gives us The New Organon. That is, he's telling us Aristotle is no longer
sufficient. Aristotle's logic is not the right kind of logic, and Bacon proposes a new
kind of logic. So, I want to pay attention to Bacon's summary of The New Organon
in the preface to The Great Instauration and look at some of the points here. So,
if we begin in the preface of this volume on page 21,
Bacon tells us that there are three points in which his approach to logic will differ
from the previous original. This is the Aristotelian approach to logic.
First, he claims that the end will be different. The end, Bacon tells us, is not to
understand nature but to command nature in action.
Second, Bacon tells us that his new logic will differ from Aristotle's logic in its
order of demonstrations. What does he mean by this? Bacon tells us that in
Aristotelian logic almost all the work is spent on the syllogism. You may remember
our reference to the syllogism in the lecture on Aristotle. Aristotle's discovery and
elaboration on the syllogism was the foundation of classical logic. Listen to what
Bacon tells us. I reject demonstration by syllogism.
It is acting too confusedly in letting nature slip out of its hands. He rejects the
syllogism. He thinks that it works too quickly with nature. What does Bacon propose
instead of the syllogism? He tells us induction.
Now, we know that Aristotle also had a theory of induction and gave it very
prominent place in his logic. And Aristotle himself was a close observer of nature.
But Bacon is fiercely critical of what he sees happening in the tradition after
Aristotle. Whether accurate or not, Bacon thinks that the schoolmen, the
scholastics, have become more preoccupied with texts and with arguments than
with the actual observation of nature. And so, Bacon thinks that, and Bacon tells us
this about induction. He says, I use induction throughout, and that in minor
propositions as well as in the major.
For I consider induction to be that form of demonstration which upholds the sense
and closes with nature and comes to the very brink of operation if it does not
actually deal with it. He says, previously, hitherto, the scholastics fly at once from
the sense to the most general propositions. They move too quickly. But Bacon says,
we need to stay close to observation, to experience, to the facts.
But Bacon is not simply promoting Aristotle's kind of induction. He tells us his form
of induction will be different. Thirdly, he says he's going to give us a new form of
induction. And he specifies four different ways in which this induction will be new.
He tells us, first of all, that with his form of induction, we shall analyze experience
and take it to pieces. And by a due process of exclusion and rejection, lead to an
inevitable conclusion.
I just want you to focus on that word, analyze experience. Analyze means to take a
whole and break it down into its parts, to disassemble it and look at each individual
part carefully. Analysis becomes a very important part of the new philosophy. Of
course, one question that we will have to raise and that you should think about is
whether by analyzing certain wholes, we don't actually destroy them. Let me put it
differently. Is it not the case that sometimes, a whole is greater than the sum of
its parts? To analyze it is to not understand it. Bacon wants to analyze things.
Secondly, Bacon tells us, hitherto, the common logic has taken things on trust. But
Bacon tells us that we cannot trust. We must not accept anything until it has been
fully established. Why not?
This leads to Bacon's third point. information of the senses, he tells us, is faulty.
The senses deceive. He tells us that they deceive in two ways. Sometimes, the
senses, he tells us, give us no information. And sometimes, they give us false
information. Bacon argues that there are things that our senses can't perceive, like
the things below the level of the senses, like atoms and molecules and other things.
He's not using that language, but Bacon is aware of the atomic theory of matter,
that there can be things below the level of our senses that might be the ultimate
reality. So, we can't trust our senses.
But Bacon makes a stronger argument. Even the things our senses perceive, Bacon
argues, are false. He doesn't elaborate on the argument, but I want to elaborate
on the argument for your sake, because it's important to understand this. How could
Bacon claim that our senses are deceptive?
Here are some reasons why we might distrust the senses.
Look at two railroad tracks extending into the distance. It looks like the sides
converge to a point. Our senses tell us that the tracks get closer and closer
together. But they don't.
Submerge a stick in water. The stick looks bent. But it isn't. Look at some object,
say, color on a mountain.
Look at a statue up high. From different perspectives, you notice the color changes.
You can see it differently when there's light. You see it differently in the morning,
in the afternoon, in the evening. The size of things. A statue up high looks one way.
When you bring it down low, it seems to have a very different shape.
Bacon is profoundly convicted by the idea that our senses falsify reality. And you
need to let this sink in for a moment. That challenge.
[00:02 - 00:36] In this lecture, we're going to make the move from medieval
philosophy to modern philosophy.
[00:37 - 00:46] Now is a good time to remember that philosophy does not exist
outside of history or context.
[00:47 - 00:52] That philosophy actually grows out of very concrete circumstances.
[00:52 - 01:05] And between medieval philosophy and modern philosophy are a
number of really significant events that give some shape or
influence to the direction that modern philosophy takes.
[01:05 - 01:15] I'll mention three of them. The first of these is the Renaissance,
which originates in Florence in the 14th century.
[01:15 - 01:24] And the Renaissance involves a desire to recover the classical
sources of learning, especially modernism. Especially Latin and
Greek and the humanities.
[01:24 - 01:37] That field of study poses something of a challenge to the scholastic
approach to understanding theology and philosophy. The second
major event is the Protestant Reformation.
[01:37 - 01:49] In 1520, roughly, we see a major fracture in Christendom. And it's
not just a political fracture. It's not just a religious fracture.
[01:49 - 01:52] It's a deep theological fracture.
[01:52 - 02:03] That is very complex and involves bringing all kinds of different
ways of thinking about reality into play.
[02:04 - 02:11] Thirdly, we have the roots of scientific inquiry in a new way.
[02:12 - 02:24] And we might trace this to Nicholas Copernicus as a convenient
starting point. Of course, he doesn't originate all of this himself.
Science is like philosophy.
[02:24 - 02:35] It's part of a tradition. But Copernicus, who is a Polish
mathematician and astronomer and a Catholic priest, is studying
astronomy.
[02:35 - 02:42] And he's trying to figure out how to explain what's called the
retrograde motion of planets.
[02:42 - 02:52] The previous Ptolemaic system of astronomy has a very complex
way of trying to account for this. And it's Copernicus.
[02:52 - 02:58] Copernicus, who comes up with the idea, which is actually kind of an
ancient idea, but gets covered over,
[02:59 - 03:10] that perhaps we could think about the motion of the planets not as
a function of all of the stars and planets moving around the Earth,
[03:10 - 03:22] but what if we think about the Earth as generating its own kind of
motion and changing our perspective about the planets? So that's
the first thing Copernicus does. And the second thing he does...
[03:22 - 03:31] is he comes up with the idea that it would make a lot of sense to
apply mathematics to understanding those motions.
[03:31 - 03:42] And he comes up with a very sophisticated mathematical theory for
helping explain astronomy. And these two things have explosive
effects.
[03:43 - 03:52] They pass down to names that you know in science, like Johannes
Kepler and like Galileo. So these are the backgrounds.
[03:52 - 04:02] The Renaissance, the Reformation, and new discoveries within
science that are in the background of Francis Bacon.
[04:03 - 04:13] Who is the philosopher we're going to treat in this lecture? Why
Francis Bacon? That's a great question. Behind it is a question,
what is modern philosophy?
[04:14 - 04:22] How do we demarcate the beginning of modern philosophy? There's
no convenient place to do this. There's no... find...
[04:22 - 04:27] a uniform line by which we can say that's medieval, that's modern.
[04:28 - 04:38] There are several places that people often locate as the kind of
benchmark for demarcating this transition.
[04:39 - 04:49] One of them, William of Ockham. Ockham is a 14th century
Franciscan who comes up with a theory about essences called
nominalism.
[04:50 - 05:01] Nominalism is basically the idea that... that essences aren't real.
That the world that we classify out there doesn't exist in those
classifications.
[05:01 - 05:11] We impose those classifications. And Ockham, therefore, offers a
number of writings in logic that are slightly different from the
Aristotelian logic.
[05:12 - 05:24] But Ockham doesn't generate a whole new philosophical system the
way that people after him do. Another thing that I think is
important is that... a possible starting point would be Niccolo
Machiavelli.
[05:26 - 05:34] Machiavelli is an Italian politician, statesman, something of a
humanist. He's from Florence, where the Renaissance begins.
[05:35 - 05:45] And one of his most famous books is The Prince, which is written
in about 1510. It's not published until after his death, although
copies circulate.
[05:46 - 05:57] And I suspect most of you know the name Machiavelli. Perhaps even
just used as an acronym. Or an adjective, as in, that was very
Machiavellian for him to do.
[05:58 - 06:09] Machiavelli is associated with a kind of realism, pragmatic realism,
even unethical realism in politics. So Machiavelli could be a
starting point.
[06:10 - 06:21] Another starting point could be René Descartes. And we are going
to treat Descartes in the next lecture, so I won't say anything
 about him now, except that he is a plausible starting point.
[06:21 - 06:32] But I'm going to start with Francis Bacon. Why? It is strange, as I
said, because Bacon himself is known as a statesman.
[06:33 - 06:41] His life was in politics. He was a parliamentarian. He eventually rose
to be Lord Chancellor of England.
[06:42 - 06:51] Bacon lived from about 1561 and died in 1626. And he never held a
position in a university.
[06:52 - 07:04] And this is a good time to let you know that philosophy, at its core,
is not an academic discipline. Socrates never taught in a
university. Bacon did not.
[07:04 - 07:13] Nor did the next two thinkers that we treat who are hugely
influential. René Descartes never taught in a university. David
Hume never taught in a university.
[07:13 - 07:21] And yet they were philosophers who strongly impacted the Western
philosophical tradition.
[07:21 - 07:34] So when you read standard textbooks in philosophy, you would not
likely come across Bacon in any kind of comprehensive way.
[07:35 - 07:45] He's kind of marked largely as the father of modern science. So if
we call Aristotle the father of science, we might call Bacon the
father of modern science.
[07:46 - 07:51] But Bacon never made any distinct philosophical or scientific
decisions. Bacon never made any significant philosophical or
scientific discoveries.
[07:53 - 08:05] In fact, what Bacon offers is a new picture of the world, a new way
of seeing things. He offers a program for study.
[08:05 - 08:10] And that's one of the reasons we're going to read him, is to see
him not so much as a scientist,
[08:10 - 08:19] but largely for the imaginative program and vision he gives to
philosophy and the philosophical enterprise.
[08:19 - 08:26] Now, lest we underestimate Bacon's influence, I should tell you that
two things.
[08:26 - 08:38] Number one, when David Hume wants to credit the kind of work
that he is doing, and I'll repeat this in the lecture that I give
later,
[08:38 - 08:50] Hume singles out his Lord Bacon as the beginner of the new physical
sciences, that Hume regards himself as continuing.
[08:51 - 09:01] In Immanuel Kant, when he writes his great work in philosophy, the
three works, A Critique of Pure Reason, A Critique of Practical
Reason, A Critique of Judgment,
[09:01 - 09:12] he begins that project with an epigraph from this book that we are
reading, The Great Instauration. So the epigraph for that
 monumental and influential work by Kant
[09:12 - 09:17] has a paragraph from Francis Bacon's work that we're treating in
this lecture.
[09:17 - 09:28] So Hume and Kant both regarded Bacon as the pivotal figure for
the transition to modern philosophy, and so will we.
[09:28 - 09:40] What I want to notice here, then, is that The Great Instauration,
which was written in 1620 and unfinished before Bacon died in
1626,
[09:41 - 09:54] is stylistically magnificent. And this is one of those works that I
would really encourage you to read on your own because of the
elements of style that are in it.
[09:54 - 10:04] It's the figures of speech that Bacon uses. It's the metaphors.
It's the rhetoric that is really important to pay attention to in
this work.
[10:04 - 10:15] What I want to highlight about The Great Instauration are four
points, four things that are characteristic of almost the entire
work.
[10:15 - 10:28] The entire philosophical tradition after Bacon. These will help you
to understand what is characteristic of modern philosophy. What
makes it different from medieval or ancient philosophy?
[10:28 - 10:40] These four things we will largely find in all of the subsequent
thinkers that we read, even though there will be differences
among them. We'll see these same elements in René Descartes.
[10:40 - 10:49] We'll see them in David Hume. We'll see them in Kant. And to some
degree, you could say that it's all there in Nietzsche.
[10:49 - 10:59] Nietzsche arguably sees all of these things originating in Bacon. So,
to begin, what are those four things I mentioned in The Great
Instauration?
[10:59 - 11:12] I'm just going to mention them somewhat briefly, and then I want
to get into more detail in the text. The first thing is a severe
criticism of the previous tradition.
[11:12 - 11:19] Not just this thinker, or that thinker, or this argument, or that
argument.
[11:19 - 11:29] What I'm talking about is a whole-scale repudiation of the entire
pre-existing order of knowledge and inquiry.
[11:30 - 11:41] And Bacon is very explicit about this. I would like to read for you
just one passage that exemplifies Bacon's understanding of this.
[11:42 - 11:55] For let a man look carefully into all the variety of books with which
the arts and sciences abound, he will find everywhere endless
repetitions of the same thing,
[11:56 - 12:09] varying in the method of treatment but not new in substance, and so
 much that the whole stock, numerous as it appears at first view,
proves on examination to be but scanty,
[12:09 - 12:21] and for its value and utility, and for its value and utility, it must be
plainly avowed, that the wisdom which we have derived principally
from the Greeks is but like the boyhood of knowledge,
[12:21 - 12:33] and has the characteristic property of boys. It can talk, but it
cannot generate. See the style. For it is fruitful of controversies,
[12:33 - 12:44] but barren of works, so that the state of learning as it now appears
to be represented to the life, and the old fable of Scylla,
[12:44 - 12:54] who had the head and face of a virgin, but her womb was hung round
with barking monsters, from which she could not be delivered.
[12:55 - 13:05] Look at this analogy Bacon is giving us. He's just such a dynamic,
engaging writer. For in like manner the sciences in which we are
accustomed
[13:06 - 13:16] have certain general positions which are specious and flattering. But
as soon as they come to particulars, which are as the parts of
generation,
[13:17 - 13:29] when they should produce fruit and works, then arise contentions
and barking disputations, which are the end of the matter, and all
the issue they can yield. So I hope that gives you some impression
[13:29 - 13:40] of what Bacon is saying about that tradition. Number two then.
Bacon suggests because that whole tradition is
[13:40 - 13:50] sterile and barren of works, and disputatious and unproductive,
therefore we need a new foundation.
[13:50 - 14:01] And he proposes to give us a new foundation. In his premium to the
great instauration, which is just kind of like a preface, he writes,
[14:02 - 14:12] there was but one course left therefore, to try the whole thing
anew. Upon a better plan,
[14:12 - 14:22] and to commence a total reconstruction of sciences, arts, and all
human knowledge raised upon the proper foundations. Wow.
[14:23 - 14:34] He is proposing a total reconstruction of philosophy. So when we
talk about modern philosophy, in some sense we're not just
inventing that term.
[14:34 - 14:42] We're talking about the explicitly expressed, ambition of some of
its leading thinkers.
[14:44 - 14:54] Third, Bacon tells us that the goal of this new foundation is not to
understand nature, but to command nature.
[14:55 - 15:06] That's a very important point. We've already read that Bacon says
the goal is generation, fruit, works, not understanding, but
production.
[15:07 - 15:20] This is why Bacon essentially says, the father of modern science.
 Because he wants to give us a way of knowing how to dominate and
control nature for the assistance of human beings.
[15:21 - 15:33] So Bacon is at the front end of what today we call scientific
technology. Using science to promote technology. Here's a good
place to let you know
[15:33 - 15:43] that Bacon also is the author of the first work of science fiction.
This is a remarkable thing.
[15:43 - 15:55] In this volume, which I'm recommending for the course, in the
course guide, it actually contains both the great instauration, part
of the great instauration, and New Atlantis.
[15:55 - 16:07] Think about that word, New Atlantis. The old Atlantis in the
mythology is populated by human beings who are proud of their
technology.
[16:07 - 16:17] And therefore, the old Atlantis is destroyed by the gods. Bacon calls
his science fiction New Atlantis.
[16:17 - 16:29] And the suggestion is that this Atlantis will not be overcome. And
the basic storyline involves a secret island in which scientists
[16:30 - 16:42] in a university have advanced technology to such a degree that they
have achieved almost a complete revolution. They have gained
control over nature. New Atlantis is also an unfinished work,
[16:42 - 16:52] but it launches a whole way of thinking about our relationship to
nature, to science, to technology. It's also worth pointing out
this,
[16:53 - 17:05] a kind of paradox in modern philosophy, in Bacon's work. On the one
hand, Bacon wants to accuse pre-modern philosophy of being
unrealistic,
[17:05 - 17:15] of being idealistic, about being disputatious. And so the suggestion
would be that modern philosophy deals with reality,
[17:15 - 17:26] with the tangible, with the sensible. It's much more realistic. At the
same time, he writes this book of science fiction called New
Atlantis,
[17:26 - 17:39] in which he hopes for a kind of utopia, a scientific utopia, created
by technology. The paradox is this.
[17:39 - 17:47] Modern science simultaneously promotes a kind of realism about our
place in the world,
[17:47 - 17:59] but also unleashes utopian longings. And it's that paradox of realism
and utopian longings for health,
[17:59 - 18:12] for happiness, for relief from suffering and want, and yes, even
death, it's that combination and that dynamic that generates so
many of the difficulties
[18:13 - 18:23] and tensions that we see in our own culture. Finally, fourth, the
 fourth element in modern philosophy that we find in the great
instauration
[18:23 - 18:35] is Bacon's promoting of a new way of knowing. Bacon is focused on
human knowledge.
[18:35 - 18:47] He's focused on the way in which humans know the world. And we
talked about this in a previous lecture on Plato's Republic.
[18:47 - 18:56] When we looked at the divided line, if you go back and look at it,
you'll notice that one side of that line, one of those columns is
epistemology.
[18:58 - 19:09] Epistemology deals with how human beings know reality. It's a study
of the ways we know, our imagination, our reason, our intellect,
[19:09 - 19:20] our memory, how we engage with reality. And Bacon is severely
critical of our knowing powers,
[19:21 - 19:32] our natural knowing powers. Because of his criticism of this, Bacon
can be said to be the first person
[19:32 - 19:40] who launches what can be called critical philosophy. Critical
philosophy is a technical term in philosophy.
[19:40 - 19:50] It refers to what is also another technical term, the epistemological
turn in philosophy. These two things go together.
[19:51 - 20:02] The epistemological turn is the turn away from things to our knowing
powers. A turn away from ontology to epistemology.
[20:02 - 20:10] Bacon initiates this epistemological turn. We're going to see this
very clearly in the next lecture with Descartes, and you'll see it
very clearly in humankind.
[20:11 - 20:23] So it's an epistemological turn and also a critical turn. All of these
thinkers will be, will write under the belief that our knowing
powers,
[20:24 - 20:35] our senses are deeply faulty, deeply fallible. And so they'll explore
what that means for the human condition, for our place in the
world, and for our knowledge of reality.
[20:37 - 20:49] Okay. So in the remainder of this lecture, I just want to highlight
a few parts of The Great Instauration. Bacon gives us a plan of
the work
[20:49 - 21:01] as a preface to the remainder of the parts. As I mentioned, this
was meant to be a massive project. The Great Instauration, by
the way, that's a strange word, instauration.
[21:01 - 21:13] It actually means refounding, a new foundation. And Bacon begins
The Great Instauration by telling us that our knowing powers
[21:13 - 21:22] have been so corrupted by various things that he thinks we need a
new foundation. And he wonders if he can restore
[21:23 - 21:35] the powers that we had in the state of original innocence. Bacon's
 structure is a great inspiration. Bacon's structure is a great
inspiration around the six days of creation in Genesis.
[21:36 - 21:47] This is part of the style he's following, and it's deeply suggestive
of what he is doing here with his project and his criticism of that
whole intervening tradition
[21:48 - 21:59] between the fall of Adam and Eve and his own writing in 1620. Now,
the second part, day two, if you will, of The Great Instauration,
[21:59 - 22:11] Bacon gives the name The New Organon. That's notable. If you
remember, Aristotle's works in logic were called The Organon,
the works of logic.
[22:12 - 22:19] Bacon gives us The New Organon. That is, he's telling us Aristotle
is no longer sufficient.
[22:21 - 22:34] Aristotle's logic is not the right kind of logic, and Bacon proposes
a new kind of logic. So, I want to pay attention to Bacon's
summary of The New Organon
[22:34 - 22:45] in the preface to The Great Instauration and look at some of the
points here. So, if we begin in the preface of this volume on page
21,
[22:45 - 22:58] Bacon tells us that there are three points in which his approach to
logic will differ from the previous original.
[22:58 - 23:10] This is the Aristotelian approach to logic. First, he claims that the
end will be different. The end, Bacon tells us, is not to understand
nature
[23:10 - 23:22] but to command nature in action. Second, Bacon tells us that his
new logic will differ from Aristotle's logic
[23:22 - 23:32] in its order of demonstrations. What does he mean by this? Bacon
tells us that in Aristotelian logic
[23:32 - 23:44] almost all the work is spent on the syllogism. You may remember
our reference to the syllogism in the lecture on Aristotle.
Aristotle's discovery and elaboration
[23:44 - 23:55] on the syllogism was the foundation of classical logic. Listen to what
Bacon tells us. I reject demonstration by syllogism.
[23:55 - 24:07] It is acting too confusedly in letting nature slip out of its hands.
He rejects the syllogism. He thinks that it works too quickly
[24:07 - 24:19] with nature. What does Bacon propose instead of the syllogism? He
tells us induction. Now, we know that Aristotle
[24:19 - 24:31] also had a theory of induction and gave it very prominent place in
his logic. And Aristotle himself was a close observer of nature.
[24:32 - 24:45] But Bacon is fiercely critical of what he sees happening in the
tradition after Aristotle. Whether accurate or not, Bacon thinks
that the schoolmen, the scholastics,
[24:45 - 24:55] have become more preoccupied with texts and with arguments than
with the actual observation of nature. And so, Bacon thinks that,
[24:55 - 25:07] and Bacon tells us this about induction. He says, I use induction
throughout, and that in minor propositions as well as in the major.
[25:08 - 25:19] For I consider induction to be that form of demonstration which
upholds the sense and closes with nature and comes to the very
brink of operation
[25:19 - 25:30] if it does not actually deal with it. He says, previously, hitherto, the
scholastics fly at once from the sense
[25:30 - 25:42] to the most general propositions. They move too quickly. But Bacon
says, we need to stay close to observation, to experience, to the
facts.
[25:44 - 25:56] But Bacon is not simply promoting Aristotle's kind of induction. He
tells us his form of induction will be different. Thirdly, he says
he's going to give us
[25:56 - 26:09] a new form of induction. And he specifies four different ways in
which this induction will be new. He tells us, first of all, that with
his form of induction,
[26:10 - 26:21] we shall analyze experience and take it to pieces. And by a due
process of exclusion and rejection, lead to an inevitable
conclusion.
[26:21 - 26:33] I just want you to focus on that word, analyze experience. Analyze
means to take a whole and break it down into its parts, to
disassemble it and look at each
[26:33 - 26:44] individual part carefully. Analysis becomes a very important part of
the new philosophy. Of course, one question that we will have to
raise and that you should think about is whether
[26:44 - 26:55] by analyzing certain wholes, we don't actually destroy them. Let me
put it differently. Is it not the case that sometimes,
[26:55 - 27:06] a whole is greater than the sum of its parts? To analyze it is to not
understand it. Bacon wants to analyze things.
[27:07 - 27:19] Secondly, Bacon tells us, hitherto, the common logic has taken
things on trust. But Bacon tells us that we cannot trust.
[27:20 - 27:33] We must not accept anything until it has been fully established.
Why not? This leads to Bacon's third point.
[27:34 - 27:42] The information of the senses, he tells us, is faulty. The senses
deceive.
[27:43 - 27:56] He tells us that they deceive in two ways. Sometimes, the senses,
he tells us, give us no information. And sometimes, they give us
false information.
[27:57 - 28:10] Bacon argues that there are things that our senses can't perceive,
 like the things below the level of the senses, like atoms and
molecules and other things. He's not using that language,
[28:10 - 28:23] but Bacon is aware of the atomic theory of matter, that there can
be things below the level of our senses that might be the ultimate
reality. So we can't trust our senses.
[28:23 - 28:35] But Bacon makes a stronger argument. Even the things our senses
perceive, Bacon argues, are false. He doesn't elaborate on the
argument,
[28:35 - 28:46] but I want to elaborate on the argument for your sake, because
it's important to understand this. How could Bacon claim that our
senses are deceptive?
[28:47 - 28:56] Here are some reasons why we might distrust the senses. Look at
two railroad tracks extending into the distance.
[28:56 - 29:08] It looks like the sides converge to a point. Our senses tell us that
the tracks get closer and closer together. But they don't.
[29:09 - 29:22] Submerge a stick in water. The stick looks bent. But it isn't. Look
at some object, say, color on a mountain.
[29:22 - 29:34] Look at a statue up high. From different perspectives, you notice
the color changes. You can see it differently when there's light.
[29:34 - 29:45] You see it differently in the morning, in the afternoon, in the
evening. The size of things. A statue up high looks one way. When
you bring it down low, it seems to have a very different shape.
[29:46 - 29:58] Bacon is profoundly convicted by the idea that our senses falsify
reality. And you need to let this sink in for a moment. That
challenge.